All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 23, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:15
September 23, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And here we are.
We're back at it once again, Rushland Boy, in the fastest three hours in media, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
It's great to have you with us.
Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
Mike, I just told you I'm going to start with Soundbite 2, but grab 24.
I want people to hear this in Obama's own words.
I read this transcript from a soundbite, part of his speech at the UN today.
But I want you to hear it from his own mouth.
There should be no question that the United States of America is stepping up to the plate.
We recognize our role in creating this problem.
We embrace our responsibility to combat it.
We will do our part, and we will help developing nations do theirs.
We're not going to be able to if this keeps up.
I'm not going to be able to help anybody.
Be too busy helping ourselves.
Anyway, once again, the president apologizing, bashing his own country on the issue of global warming, we recognize our role in creating this problem.
Oh, you see, it's all our fault.
And this is supposed to gain favor with these thugs at the UN.
Supposed to applaud and say, yep, yep, you guys are the problem in the world.
Exactly right.
Now give us some of your money to make up for it.
And Obama seems willing and eager to hand it over.
He also said, he ended his speech urging global action so that the world that we leave to our children is cleaner, healthier, and more prosperous and secure.
How does a carbon tax do any of that?
How does a carbon tax do any of those things?
How does a carbon tax leave a cleaner, healthier, and more prosperous and secure world to our kids and impoverishes their parents?
There's no way.
How does a carbon tax do any of that?
Does the opposite of it?
And by the way, Obama also said we are the first generation to feel the effect of climate change and the last generation who can do something about it.
Two lies in one sentence.
We haven't experienced it because it isn't happening.
Let me tell you something, folks.
If you don't know this already, you in this audience do know this, you long-termers.
For those of you that are relatively new here, I'm not interested in things that aren't true.
There is nothing in it for me to be wrong about global warming.
There's nothing in it for me to lie to you.
There's nothing in it for me to have you believe something.
I'm a total slave to the truth and the relentless pursuit of it.
I am addressing this issue politically because that's how it's being advanced.
The aggressor always sets the rules of any conflict, and these are the aggressors.
They have to be responded to by somebody.
And this has been a major cause for me for 25 years because it's global warming is the encapsulation, the concentration of the forward march of socialism and an undiluted attack on capitalism.
Now, if there were global warming, and if I really believed it, I'd be the first to tell you.
I wouldn't lie about it.
There's nothing in it for me to lie about this.
Eventually, it's going to be exposed anyway.
There's nothing to gain by it.
Somebody like me, who has to have credibility with all of you in the audience, there's no reason to lie about anything.
And particularly, something I think about, or an opinion that I have, these people, you know, I question motives all day long.
I'm just telling you, there isn't any warming.
There hadn't been 20 years.
There's cooling, in fact.
Every prediction they've made is incorrect.
I'm sorry to rehash this, but they don't go away.
They keep coming back.
And they keep fighting for it.
And somebody has to be pushed back.
By the way, I don't look at this as a labor.
This is my natural instinct is to push back and defend the things I believe.
The traditions and institutions.
They're all under assault.
And they're worth being defended.
Here's an example of some of the idiocy.
I mean, this is pure hare-brained idiocy.
The heirs to the fabled Rockefeller oil fortune, John D. Rockefeller, Standard Oil, one of the wealthiest families in the history of the world, after the Sultan of Brunei, and his is oil too.
The heirs to the fabled Rockefeller oil.
It's true.
The children of founding, what's the word I'm looking for?
All of these great men of American history, all of these great founders of industry, business, whatever, you can count on the fact that their kids are going to blow it.
It just seems to always happen.
There are rare exceptions to it, but the kids always make a mess of everything they inherit.
And here we go.
The heirs to the fabled Rockefeller oil fortune withdrew their money from fossil fuel investments on Monday, lending a symbolic boost to a $50 billion divestment campaign ahead of a United Nations summit on climate change.
Now, what kind of symbolism is that?
If the Rockefeller heirs were serious, they'd give away all of their money since it all comes from oil.
They'd give away every bit of it and they'd give it away to the poor.
After all, the poor have been the biggest victims of low-cost energy and transportation all these years, right?
Besides, 50, 50, the actual amount of money that they are divesting is a whopping $60 million, which is chicken feed to the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
That's the instrument here that is divesting.
These guys probably spend that much a year on Viagra.
You've seen their picture?
Have you seen these guys?
Anyway, yeah, I think it is Jay, but I didn't see him in the picture.
I think this would be his father, the Rockefeller Brothers.
This would be David and Winthrop.
I don't know how many of them are still alive, but the fund is really what we're talking about.
But it's pure symbolism.
This is no different than Warren Buffett coming out for tax increases to inoculate himself from hatred and the barbarians at the gate wanting his money.
So here come the Rockefellers who owe every dime of what they have to oil coming out and ripping oil with a symbolic divestment to keep the low information crowd at bay and away from them.
That's all it is.
Now, I'm sure if any of them hear about this, oh, no, no, we are serious.
We are very worried about fossil fuels and the damage to the environment.
Black, black, black, black.
Give it all away then.
If it's bad, it's bad.
If it's tainted, it's tainted.
I mean, if it destroys the atmosphere, you guys are suspects number one because you guys brought it to commercial availability.
You're Rockefellers.
So it's time now here to let the rubber hit the road.
And if it's really all that bad, give it all away.
And totally divest yourself of this and find some other place to go get your money back.
That's just, this is classic.
How these kinds of symbolic things, like Al Gore, he shows up on Sunday at the climate change march in New York, and he's out there making speeches and exhorting these people to roll back their lifestyles.
And when it comes time to leave, there's a caravan of Chevy Suburbans that he gets into and drives off in.
And somebody, hey, Vice President Gore, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute.
What about climate change?
What about CO2?
What do you do?
Leaders must get around.
Leaders, it's like RFK Jr. the other day when he was asked that you're going to get rid of your cell phone.
No, I'm not a you.
Well, no, but I'm not the one telling everybody to.
I want to play you a soundbite for me, this program, changing subjects here.
Now we're going to go to another attack on capitalism called feminism.
And I want to take you back to July 29th of this year on my program because it's going to dovetail very nicely with what the actress Emma Watson said at the UN.
Here's what I said back this past summer, July 29th.
I think these young women don't want to be thought of as man-haters.
What are you laughing at in there?
You can't possibly disagree with this.
These young millennial women do not want to be thought of as militant, angry, upset, thinking men are making life miserable for them.
They want lives with men.
They don't want to be thinking men are the problem.
They look at modern feminazism and they're not seeing it.
There was something in the news.
I forget what it was back then, but I was trying to explain as snerdling or somebody had a question.
What were these young women doing?
Don't they understand what feminism is?
And I told them they don't want to hate men.
The millennial feminists do not want to hate men.
They don't want feminism.
That's what it means.
And lo and behold, to show you what being on the cutting edge means, means don't doubt me.
Saturday in New York City at the United Nations during the launch of the UN's He for She campaign, this the actress Emma Watson.
What was she in?
Harry Potter?
Yeah.
Emma Watson.
And we have, let's see how many soundbites are going to the second next page.
We get two soundbites of Emma Watson, and you see how close what she says is to what I predicted back in July.
Fighting for women's rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating.
Feminism, by definition, is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.
I decided that I was a feminist, and this seemed uncomplicated to me.
But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word.
Women are choosing not to identify as feminist.
See, it's right there.
Right there she's telling you.
Feminism, as she learned it, means man-hating.
Means men are the enemy.
Means men are predators, rapists, brutes, purse snatchers, muggers, and all.
She doesn't want to look at men that way.
She wants men.
She wants to live with men.
Amen.
I mean, she wants men in her life.
She doesn't want to be told that the definition of feminism is not needing a man, not needing a relationship.
She doesn't want to be told that feminism means you don't need to have a life with a man.
If you have that, you're selling the sister short.
She doesn't want to hear that.
Exactly, Snerdley, what I said back on July 29th.
Here's the next bite.
We don't often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes, but I can see that they are.
And that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence.
If men don't have to be aggressive in order to be accepted, women won't feel compelled to be submissive.
If men don't have to control, women won't have to be controlled.
Well, that's just youth right there.
No, no, no.
That's, I understand.
Snerdley's blowing a gasket in there.
If men don't have to be aggressive in order to be accepted, women won't feel compelled to be submissive.
And if men don't have to control, women won't have to be controlled.
No, she does not want, I guarantee you, Emma Watson does not want her man to be pajama boy.
That's not what she's saying here.
I understand this perfectly.
I don't think I can explain it without being misquoted and taken out of context, however.
If I were to explain what she means here, I'd be in the next headline with Steve Bashati.
So I'm just, I'm going to, I'm going to have to pull back here for, I know exactly what she's talking about here.
And it's youth speaking.
It's youthful idealism speaking.
This, I mean, the truth of the, you know, every man knows that women run things.
Every man knows that.
And it's, it's, it's, if you, good relationship, it's okay.
Women, women are the ones that say yes or no.
And that's not, that's a loving statement for any of you who want to take it out of context and misreport it.
That's not a criticism.
It's an acknowledgement of the way things work.
But if I were to go any farther, it would be ripe for because young people, particularly young liberals today, have no imaginations whatsoever.
They want no mystique.
They everything must be contractually cut and dried, agreed to in advance, explained, and penalties if you veer off course.
And that's been the problem with feminism all along.
Feminism has sought to change basic human nature.
And you can't do that no matter what you do.
And back to the phones where we go.
Canton George is next.
This is Dr. Mitch.
Dr. Mitch, welcome to the EIB Network.
Great to have you here, sir.
Ditto's Rush.
I don't know how you can evaluate this football elevator scene without hearing what the lady said.
What if she said, I'm mad at you, and I'm going to get back at you, and what I'm going to do and what I have already done is screwed Goodell.
Saturday Night Live could do a parody on this.
Your point being that the video alone of what happened inside the elevator is insufficient to properly judge what we saw happen.
Exactly.
Why?
Under what circle, what words could she have uttered that would have made it permissible for him to punch her and knock her out?
She could say, I screwed Goodell to get back at you.
Screwed Goodell.
Do you mean that in a biblical sense?
I do.
Yes.
Full understanding of cardinal knowledge.
Yes.
Yeah.
Okay.
So we're coming up with hypotheticals, something she could have said in the elevator.
Right.
Well, now, one thing that she did when she came to, this much we do know.
He drags her out of the elevator, unconscious.
And there were people standing there.
We saw this.
Ray Rice is explaining her state of unconsciousness by telling people she passed out.
She's drunk.
You want to give me some help here?
She came to, and the first thing she said, how could you do that to the mother of your child?
That's what been reported as the first thing witnesses heard her say.
How could you do that?
And of course, nobody had any, what the hell is this?
They think she's all drunk and passed out because that's what he said.
And then she says, how could you do that to the mother of your child?
Which had people scratching their heads, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
She didn't appear drunk.
She was woozy, obviously.
I don't know.
My instincts tell me that it doesn't matter.
That nothing she could have said in your average argument that couples have would have excused Ray Rice, coldcocking her and leaving her unconscious on the floor of the elevator.
It may be interesting for people's prurient interests to know what the argument was about.
What do you think?
Is this another setup the host calls, Nerdley?
You don't think so?
No, there were a couple of them last week that were definite.
Right.
Showed her love by directing me out of the yeah, yeah, right.
A caller said that.
Yeah, don't lay that on me.
All right.
Look, he's not the first guy to raise the question of the absence of audio in there.
And did it play a role?
But I think if you're going to ask that, you then better be prepared to answer the question: okay, what could she have said that would excuse or validate him knocking her out?
Well, maybe if you're in the court of law and you're in your, but the NFL's not going to care.
There's nothing.
I guarantee there's nothing she could have said to him that's going to reverse their thinking on his suspension.
Oh, she said that to you?
Fine.
You knocked her off.
Okay.
You can come back.
That's not going to happen.
There's nothing.
Nothing she could have said.
Even if she threatened to kill him, that would just be judged as, well, she didn't have a weapon in there.
There was no means by which she was going to do it.
It would have been thought of as heat of the moment.
Rhetoric, there's nothing that she could have said that would make this okay for Ray Rice to have done.
I don't think.
I mean, I don't even think it's a close call because you just, I don't care.
This is another thing where the feminists have just no matter what, you don't hit the girl.
Never.
You do not.
You take the slap and you walk away.
You do not hit back.
Propriety.
You just don't do it.
There's no possible something she could have said to validate.
Hey, welcome back, my friends.
El Rushboe here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Great to have you.
Big half hour left to go here on the EIB network.
Here is Karen in Cleveland.
Karen, I'm glad you called.
Great to have you.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
It's a pleasure to honor to speak with you today.
I'm kind of nervous, and I hope I'm not showing my ignorance here, but can you enlighten me about what I'm missing about this CO2, the increase in the CO2?
Is it so politically incorrect to bring up the one thing that needs the carbon dioxide, mainly green plants and the rainforest?
Nobody, even these scientists that speak out against the global warming and stuff, I never hear any news about them saying anything about the importance of cutting down the rainforest and the effect it has.
Let me see if I understand.
You're saying it would be a bad thing to reduce CO2?
No, no, no.
I'm saying, did I miss something in science class about CO2 and oxygen?
If they're cutting down the rainforest, there goes the one thing that uses up the CO2.
Maybe the levels wouldn't be so high.
Oh, yeah, but you know what happens?
I'm glad you mentioned this.
This came up about 20 years ago on this program.
And it was, in fact, there was a bunch of worry over clear-cutting that was going on in the Amazon rainforest.
And the usual suspects, the environmentalist wacko movement, were paranoid and worried.
It was not CO2 that was doing it.
It was evil property developers.
It was evil corporatists and capitalists who were trying to build things in parts of the Amazon rainforest and farmers, by the way, who were clearing it out to plant crops and earn a living.
In many cases, it was migrant farmers just trying to eke out a living, and they were clear-cutting little swaths of the forest.
And what happened was they learned that the equivalent amount of forestation was discovered to be growing in other parts of the world, in this case, particularly in parts of Europe.
And the story was that Mother Earth herself made sure that if the foliage that was chopped down in the Amazon actually was shopping, it was replaced, nature took care of replacing it elsewhere in the world to keep everything in balance.
I don't remember the source of the story, but it was a fascinating piece.
And once again, in my mind, what it did was relegate all of these man-made global warming people to basic irrelevance.
The idea that we can control the weather, control the climate, the idea that the climate of this country or the world, the atmosphere of the planet, the systems here that are necessary for life are so complex.
They are beyond us to understand.
They are beyond our ability to control.
There literally is, we do not have the ability.
We don't have the brain power.
We couldn't create these systems that are interdependent, interlinked.
All we can do is study them and hope to learn about them and marvel at how they work together.
But the complexity is such that we couldn't comprehend it.
But it was discovered, and it was factually demonstrated that despite the loss of, I forget what was actually called, foliage, I'll use that word.
That wasn't what it was called.
But the loss of foliage in the Amazon actually was made up in other parts of the world in a shocking, in a shocking way.
And so the climate people want to tell you that we have all this power, that we can destroy what we can't create.
It's absurd.
All of it is just literally absurd.
And I wish I could remember that the actual 20 years ago.
Even had some phone calls from scientists about it documenting the truth and the factual nature of the story and that the ecosystem of the planet does indeed behave this way.
I mean, the Earth's ecosystem is not a dead victim.
It's the same argument about the redwoods.
Well, my God, this is all growth.
These are native trees.
We can't cut them down.
My God, they'll be gone forever.
Well, no, it may take a couple hundred years, but they'll be back if we leave them alone.
Besides that, they actually tried to convince people when it came to the old growthists, but the spotted owl, they were trying to convince people that the redwood trees out in Northern California had been there since the beginning of time.
You know, we were cutting them down.
And how horrible are we?
And it wasn't true.
That's so much lies, so many lies and myths about all of this.
And they exist primarily because of the easy ignorance that people promulgating these myths encounter.
Anyway, I need to clear something up.
Going into the break at the bottom of the hour, I guess I was misunderstood.
I do not think feminism has anything to do with the old adage, don't hit the girl.
That goes back to the beginning of time.
That's chivalry.
Feminists have nothing to do with it.
And I didn't mean to imply that they did.
What I was trying to, the feminists, with this mad dash push for equality and sameness, there's no difference in men and women except for their social conditioning.
There's no difference in men and women except for the way they're raised.
There's no difference in men and women except for the social mores that we treat them with.
If the feminists ever got what they wanted, it'd be okay to hit women because they're equal, right?
There's no difference.
But it's not the case.
You never hit the girl, ever, no matter what.
No matter how much success the feminazis have in trying to blur the lines and you just don't hit the girls.
I'm not, the feminists have nothing to do with that.
My point in referencing the feminists was that that chivalrous belief in and of itself destroys one of the central planks of feminism, and that is that we're equal, that we're the same.
And that it's only prejudice and bias and sexism that makes us different.
And it isn't.
We actually are different men and women.
That that is news to people still astounds me.
Karen, thanks.
I call appreciate it.
Billy, Oklahoma City, great to have you on the EIB network today.
Hello.
Hello, Mr. Limbaugh.
I want to thank you for letting me get on here.
I've been doing this for seven years and finally made it.
Welcome through.
I had to pull something up right quick.
I remember a movie you might remember Behind Enemy Lines?
And I pulled up the actual pilot.
His name was Scott Francis O'Brien.
That's O'Brien.
That's Brady.
Yep.
Yep, you're right.
That was shot down.
That's right.
And he took a week.
The only thing is it took the Marines putting on the ground on the ground to go get him.
Yeah, I'm glad that you reminded me of this because after we had the call, what happened here, Billy?
We had a call in the last hour from a guy who said, hey, without boots on the ground rush, how are we ever going to rescue pilots that get shot down in this operation against ISIS and the Kardashians?
And I said, there have to be systems in place.
The military has rescue systems in place.
And I got a note from my friend Andy McCarthy who said that Martin Dempsey, the Joint Chiefs Chairman last week, said that in this, he said congressional testimony, maybe Senate testimony, he said that in this event, they would deploy a boots on the ground rescue mission.
So I knew they had planned to do it.
But the caller's point was: if we don't have a boots on the ground element of this, that we're never going to be able to rescue down pilots.
Not true.
And your memory is good.
There was behind enemy lines made a movie out of it.
Guy shot down in the Bosnia War.
And he was rescued.
It was a great movie, too, by the way.
Billy, I'm glad you called.
I appreciate you getting through in your memory.
And we'll be back, folks.
Don't go away.
Here's Josh, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello, sir.
Hey, thanks for having me.
Well, the point is, my question is: if the United States was so serious about global warming, why are all the so-called green energy products such as LED light bulbs, flashcent light bulbs, and those reusable bags that you can get at your grocery store?
Why are they all made in China?
But they're not governed by an EPA because they're cheaper.
Well, they're very good for helping the environment if they're powered by a coal power plant and they don't.
Well, you're not supposed to ask a question like this.
This is a question you're not even supposed to be aware of.
I mean, you're not, who told you all this?
Well, you just walk through your grocery store, any department store, and look at it, and it's all made in China.
Yeah.
Now, be careful of the paint.
Got lead in it.
The toys, you heard about that.
Yeah, and then the flesh and light bulbs all contain mercury as well.
That's good for the environment as well.
That's right.
Exactly right.
But they're poisoning children with the lead paint.
You know, some kids chew on drywall.
That was poison, too.
No, it's a good question.
And what it really illustrates is, you know, the TRICOMs are a growing economy, too.
And they aren't going to cut back on any of this.
No way.
They'll be happy for us to, but they aren't going to cut back on any of this.
Look, this is a, you're not supposed to get this specific with global warming and climate change and environment.
You're just supposed to accept the fact that you individually are helping to destroy the climate, but there's a way out for you.
And that's to vote Democrat and support people like Gore and Obama in an effort to clean up the planet.
That's as far as you're supposed to understand or take it.
And you save the polar bear.
Added bonus thrown in.
It's another sterling excursion into Broadcast Nexus.
Another great show, folks.
Another great one to be part of.
I'm sure it's the same for you.
And the great thing is that it's going to happen again tomorrow.
We'll be back before you know it, 21 hours.
Nothing ever ends here.
We just take a little longer break than usual.
▲
Export Selection