All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 1, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:26
October 1, 2014, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And hiya, folks.
How are you?
Great to have you here, music lovers, thrill seekers, sports fans all across the EIB network and the fruited plane.
Rush Limbaugh executing assigned host duties flawlessly as your highly trained and instinctively gifted broadcast specialist.
Telephone number 800-282-2882 if you want to send an email.
And you know, I checked those because I quote them.
It's lrushbow at eibnet.com from the politico, possible second Ebola case in Dallas.
Dallas health officials are warning a second case of Ebola afflicting someone close to the first patient is quite likely.
Zachary Thompson, director of the Dallas County Health and Human Services, told WFAA Eyeball News this morning that all people who have been in close contact with the patient are being monitored.
He said, let me be real frank to the Dallas County residents.
The fact that we have one confirmed case, and there may be another case, that is a close associate with this particular patient.
Now, wait a minute.
I thought it was very hard to catch Ebola, especially in the United States.
We were told that by the president.
Of course, he also told us we could keep our doctor in our plan.
And he also told us our premiums are going to come down $2,500.
And he also told us that the stimulus was going to create shovel-ready jobs, going to rebuild roads and bridges.
He also told us it's going to secure the border.
Oh, no, wait, he didn't tell us that.
Here's more from Dr. Thompson in Dallas.
So this is real.
There should be a concern, but it's contained to specific family members and close friends at this moment.
Now, if I'm reading this right, we're being told that a relative of the first patient might have also contracted Ebola.
And we're being told that it is hard to get.
From the UK Telegraph, the first person to be diagnosed with Ebola in America was initially sent home with antibiotics after doctors failed to recognize symptoms of the deadly disease.
Now, you notice, you notice how the rest of the drive-by media have not been reporting this minor detail.
This is in the UK Telegraph.
This minor detail that the first Ebola victim was sent home with antibiotics because the doctors didn't recognize it at first.
Now, again, we have been told we have nothing to worry about with Ebola because the symptoms are so easy to recognize.
And we have better medical systems than anywhere in the world.
And we got the serum, except we're out of it.
And we have better quarantine facilities.
And we've got, I got a bad feeling about this.
I'm just going to tell you, in a lot of ways, the disease itself, and when you have a regime like this one, something gets out of hand the way they want to control it, would be to limit people's movements and so forth.
This is not good.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
I want to take you back.
I want you to listen to what I want to go back all the way back to July 30th of 2014.
This is when Ebola, I first started talking about it after having discovered it breaking out, if you will, in Africa.
have to stop the spread, which means you have to shut down airports.
You cannot let people leave.
And this is what some of these original three African countries did, but somebody got on an airplane to Lagos, Nigeria, and that's all it has taken.
Now everybody is worried that this thing could become global.
Who knows?
I'm not trying to create a panic here, but one of the ways that you deal with this is to close your border in and out.
If you are a country, if you're an origin country, the only way to contain this is to contain it.
It's the only thing, the only way to treat it is to contain it.
And in the good old days, and it's not that long ago, a threat like this would be met by a nation closing its borders and ports of entry to the countries where the disease is running rampant.
Not everybody, just to the countries where the disease is running rampant.
Now, we would never do that.
Of course, that would be unfair.
That would be discriminatory.
That would be mean.
The way it's looked at by many in our country, it's not fair that they get Ebola and we don't.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, that's not fair.
And people do have that attitude about it.
I've talked to people.
What is it about Africa?
Why is all this happening in Africa?
This isn't fair.
Well, do you want it to happen in more places?
Well, it does seem like it's sort of unfair to Africa, as though the disease is picking.
It's spread by the fruit bat.
Do you have any fruit bats on your farm?
That's what spreads the, that's one of the carriers of Ebola.
At any rate, keep a sharp eye on this.
July 30th.
July 30th on this program.
That was me, your beloved host.
That's how out front of this we've been on the cutting edge, if you will.
And I did.
I've actually had people who had, because this was not the first day we talked about it.
And I actually had people email me.
And I know anybody can say a thing in an email.
They might have been taunting me, but I don't doubt this is legitimate.
People, why does all this happen in Africa?
It's so unfair.
What did Africa ever do?
Why does this happen there?
It's just not fair.
And the way political correctness, I mean, you look at some of the wacko things that young people come out of school believing.
We had a young woman call the other day from Homer, Alaska, who told us that young people today are being told that just because they're born white, they are oppressors.
And they have to stop oppressing.
They have to take conscious action not to oppress people simply because they're white.
Now, and that's just one extreme.
So people are being guilted like you can't believe over things they have no control over.
The color of their skin, who their parents are, any number of things.
So it's not a stretch to believe that some out there who are totally absorbed in political correctness would think, well, it's not fair that Africa alone should have Ebola.
Why should they bear the burden?
And I cannot emphasize, this is another way to illustrate how drastically things have changed.
It wasn't that long ago where something like this happens and there's no cure for this.
This is a death sentence.
Responsible leaders would close this country off to anybody who had been or was from one of the origin countries, in this case, three in Africa, no matter how mean it sounded, because the responsibility of leadership in this country is to defend and protect the people of this country.
But the way political correctness has evolved, we're not special.
In fact, not only are we not special, we may be to blame for all of these horrible things that happen to other people around the world.
And so we can't take steps to protect ourselves if they don't have the same ability.
That isn't fair.
We are teaching people to think that way.
And I dare say some of them have actually ascended to leadership positions in our current government.
They've been taught this by deranged leftists in the education system for a generation now, maybe longer, and not just in middle school and high school, but in university level as well.
Do not doubt me on this.
There are people running around who think it's unfair to protect ourselves if nobody else has the same ability.
We shouldn't have any more ability.
We shouldn't have any more advanced systems than anybody else does.
Or if we do, we should share them.
And if we're not going to share them, we shouldn't shut them out and so forth because it's not fair.
I'm not kidding you.
That's the degree to which so many people in this country have just had guilt upon guilt ladled on them.
And it really is a serious problem.
Now, we know that the first Ebola patient in Dallas was told to go home and take antibiotics.
According to this report today from Reuters, Dr. Goodman said the hospital that turned away the patient is reviewing what they might have missed, the patient's initial visit.
He says, our staff is thoroughly trained on infectious disease protocols.
We've been meeting literally for weeks in anticipation of such an event.
So not even doctors who were trained to recognize Ebola, who were on the lookout for it, even they didn't recognize it when it was dropped in their laps.
And by the way, it mimics a lot of things at first.
It mimics the flu primarily or the common cold at first, headache, nausea, stuffy nose, runny nose.
But after a while, you know it's not the flu, but you don't know that instantly.
You have to be tested.
They actually have to test the blood to find the presence of antibodies and so forth.
You just, because it is a fooler, but there isn't any cure.
And there's not a vaccine.
And so my point is, these doctors, this guy say, hey, we were trained.
We've been on the lookout for this ever since we got word of this from the World Health Organization and we're tracking what's going on in Africa.
And still they had a case and they sent the guy home with antibiotics.
Why?
Well, the president said it's hard to get, not going to happen here.
We've got systems for it.
This guy went home for two whole days.
This patient was home for two whole days.
And now somebody else in close proximity to him has also contracted it.
It is contagious.
You can't get it by breathing or inhaling.
It takes more than that.
But all you have to do is come in contact with bodily fluids, which is not hard around the house.
Let's go back to September 16th in Atlanta at the Centers for Disease Control.
President Obama spoke about the Ebola crisis in West Africa.
The chances of an Ebola outbreak here in the United States are extremely low.
We've been taking the necessary precautions, including working with countries in West Africa to increase screening at airports so that someone with the virus doesn't get on a plane for the United States.
In the unlikely event that someone with Ebola does reach our shores, we've taken new measures so that we're prepared here at home.
And once again, What he says has been totally obliterated by fact.
But why does he say it?
Is this never-ending faith that if somebody at the government, the precious federal government tells you it's going to be okay, people automatically believe it?
This guy doesn't.
Do you think he knows Ebola from Ishmaela?
I mean, really, we haven't had somebody as unqualified serve in this office as this guy in a long time.
But yet, here he comes.
In the unlikely event, somebody with Ebola does reach our shores after saying it couldn't happen.
We've taken new measures so that we're prepared here at home.
What new?
Just go out and say stuff.
Just go say it.
That's all.
Just say it.
Just make a speech.
Just give some remarks.
That will make people feel better.
It's almost like these leftists think that's all you have to do.
Just go out and say it.
We're not going to let it happen here.
And it isn't going to happen.
He says, so it doesn't ever, it doesn't really take any work.
It just has to say it isn't going to happen.
And you've done your job.
How are airport screeners going to recognize somebody as Ebola when doctors can't spot it right off the bat?
Not a cut on doctors.
It mimics.
You can't spot this disease by looking at it.
It mimics too many other diseases.
The only way you can spot it is if it's an advanced stage, if somebody's in their second week or late stage, first week.
Airport screeners, they're too busy making grandma strip to notice somebody with Ebola.
All right.
Let's see.
Let me take a break.
We'll come back.
I think it's time now to start squeezing in your phone calls.
So sit tight.
That's coming up.
Now this, this, please tell me this isn't true.
According to the Associated Press, the sister of the Ebola patient, and by the way, the director of the CDC was just out there facing the media, and he said this patient is now critical.
That's not good.
This original first reported Ebola patient, guy in Dallas, is critical.
Now, according to the Associated Press, this guy's sister, the sister of the Ebola patient, says that he told the doctors on his first trip to the ER that he had just come from Liberia.
Now, Liberia is one of the ground zero nations for the current outbreak of Ebola.
And this guy's sister says he told them he had just come from Liberia.
Obama just said that wasn't going to happen.
We had people making sure that people from these African countries weren't going to get in here.
We've been taking the necessary precautions, including working with countries of West Africa to increase screening at airports so that someone with the virus doesn't get on a plane for the U.S.
That was the president back on September 16th.
Well, this guy got on a plane.
He landed.
He went to Dallas.
He got sick.
He went to the ER.
He told them he was from Liberia and they gave him antibiotics and sent him home.
Well, Liberia, a lot of cruise ships are registered in Liberia, so who knows what they thought.
But this, this, I don't know, folks, this is getting really frightening about the how do you not know, if you're in the medical world, that Liberia is ground zero.
Somebody coming and saying, I got the flu here and I came from Liberia, that should have been code red.
They should have gotten the quarantine suits right then and done whatever.
Again, it's the AP, so I don't want to overreact to this, but they've just tweeted this out a couple minutes ago.
They've just posted this as breaking news.
So now even they, the AP, would do anything to cover for the regime is having to talk about this guy being sent home even after identifying for doctors that he was from Liberia.
Here's the AP tweet: breaking sister of U.S. Ebola patient.
He told hospital he was from Liberia on first visit, was sent home.
Here's more Ebola news from CNBC.
Governor Rick Perry, Texas says some screw-will-aged children had contact with this Ebola patient and they are being monitored for the disease.
Don't worry, it's hard to get folks.
We're not going to let people with the disease into the country.
We're working really hard with these West African nations.
This is on the heels of our allies, the Iraqis, dropping ammunition and food to ISIS.
This is on the heels of six people getting through Secret Service security into the White House and nearly up to the residence on the second floor.
Okay, here's Tiffany in Newport Beach, California.
Hi, Tiffany.
I really appreciate your patience and welcome to the program.
Well, thank you, Rush, for coming to work every day and telling millions of Americans the truth.
I appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
Does not work if you love what you're doing.
Exactly.
I wanted to go back to Julia, head of the Secret Service.
There's two things, actually, the security guard in the elevator.
And first, Julia, she is the appointment of Barack Obama to show America, which he has continued to show by his weak appointments.
This woman, just by her talking before Congress, we can see that she's very weak.
And she is from an environment there that nobody can be fired.
And with a thousand infractions at the White House, for it now to be the public and Congress that are demanding that she step down.
And on her own good conscience, she would think, you know what, I've had a thousand issues here, and now this one was so severe that I should step down on my own.
She won't.
Tiffany, you know what troubles me about things like this?
We've had enough time go by with political correctness and all the damage that it's done.
We don't know if Julia Pearson's ever had to prove her chops or not.
We don't know how much of a free ride she got simply because she was a woman, because of affirmative action.
We don't know what operational experience she's got running an agency like this.
I don't.
I'm going to dig into it and find out.
But the frightening thing is, is that she might have been appointed just because she was a woman so Obama could help conduct the war on women against Republicans.
It could be that asinine.
She could be there as a figurehead placeholder with absolutely no experience operationally running something like the Secret Service.
And who knows during her so-called experience gathering during her career, how much, if any, was looked the other way while she didn't quite do well simply because we can't profile and we can't.
This is the way this stuff actually manifests itself in the real world.
I'm going to find out about this or try to.
We have more Ebola news from the New York Times.
Quote, Dallas County officials said today they believe that this patient, now critical, suffering from Ebola, has come into contact with 12 to 18 people when he was experiencing symptoms.
And some of them are children.
Now, I read last night in prepping for this that the most contagious period when a patient is most contagious is when the symptoms are paramountly manifestly obvious with skin lesions and sores and this kind of thing.
Not that that's the only time, and that's when the patient is the most highly contagious.
Now, as for Julia Pearson, she assumed her position as director of the Secret Service on March 27th, 2013.
Before her appointment, she was the Secret Service's highest ranking agent.
So she has agent and field experience, but operational, I would assume so.
And I'm not sure about this, but that date, March 27, 2013, remember when Obama was going to go to Venezuela, Secret Service sent a team down there to advance it, and they got caught in the brothels and consuming adult beverages.
And I think it was after that that she was appointed when the Secret Service needed better optics after that prostitution scandal.
I don't know.
Easy enough to find out.
Back to the phones, Perry, Florida.
This is Michael.
Thank you for waiting yourself, sir, and welcome to the program.
Hey, thanks, Rush.
First time caller, long-time listener.
Just want to give you a quick bio on me real fast.
Spent the last eight years of my military career assigned to Headquarters Central Command in Tampa.
I worked directly in the J-5 Plans and Policy Directorate.
Politically, I am a registered Republican, vote Republican, but I'm mostly a constitutional conservative.
Part of my job and my work at CENCOM was dealing with the troop forces and troop levels in Afghanistan and Iraq.
As much as it pains me to sound like I'm going to support Obama because I'm not an Obama supporter, the fact of the matter is all the troop levels that you are talking about and hearing the news from all the generals that we needed to leave 10, 15, 20, 25, 30,000 troops on the ground in Iraq to stabilize it, they're all true.
Saw the reports at various levels because there were various scenarios we were being asked to run up.
The difficulty was that Al-Maliki refused, no matter what we did and what we offered for incentives or concessions to the status of forces agreement, Al-Maliki refused to sign that status of forces agreement.
And without that status of forces agreement, if we would have been able to leave troops in Iraq, they would have been subject to Iraqi laws, perhaps Sharia law.
The other part of that is that after the Iraqi government became an officially constituted government, our mandates underneath the UN resolutions expired.
So we couldn't arbitrarily just leave troops in there without the approval of the Al-Maliki government.
Now, rightly or wrongly, the current administration decided, you know, we're not going to give any more concessions on the status of forces agreement.
If you had an opportunity to read the status of forces agreement, they are pretty much cookie cutter.
Every status of forces agreement we have with every other country, we have troops in on the ground, will be South Korea, Germany, anywhere in the world, they're all pretty much cookie cutter.
I can tell you that we've been over backwards with concessions and incentives with al-Maliki to get us to leave troops on the ground, and he refused to sign it to the point where the current administration said, look, there's nothing more we can give, and we had to back out of negotiations.
And it really bothers me that, you know, I have to somewhat sound like I'm coming to the defense of this administration, but that was the truth on the ground there.
Well, I don't care.
The truth's the truth.
That's all I care about here.
But I want to run something by you.
The New York Times, and I know it's the New York Times, the New York Times said, and this has formed a basis of some of my thinking and belief on this.
The New York Times said that al-Maliki offered the same immunity to our troops back then that they got before we went back in in June.
The New York Times said the exact opposite of what you said here, that al-Maliki offered, I mean, we're in there now.
They must have some immunity now.
There must be some kind of a new agreement.
And the New York Times said that we had the same opportunity then and that Obama turned Maliki down because he wanted to come home from Iraq.
It was the parliament, not just Maliki, but that Obama wanted to clear.
This is the New York Times saying this.
The New York Times said Obama didn't want to stay there.
He wanted to get out because of political reasons and his base and what he had promised and everything.
The New York Times says that Maliki did, in fact, offer the same immunity that we've got now.
Well, and I can't talk to what was being offered now because I retired in 2010.
But I do know that on the ground there at that time, now I wasn't in the room directly with the negotiations with the ambassador, but a very dear, good friend of mine was.
And the fact was that basically no matter what we offered for concessions, al-Maliki refused.
Now, that's all I can address on this thing is what we are offering.
Now, could the Obama administration have offered more concessions and more incentives?
I don't know.
That's a political decision.
Well, let me read to you what the New York Times says.
This is back in June 23rd of this year, 2014.
Quote, diplomatic note promises immunity from Iraqi law for U.S. advisory troops.
That's current.
And the article says the regime, the Obama administration said on Monday that it has accepted from the Iraqi government the same sort of immunity agreement for newly dispatched special operation troops that it refused to accept in 2011 when it opted to withdraw all American troops from Iraq rather than keep a residual force behind.
This is Obama's house organ, which is saying that he was offered by al-Maliki the same immunity we've got now back before he pulled out.
Now, that's in great conflict with what you're telling us.
Well, and I can't address what was actually offered in 2011 because I retired at the end of 2010.
But I can tell you up to that point, everything that we had offered to them and tried to do to them to encourage them to let us leave forces on the ground, al-Maliki flat refused.
Again, could this administration have done more?
I don't know what their, that's a political issue.
Well, see, that's an important question.
How bad did Obama want to try?
Because apparently, after you left in 2011, Al-Maliki went for it.
Now, here's the money quote from this piece.
Although Mr. Al-Maliki said he was willing to send such an agreement to parliament, Sunni and other Shiite leaders opposed it.
Chances of passage seemed slim.
Mr. Maliki offered to guarantee immunity to American troops on his own authority with an executive agreement.
But the Pentagon lawyers and even Iraq's chief justice concluded that wouldn't be constitutional in Iraq without parliamentary approval.
So in effect, the diplomatic note that Obama has now accepted is the equivalent of what Maliki offered in 2011 that was rejected by the Obama administration.
Again, I can't address what would happen in 2011.
I can't address what was going on up until I retired.
And I say the political decision on this thing, a mill-to-mill negotiation on a status of forces agreement is a two-track road.
It's the military side saying, here's what we want to have on the ground.
Here's what we want to cap for our troop levels.
And here's what we want to have for equipment and our movements.
And here's how we're going to move our troops around.
We exercise and things like that.
The political side of it is the monetary, okay, here's how much we're going to spend, how much we're going to put in the bases, and our legal protections if a U.S. military guy does something.
So that's wrong.
That's the biggie.
The legal protection is the biggie.
We don't want our troops subject to Sharia law or the International Criminal Court or charged with committing war crimes in the normal conduct of their duties.
I mean, that's absolutely.
And, you know, again, as much as it pains me to say, I kind of support us getting out of there from the political standpoint, it really wouldn't have been a good thing to leave, you know, any level of troop, combat force, a combat force in Iraq running around doing combat operations without any protection from Sharia law or Iraqi law.
Well, I know we're going back and forth because you're saying 2010, the New York Times is making it clear that one year later it was offered and it was turned down, which leads to, you know, you talk about the politics of it.
I don't think there's any, well, there's not very much doubt that Obama didn't want to hang around there anyway.
He had made this promise that was directly correlated to his election and donations from political supporters to get the hell out of there because for five years the people of this country have been told what a worthless operation it was, how senseless it was, how insane it was.
Bush was an irresponsible cowboy.
Should have never been.
Obama said, I'm smarter, I'm better.
I'm going to get us all out.
And he did.
So it, you know, I remember the thinking at the time was that Obama really didn't want it, or he could have gotten it if he did, because we had just saved their bacon.
Not bad choice to worry.
We had just saved him.
We had just performed a great service for them, and we could have had what we wanted, but he didn't want to stay in the first place.
That's the political side.
I understand your familiarity with that is not as much as on the other aspects.
I appreciate the call.
This is all very useful and interesting.
But we have it today.
We have, and it was offered three years ago.
So if we've got it, if we have the deal that we wanted and demanded, the idea that we couldn't have had it earlier is a little kind of stretches credulous.
You know, we just got a status of forces agreement with Afghanistan with no problem.
And look at, you know, the reality of the situation is after five years, this stuff matters.
After five years, Obama and the Democrat Party every day, 24-7, ripping the entire Iraq war to pieces and telling everybody in this country how unjust, unnecessary, and all of that that it was, and the daily body counts of American casualties and all the things our troops were, the atrocities they were committing.
They drove the Democrat base literally insane with hatred over Iraq.
There's no way Obama is going to keep 10,000 to 20,000 troops there when he pulls out.
There is no way his deranged base would not tolerate it.
He had to get clean out of there, and then he had to brag about getting clean out of there.
And his excuse has always been that the reason, the excuse he gave for turning down al-Maliki's deal on the status of forces agreement, Obama's excuse was that he didn't want to bypass Iraq's parliament.
The New York Times tells us that Maliki offered it personally as the leader of the country, offered the immunity from prosecution under Sharia law or any other law in Iraq that our troops would be immune.
But Obama said, you know, I don't want to bypass the Iraqi Congress or their parliament.
I don't want to violate their Constitution.
He didn't want the deal to be based on an al-Maliki executive order.
Isn't that rich?
He couldn't bypass the Iraqi parliament with an al-Maliki executive order because he didn't want to disrespect the Iraqi parliament.
Isn't irony ironic?
Because he can't wait to ignore or disrespect the United States Congress.
Here's Jim in Central Illinois.
Welcome, sir.
You're next on the program.
It's nice to have you here with us.
Thank you, Rush.
I had a question.
I'd like your opinion.
Certainly.
We're bombing in Syria.
Is, in your opinion, did we do ourselves more harm than good?
In what way?
You mean uniting various factions of Islamists against us?
Exactly.
There have been a lot of rumors or bits and pieces of news that I've heard already about the, quote, moderates not wanting us to help their dictatorial government that they're fighting against, which is...
Who are these moderates?
I don't know.
I can't imagine that they exist.
Well, I have here a story by the estimable Michael Issakoff.
You might remember the name.
Michael Issakoff had the original story on Monica Lewinsky, and Newsweek spiked it, and Matt Drudge ran it.
And he's been forever known as Spike.
And he's back here, and he's now, he's got a piece here at Yahoo News.
And he says, the White House has acknowledged for the first time that strict standards that Obama imposed last year to prevent civilian deaths from U.S. drone strikes will not apply to U.S. military operations in Syria and Iraq.
So in other words, some of the so-called moderate Syrian rebels that you have brought up here are claiming one of our drones killed women and children during an attack on the Corazon group, which is not, it doesn't exist.
It's just, it's al-Qaeda.
In fact, it's a franchise al-Qaeda, which raises questions about this much publicized policy that Obama announced last year that barred drone strikes unless there's a near certainty to be no civilian casualties.
We're now saying Obama has given himself an exemption for his operations, the ones he wants, it's okay to go ahead.
If we happen to randomly kill some civilians, well, that's okay here.
And these civilian deaths will not apply to military operations Syria and Iraq.
The next thing we're going to hear is that Obama has authorized waterboarding of Syrian moderate citizens in order to get to the, I mean, this is just really fun.
I got to take a break on this.
I just can't continue.
Okay, so it's okay.
Obama has given himself an exemption.
Syria airstrikes can result in civilian deaths because this is important.
The next thing we know, Obama is going to be waterboarding these moderates to find out their secrets.
But these rules of engagement that involve civilian deaths, I guess it doesn't hurt as much if you're bombed by Obama.
Unlike that evil, mean cowboy Bush.
When he bombed you, it was mean.
With Obama, you know he's bombing you with the best of intentions because Obama knows what's best for you.
With Bush, that was painful.
This people are supposed to understand it, I guess.
▲
Export Selection