All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 22, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:29
September 22, 2014, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's a genuine pleasure, a thrill and delight to be with you folks, each and every day.
Treasure it.
Look forward to it every day.
Great to have you here as always.
The telephone number, if you want to be with us on the most listen to radio talk show in the country, is 800-282-2882, and the email address Lrushbaugh at EIB net.com.
I mentioned earlier Angelo Codvia.
We originally brought him to your attention some years ago.
He had a piece, I believe it was in the American Spectator, in which he posited, he's a political scientist and professor.
And he posited the uh divisions in the country to be ruling class, which is the establishment inside Washington and all of their allies throughout the country, and the ruling class, meaning us, average ordinary Americans.
Country class, ruling class, country class.
Uh we're the country class, and the ruling class is the elites.
And he uses the terms frequently in this piece called Washington's ruling class is fooling itself about the Islamic State.
But it's loaded with insight.
And given that we have now learned that inside the Beltway, the establishment there is very worried that Obama's not taking this seriously.
Just heard the soundbite from Brit Hume speaks for a lot of establishment types.
They see Obama clearly willing to send troops to fight Ebola.
The thinking is that's something that's clear and definitive and easy, that we can have a a very noticeable and maybe relatively quick victory there.
That's the thinking.
I'm not sure, but that's the thinking.
But ISIS, the establishment, you know, it's hard to do.
And Obama himself has said they're never going to be wiped out.
And he said he didn't have a strategy, and he's referred to him as the V JV team.
Now all of a sudden a couple polls have come out.
He's in gear on it, but now he's not listening to the experts in winning wars, which, like them or not, are the U.S. military.
And they will tell you that if you really want to beat decisively an enemy into surrender and submission, it requires a ground component in the war.
Air strikes alone are not going to do it, particularly this bunch.
When they hide in mosques and hide behind women and children, uh their baby factories and cooks, in other words.
And with the rules of engagement as they are.
I had a story last Friday that I didn't get to, but I remember it.
I'm not making this up.
It was a story that said U.S. troops may fire back if they are fired on right now in Iraq and elsewhere.
And it was a heartstopper.
You mean to tell me that that is a a newly instituted policy that troops can fire back if they're fired on?
It was it was mind-boggling that we've gotten to this point, that it required an affirmative policy from somewhere in the Pentagon.
Oh, yeah, you can fight, and you you can return fire if you're fired on.
So Code Via is of the opinion that the ruling class really doesn't know how to deal with a threat like ISIS, that they're not prepared to, and therefore they fool themselves into believing they're actually doing something substantive when they aren't.
The American people's reaction to Muslim thugs of the Islamic State ritually knifing off the heads of people who look like you and me boils down to let's destroy these bastards.
That's what you and I say.
Let's just destroy these bastards.
That's common sense.
But the establishment from President Obama to the left, and he says he or even to the Wall Street Journal on the right, take the public's pressure to do this as another occasion for further indulging their longtime preferences and prejudices and proclivities for half-measures In foreign affairs, the very things that have invited people from all over the planet to join hunting season on Americans.
So essentially, the premise here is that while you and me in the midst of an attack like this, let's just kill the bastards, the ruling class indulges their biases and their prejudices and their tendency toward half measures.
In other words, winning things with words, which only invites people like ISIS to ratchet up because the actions taken by the ruling class to stop them don't stop them, and they can't.
They're words, their speeches, speeches, their pontifications.
This indulgence so overwhelms the ruling class's perception of reality that the recipes put forth by its several wings are identical in the one essential respect.
None of them involve any plans which, if carried out, would destroy the Islamic State.
That's why Brit Hume's concerned.
A lot of people are.
They look at Obama's policy, and by his own admission, we can't wipe them out.
I mean, they're like cockroaches, they're going to pop up no matter what we do.
And so the ruling class now has itself believing that there isn't any way to destroy the Islamic State.
There isn't any way to kill large numbers of the cutthroats.
There isn't any way to discourage others from following in their footsteps.
The Wall Street Journal's recommendations, like the Obama administration's projected activities, are all about discrete measures, a few airstrikes here, some arming of local forces, but they abstract from the fundamental reality of any and all activities.
He who wills any end must will the means to achieve it.
You can't just say that you're going to wipe out ISIS.
You can't just call a speech and tell the country that you're finally going to get in gear and wipe them out.
If you don't wipe them out.
But you can say you're going to do it and make people think you're going to do it and perhaps reap political war rewards in the short term just by stating your intentions.
But if your intentions don't have any will behind them, any action behind them, then all they are intentions, which pretty much sums up the war on poverty, which sums up pretty much every liberal leftist program.
A bunch of good intentions, a bunch of wasted money, but never ever any calculable results.
Now, our Constitution prescribes that war happens subsequent to votes by elected representatives by debate and vote, presumably these representatives reconcile the war's ends with the means to be employed.
But to reconcile ends, i.e.
to define victory, you have to get rid of illusions and pretenses.
If you're going to actually devise victory, what that means in this case in an exit strategy, then you had better get rid of any illusions and pretenses, get rid of speeches and words.
Yet because these are what our ruling class lives by, speeches, words, intentions, pretenses, illusions, leaders of both parties have joined to preclude such debates and votes because they don't want us to know the degree of inaction they will take.
They granted congressional funding for the one part of Obama's venture with regard to the IS that required it, arming some of the Sunni rebels against Syria's Assad regime, while avoiding votes on what precisely that or any part of the venture means.
The president.
This is textbook irresponsibility.
Okay, so we'll we'll fund Obama's venture by giving some of the Sunni rebels some arms and so forth.
But we're not going to debate for the American people to hear us.
We're not going to vote on what victory Means.
To reconcile ends and means again is to banish illusions and pretenses.
Now, Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican California's a Marine veteran, objected to all of this.
He said we need to crush ISIS, not work on arming more Islamic radicals.
What the hell are we doing?
Arming more Islamic radicals, either in Iraq or Syria.
Just what would arming these people accomplish?
To prevent massive numbers of Republican congressmen from joining this common sense question, the House Armed Services Committee's bill requires the regime to answer it in a report to Congress way down the road, sometime in the future, but not now.
The fact that the regime and leaders of both parties did not make reasoned answers to the key questions, the primary premise of their request suggests not so much they're hiding these answers as much they don't have them.
In other words, the reason why there isn't any debate in Congress or with the White House about the actual definition of victory, or what are we doing?
And how are we going to do it beyond arming Syrian rebels and the Iraqi army behind beyond arming Islamic radicals?
What the hell are we going to do?
Well, that's to come in a report down the low down the road.
Just like the budget gets kicked in a can down the road via every continuing resolution.
In fact, in the Senate, the establishment avoided any vote at all by placing the money for arming the Sunni rebels into the continuing resolution for keeping the government open.
The Senate didn't even vote on whether to arm the Sunni rebels.
The House did, but there was no corresponding debate as to what that's going to accomplish.
What is the avowed stated purpose here?
What are we going to tell the American people is the object?
This is not a demand to give up strategy.
This is a requirement to state objectives.
Okay, we're going to beat ISIS.
How?
We're going to ask uniformed military men and women to go into combat.
We're going to ask people to fly jets and bomb these people.
How are we going to define victory?
They're not defining it.
In the House, they simply voted on whether or not to send money and arms to the Syrian rebels and the Iraqi army.
In the Senate, this is key now, folks.
In the Senate, there was no vote at all.
Because they put the money for arming the Sunni rebels into the CR, the continuing resolution, to keep the government open.
And also in the continuing resolution was more money to fund Obamacare.
Practically everything needed to keep the government running is in the continuing resolution, but there's no vote on any individual item.
You just vote on spending the big pile or you vote against it.
But there is no vote on the specific expenditure of any money in a continuing resolution.
This device, the continuing resolution, this device, which reduces the senators' choice to funding everything or nothing, has become the principal way by which the Constitution is being dispensed with.
You have a continuing resolution, and every time we do, there is what?
The accompanying threat of the government shutdown.
If the Republicans don't go along with the spending that the Senate Democrats and Obama wants.
There is no debate on individual budget items and the spending in those items.
And there hasn't been for years, by the way, in the Senate.
This is how the Constitution is ignored or gotten around.
This is how everything the left wants gets funded.
There's no debate in a CR.
You either spend the money or you don't.
And because the Republicans have been cowed into thinking if they oppose the spending, then the automatic result is a government shutdown.
Oh, and nobody wants the government shutdown because people depend on the government to it.
The Republican Oh, there they go again.
See, the Republican shutting down the government leads to massive Democrat victory in elections.
This is the theory.
So the Republicans are always saying, oh, we'll get them next time.
Well, we'll, yeah, okay, we'll give them the CR, but we'll fight them next time on X, whatever it is, but they never do.
Because X always ends up in the next continuing resolution.
Again, items in the continuing resolution.
By definition, you're continuing to resolve to fund the government so it doesn't shut down, with a with a lump sum of money, but no debate on any specific item money's being spent on.
And that's how the Senate dealt with the funding for the arming of the Sunni rebels in Syria and Iraq.
Now, Senator Joe Manchin, Democrat West Virginia, had an objection to arming the Sunni rebels, and it could have been voiced by any ordinary citizen for all the effect it had.
He said, our past experience, after 13 years, everything we've tried to do has not proven to be beneficial.
It's not proven at all.
So what makes us think it's going to be different this time?
What makes you think that we can ask a group of Islamists to agree with Americans to fight another group of Islamists, as barbaric as they may be?
We tried it over and over, it hasn't worked.
Well, the answer to the question is it isn't about what works.
It's about illusions.
It's about trying to make as many average Americans think that Obama cares.
Using words and using speeches and using stated goals.
We're going to do this, we're going to do that, we're not going to let this happen.
We're going to make sure women and children are protected, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Never spell out how.
Never assign specific sums of money to how.
Just rely on the illusion that your words and your intentions are all that is necessary.
And then everybody can go on their way.
Hey, Jaheiro Obama's speech, he said we're going to finally go get ISIS.
Okay, good.
Now what's on TMZ?
That's the way it works.
Is UPS shown up, by the way?
Damn.
Okay.
Well, the answer is that the establishment ruling class doesn't really think as much as it indulges its imagination and believes its own spin.
Prime example, Wall Street Journal lead editorial, September 17th.
Never mind the Islamic State's Sunni subjects welcome the ritual beheaders who rule over them because these are Sunni as well.
The brutality, writes the Wall Street Journal, has created conditions similar to those that preceded the Sunni awakening in Iraq in 2007, the revolt by ordinary Sunnis and their tribal leaders in Anbar province against Al-Qaeda.
But no.
Incorrect.
It didn't happen as it stated and won't again.
I gotta take a break.
I'm up against it back after this.
Let's cut to the chase here.
For Mr. Angelo Kudvia.
While Obama limits himself to unexplained confidence that Sunni Arab states will join us in fighting ISIS.
The Wall Street Journal supposes to know why they've not done so yet, and why instead they have been helping the jihadis.
Are you are you ready for I this is stunning, by the way, to find that something like this is in the Wall Street Journal.
Again, while Obama limits himself to unexplained confidence, in other words, he's convinced the Sunni Arab states will join us in fighting ISIS, but he doesn't say why.
But the journal says they know why it'll be different this time.
Because our aid to the right Sunnis in 2012 and 2013 was microscopic and half-hearted.
In other words, our welfare, our us our financial assistance this time is going to be much more.
And it's it's it's gonna be full-hearted and well-intentioned.
Whereas the last time we gave them money, we didn't give them enough, and we didn't really care.
This was the aid being brokered by the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and cut off by mortar shells expertly aimed by we know not whom.
But the Wall Street Journal knows who's to blame for the Sunni Arabs' failure to meet the ruling classes' expectations.
They blame it on some conservatives.
How do you get there?
Well, the ruling class or the establishment thinks that the biggest obstacle they face in achieving anything is the Republican base, which is conservatives, whether it's uh open borders, or whether it's facing the music on Obamacare, uh, or or you name it.
Uh but anyway, this has never worked, but we're it's gonna work this time.
This is the same old thing with liberals and socialism.
Yeah, it's never worked around the world, but we are the people we've been waiting for.
We are finally the smart ones, and we are gonna spend enough money this time to make it work.
Well, we're not socialism talk talking about socialism, we're talking about giving enough money and showing really full throated intentions to Sunni moderates, who because we give enough money in arms, and because we really care, we show we really this time they will help us fight other Islamists.
And like Joe Manchin and and and Duncan Hunter, wait a minute, they've never done it before.
Why do we think it's gonna happen now?
We'll be back, folks.
Sit tight.
All right, all right, UPS is at the door.
Honky dory.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome back, by the way, El Rushbo is serving humanity.
Now, just to illustrate what I just said, in sharing with you parts of the latest piece by Angelo Codvilla, in which he points out that the establishment, and that that includes Obama and most of the Democrats and the and like-minded thinking inside the Beltway,
his you know starts here with with Britt Hume admitting on Fox today that he is worried that Obama isn't serious about ISIS, and he doesn't quite get it, doesn't understand know why.
And uh Professor Codvilla has the answer as to why.
And then he doesn't really mean it.
That wasn't it.
You USU, how dare you tease me that way?
Snerdley's looking at me with a forlorn look like, yeah, it was UPS, but it wasn't.
He didn't say that, just had that look on his face.
And then he holds them up, and it's what I'm looking for.
Okay, cool.
Anyway, so Codvilla.
No, I never lose my place.
Code Villa tries to answer.
Well, not never, but for the vast majority of times they get involved in things, there never is a solution.
There's just claims of solution.
Speeches, words which state great intentions, speeches which are supposed to convince people that there is a lot of engagement on the issue.
I a lot of people care.
We're on this.
We've finally seen a light, JV team no longer accurate, ISIS is a real bad bunch of guys, and we're gonna go get them now.
And but there's never really any seriousness to it.
It's political.
And on the left, politics is speeches.
Now that that's not to say they don't implement their policies, they sure as heck do.
I'm talking about the way they persuade, the way they gain support for what they want to do.
I mean, if they actually were honest about their intentions, they'd never win a national election.
But the point here is Obama's in political trouble, so he goes out and makes a speech, looks tough, tries to, looks resolved, tries to, spells out, all right, we're gonna take these guys out, and here's how we're gonna do it.
And immediately after that, the generals pop, say, wait, but you can't do this without ground troops.
And Obama gets mad at them for insubordination and sticks to his plan.
If you're gonna do this without ground troops, you aren't serious.
There's no two ways about it.
Now to prove, or not maybe not prove, but to further illustrate Professor Codvia's point that this engagement is only words and illusions, and in some cases delusions.
The Secretary of State, John Kerry, has today proven that the establishment of the ruling class isn't taking ISIS seriously.
He just told a bunch of foreign leaders, this just said this today, quote.
When you think about terrorism and poverty, and of course, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, all of these are challenges that don't know any borders.
And that's exactly what climate change is.
And then the Secretary of State said, importantly, climate change, without being connected in that way to everyone's daily thinking, ranks right up there with every single one of the rest of those challenges.
You can make a powerful argument that it is the most serious challenge we face on the planet because it's about the planet itself.
So just today, if you had any doubts, I don't know how any of you in this audience do.
I mean, yesterday we have this march for the climate or whatever.
They're retooling it, by the way.
turning this over to Occupy Wall Street and Occupy the Climate is basically the group that's been handed this responsibility of making this all happen.
Now here's Kerry, who tells a bunch of uh foreign journalists and leaders and so forth, foreign leaders, that global warming, climate change may be even more challenging than ISIS.
Because it's about the whole planet itself, not just Syria or Iraq.
Now that is delusional, it's comical, it is silly, stupid, it is entirely wrong, but it is perfect politically for where these people are.
Climate change is important for all the reasons that we've mentioned.
It's it's it's like Obamacare.
It's a it's a quick way to gain control over the way people live for your own purposes.
But to lump climate change, which isn't even happening, there isn't any war.
It isn't even happening.
To lump that with journalists being beheaded, with the threats of more people being, with the stories that ISIS may be in America, that they are converting Americans in prison to join them, that Americans are leaving America to join ISIS, with all this going on with the president making a speech saying he finally gets it, and we're gonna get ISIS.
Here comes a Secretary of State, now claiming climate change is actually more challenging than ISIS.
And of course it's interesting.
This comes right on the verge of another UN conference in New York, at which climate change will be prominent, even though there isn't any.
If Britt Hume heard this, what Kerry said, he's got to be really worried now.
Climate change, even more challenging than ISIS.
Here's Stephanie in Nebraska.
Stephanie, thank you very much for waiting.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Thanks, Russ.
Hey, it's my birthday.
This is the best birthday present ever.
Well, happy birthday to you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hey, I you've been talking about homeland security, you've been talking about all this stuff, and it just hit home today.
My husband and I, we own a salvage yard.
We're just, you know, small business, trying to do our best, good Americans.
And uh, my husband got a a car in that somebody impounded and sold to us anyway.
So he goes through all the cars whenever he gets them and we found some very alarming things in this car.
Um an Islamic type person had obviously had this car.
Uh we had IDs from several uh states you know the same person with several driver's license.
Wait a second.
What you got a car at your salvage yard that had passport like IDs in them?
Yes.
Oh yes much more than that.
Um we we found eight or nine cell phones um IDs of this person that he had worked at several airports um across the US.
So we found airport IDs, driver's license, cell phones, um Islamic books.
Um just it's it was like a bad movie.
I mean it was just stupid.
So my husband says I think I need to get a hold of somebody so wasn't sure who to get a hold of um so he found a phone number for Homeland Security, called them he called me and said, You'll never believe this one this is our government at work I said what and he said they told me they couldn't help me.
And I said what do you mean they couldn't help you?
And he said, well, it didn't happen on federal property.
We didn't get this car on federal property, so he just deals with things that happen on federal property.
And he said, okay, well, do you have a phone number of somebody that can help us?
We think that this car needs to be looked through.
You know, this could be a lot of serious stuff.
And he said, why don't you just call your local police station?
And my husband said, well, we don't really have a local police station.
This is a small town.
And he said, well, why don't you flag down the highway patrolman?
And my husband said, I'll figure it out.
just you know hung up.
Are you kidding?
I'm not kidding.
Flag a highway patrolman flag a highway patrolman how often does a highway patrolman drive by your salvage yard?
Uh well right on the interstate so probably once in a while but you know he did he not even tell you to call the FBI?
No.
No.
But we're smart enough.
We we we'll figure out probably who to get a hold of but it was just What what kind of car, Stephanie?
Um I haven't seen the car so I I don't know.
I mean it was just a car that I don't know why it even we we get a lot of cars like uh from different tow companies that you know if if they get abandoned or sold or whatever and they and they just get junked.
But we always go through 'em, you know, just before we you know make sure they're fine and so well it's just kind of scary to think that I mean this is our government and and here we're calling and we're saying hey we've got something hot here and they're like eh we don't care.
This sounds like sounds like pre-nine eleven.
Hey I got this I got this computer here or hey I got a bunch of guys at my flying school who don't want to learn how to land oh well send us a report yeah so have you called if if we didn't report it and something happened I mean then would we be in trouble you know I don't know.
It's just it just doesn't matter you know my husband's an ex-marine we have a lot of patriism and it's just like we feel like I don't know what what's the deal?
Where's our country?
Where's our where's our people?
I might have missed uh what you said.
Did you did you call the FBI?
We haven't yet this all happened today.
Yeah.
Uh w we have a couple of more ideas.
Um you know we just we don't want to give this over to the wrong hands and it like a local level and and it just be you know you're you're convinced you're convinced that this is uh something that needs to be investigated.
Uh yes I know y you don't know I still would be interested to know what kind of car this is what's SUV, whether it's a van No I think it was a car.
I do think it was a car.
Like a family of sedan.
Yeah like uh yes and and the person um is it a Islamic name but I think I think he is of African descent.
Does that make sense?
Like sometimes they change their names.
Believe me you don't want to go there let the FBI figure that out.
Was it a hybrid?
Was it was it uh an electric car do you get a Well you know he never even said he just said car.
He didn't say what it was so I don't know.
Wow.
How many how many different IDs did you say your husband found?
Oh, several.
He's I mean he couldn't believe it.
It wasn't like it was one or two, you know, it was like numerous IDs and cell phones, like eight or nine cell phone.
Which And where where again h how did this car end up in your junkyard?
Do you know that?
Um we have very I I don't know exactly who sold it to us, but we have different tow companies that may get a alerted to abandon cards and stuff.
And so different t I don't know exactly who drops this one, but whoever you call is gonna want to know that.
Oh, I know.
And my husband knows all those details.
I'm sorry.
I I don't know all that.
Oh, okay, he knows.
Yeah, he he knows, but I you know I'm just the bookkeeper, Russ.
Come on.
Just the bookkeeper.
That means you're the heart and soul.
Oh dear.
Well, I just want to tell you that my doc my four year old daughter's yelling in the background.
Um, we have we've listened to you, I've listened to you since I was sixteen years old.
I was one of the only Russ babies I called myself because in high school I would listen to you and my government teacher.
I mean, I'd argue with him about government way back in the nineties, so it's a real honor to talk to you.
Well, God bless you.
Thank you very much.
And happy birth happy birthday, Stephanie, and uh I I'd like to know what happens here.
Well, would you give would you give uh Mr. Snertley your number so we can check in with your periodic find out uh you know, we'll make sure that your junkyard's there tomorrow.
Hey kidding, disguised our location just in case.
Very smart, very we'll be back, folks.
Don't go away.
Well, I was talking to Stephanie, I was looking for the story I referenced earlier on all the turnover, all the people leaving the Department of Homeland Security, and I guess I didn't print it out.
So I will I'll go back and get it during a break.
But it is happening.
I do have the story.
And no reason given, but it appears there's morale and disarray and and uh this rampant confusion.
And if it's being reported uh about the Obama regime, it's it's likely that it's it's worse even than uh what is being reported.
A plan by US protesters against illegal immigration to block traffic at more than a dozen border crossings in the southwest on Saturday was canceled after organizers said they received online threats from Mexican drug cartels.
So it appears now that Mexican drug cartels have so much power, they can decide who can protest and where.
This is U.S. protesters protesting illegal immigration.
They plan to block traffic, raise consciousness and all that, and threats from drug cartels made them stand down.
It was called shut down all ports of entry as a protest against the regime's immigration policies.
Demonstrators had said they would try to stop incoming and outgoing traffic at 17 locations in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California.
But lead organizer Stasi Barth posted a warning on the event's official website saying that a combination of violent threats and suspicious activity on the group's Facebook page prompted her to call off the action.
Mexican drug cartels have apparently...
You know, they become the big coyotes.
Uh they're moving drugs via the illegals, and they've now joined the illegal parade itself just for the money involved in that.
Here's uh here's Jimmy in Spring Texas.
Hi Jimmy, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Russian.
Happy Monday in a same to you, sir.
Russia, I'd like to talk about the selective outrage crowd and their coverage of the NFL uh this past weekend.
Became very noticeable.
Uh some announcers refusing to use the uh nickname Redskins and simply calling the team Washington.
Um I noticed it both uh on CBS and Fox.
Uh announcers such as Phil Sims would would never call it called the team the Redskins.
He called them Washington and James Brown on Fox did the same and it's a slippery slope.
And you know, I I started to think where's the outrage about the New York Giants, you know, and and making fun of Paul people and the cowboys who reference a way of life and an occupation.
And gosh dang it, what about the Saints?
We can't mix religion and the NFL.
Heck, they go that far.
Why aren't we outraged about St. Paul, Minnesota, or St. Louis, Missouri.
Well, look, I honestly here's the point.
Nobody's outraged about the Redskins.
I mean, some people are, but it's nowhere near, anywhere near a majority.
It's it's it's a self-contained it's not even an issue.
What is it?
It's uh this is a it's a moment of truth for the media.
To prove to themselves how much power they can wield if they can, and how much public opinion they can shape.
And it's political correct, it's all kinds of stuff, but nobody really cares about it compared to them.
Back after this, don't go away.
Fast as three hours in media, and it seems like it to me today, as as opposed to Friday, which just dragged on and on.
But here we go.
We're at full speed here.
▲
Export Selection