All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 13, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:39
October 13, 2014, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to you music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists, sports fans all across the fruited plane.
We're back, Broadcast Excellence, for yet another exciting, busy broadcast hour.
Here behind the Golden EIB microphone, am I, your host, Rush Limbaugh, the only guy you never get tired of listening to on the radio.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882 and the email address, lrushboydeibnet.com, Dr. Thomas Frieden of the Centers for Disease Control.
I just got a note.
I didn't see it.
Waiting for backup, but I'm told Dr. Frieden apologized to the nurse in Dallas for blaming her for contracting the disease.
I wonder why that happened.
And what could have made him, I mean, he was apparently conducting a live press conference out there.
I wonder what could have made him change his mind.
Breast Cancer Month?
You don't blame the victims?
What made him change his mind out there?
Big, big, big mystery.
Anyway, he pulled back.
He pulled back on it.
I've just got a couple more things on this, folks, and then we move on to other things.
And just to give you a little hint, the Washington Post's election model gives Republicans a 95% chance of winning the Senate.
It's a Chris Saliza piece.
And the headline for the Washington Post story is the Washington Post election model gives Republicans a 95% chance of winning the Senate.
What?
That's the headline.
And you know what he does?
He addresses this the same way I did last week.
And I spent a little bit of time here telling you how I should have believed the polls in 2012.
I rejected the polls because I thought they were using a phony, incorrect turnout model.
I thought they were ignoring the 2010 turnout.
And I said, this can't be right, Obama, up by six, eight points.
It doesn't make any sense.
And it turned out to be exactly right on the money.
So Salizza is basically, I don't know where he got this idea, but he's basically saying the same thing here.
He said, you have to believe in the polls.
You've got to trust the polls explicitly if you trust.
Now, Nate Silver, who the only reason the Democrats love silver is because he gave them confidence that Obama is going to win in 2012.
But if Nate Silver ever comes out like he's doing now and predicts the Republicans and now at a 58% chance to take over the Senate, the Democrats hate Nate Silver right now.
Democrat readers, people that read the New York Times and Washington Post, Democrats that watch ESP, they hate Nate Silver now.
They do.
They never had any love for Nate Silver to begin with.
They just loved what he was telling them.
But now he's turned into a traitor.
And so they're not happy with him.
Anyway, we'll get back to that stuff and try this headline.
John Kerry, quote, life as you know it on earth ends if climate deniers are wrong.
He's the Secretary of State.
Drudge has a story.
The Pentagon is busy right now with everything going on in the world with ISIS and everything and terrorism.
The Pentagon is devising battle strategies against climate change.
That means the regime has ordered them to.
That means Obama has ordered them to.
And here's John Kerry.
Life as you know it on earth ends if people like me are right.
No, if people like me are wrong.
If the climate skeptics are wrong, life on earth ends.
But he says if the alarmists are wrong, people like him, if the alarmists are wrong, well, nothing bad can happen from that.
It's sort of like Ocam's razor, Occam's razor.
I'll explain this to you when we get to it.
But there's a couple of more things here on Ebola.
Richard Engel is the chief foreign correspondent for NBC News.
And he was on Meet the Press.
He said, the ISIS strategy is certainly not slowing down ISIS.
Now, do you remember when it was, I guess, last couple of weeks, what with Panetta's book and Panetta and some other Democrats starting a dump on Obama?
Do you remember my pointing out to you that the Democrat media establishment was beginning, you could see it, to move away from Obama and toward Hillary?
Well, here's an example of it.
Richard Engel, the chief foreign correspondent for NBC News, on Meet the Depress yesterday, and he ripped Obama and his phony ISIS war games.
We're just a couple of weeks in, and he just eviscerated the commander-in-chief's handiwork.
I mean, he went, he just eviscerated Obama's strategy on ISIS.
And I was wondering, would Jon Stewart have allowed such a thing to happen?
Would Jon Stewart sitting there, if NBC had succeeded in hiring Jon Stewart, would Jon Stewart have let the chief foreign policy correspondent, Richard Engel, rip Obama to shreds like that?
Can anybody watch Meet the Press or hear clips of Meet the Press without thinking what Jon Stewart would have done instead?
You know, that leak, that leak that they tried, they backed up the Brinks truck to Jon Stewart to get him to host that show, that leak has forever wrecked whatever aura that show had.
There's nothing left now because every time you watch it, I watch it, I'm going to be asked, would Jon Stewart have let that happen?
Would Jon Stewart have let Richard Engel just walk all over Obama like that?
Or would Richard Engel have been ripped to shreds?
Would Stewart have ripped his own correspondent in order to defend Obama?
What's Chuck Todd thinking here?
And of course, then there's also news, the NBC chief medical correspondent, not to be confused with Engel, this is Nancy Snyderman.
She's good friends with Hillary.
There's a reason for that.
They share anatomical features.
But nevertheless, they're big buds.
And she has been, Nancy Snyder has been accused of violating the Ebola quarantine to visit her favorite soup restaurant.
And this has forced the entire crew into mandatory isolation.
The NBC news crew exposed to Ebola was forced into mandatory quarantine after the chief medical correspondent, Dr. Nancy Snyderman, violated the voluntary isolation so she could visit her favorite soup restaurant.
And Ms. Snyderman is a medical doctor.
I guess nobody can be trusted to follow the protocols.
She's a medical doctor.
I think she had an office in San Francisco.
I think she was big there before ABC founded her.
And I think she stayed there and did Good Morning America.
That's where I first saw her.
And the next thing I know, she's everywhere with Hillary.
So they're buds and all that.
So the NBC cameraman came down with Ebola.
They put a voluntary quarantine, and she said, well, the quarantines are for the little people.
I want some soup.
And she went to her favorite soup place.
And now that's resulted in the whole unit being quarantined.
The 62-year-old, that's Snyderman, was one of seven people ordered to cut off all human contact for 21 days.
This was last Friday, as doctors treat the nation, the station's cameraman, Ashoka Mukpo, for the deadly disease, he's being treated in Nebraska.
Now it has emerged that the crew would have been allowed more freedom if it weren't for Snyderman's alleged trip to the peasant grill in Hopewell Borough, New Jersey on Thursday.
Doesn't it just make sense that a good lib would go to someplace called the Peasant Grill to get a bowl of soup?
Witnesses claim that Dr. Snyderman and the broadcaster wore sunglasses and a ponytail as she pulled up outside the eatery and a man dashed in to grab an order, according to TMZ.
Quarantines are for little people, you see, not journalists.
By the way, notice that this was uncovered by TMZ, not the AP or any of our other media guardians, but what appears to be the natural inheritors of Walter Cronkite and Edward Armur, TMZ, because they get the news.
Snyderman is said to be a regular at the peasant grill and has often used their catering surface.
The team had initially been encouraged to isolate themselves following Mukpo's diagnosis.
In fact, the team had made a big deal and a big point about how they were going to quarantine and monitor themselves in solidarity.
The group was reporting on the Ebola outbreak for NBC News in Liberia when Mukpo was diagnosed with the virus just a day after he was hired to work on the team.
That's a little suspicious in its own right.
He comes down.
He gets hired a day after he gets hired.
He comes down with it.
And the whole team, anyway, Snyderman just had to have a bowl of soup, and that's absolute solitary confinement for the entire NBC crew.
And let's go to the audio sound.
Bonnie Castillo, this is she's a nurse.
I think she's head of the nurses union, director of registered nurse response network, part of the National Nurses United.
And she spoke in Oakland during a rally against the handling of the Ebola crisis.
We're seeing that caregivers who are not being adequately trained are being blamed.
And we're hearing that they have not followed proper protocol when we have been asking our hospitals throughout the country to provide us with training that allows us to ask questions, with training about how to put on the proper and optimal level of personal protection equipment, how to put it on, how to take it off, what is the plan for waste disposal.
And we have seen in our hospitals in this country that they have not given us this information.
And then when the nurses become infected, they are blamed for not following the protocols.
That is not going to work.
Yeah, and this is what the Dr. Frieden, Dr. Frieden of the CDC, apologized mere moments ago for blaming the nurse.
But you heard they're not what nobody knows what the protocols are.
The nurses claim nobody's telling them how to do what to do.
Mike McCall, congressman from Texas, faced the nation yesterday, Bob Schieffer, said, our Dr. John Lapook, who's going to be with us later in the broadcast, been talking to officials at the CDC.
And he tells us that they're now considering sending Ebola patients to just one of the four designated facilities in Emory, Emory, Atlanta, National Institutes for Health at Montana and in Nebraska.
Do you think that's a wise step there if they should do that?
Is that necessary?
I do think that's important.
And also, it's important that we eliminate the source or threat at the source.
And the source really is in Africa where it's spreading like a wildfire.
We have now over 8,000 cases of Ebola spreading throughout Africa and West Africa, 4,000 deaths.
There's a lot of talk about banning flights.
I think we need to target more the individual themselves and look at the idea of potentially temporarily suspending the 13,000 visas that would be coming out of this region, allowing health care workers to go in because they have to contain the threat.
But then when it comes to the original population out of West Africa leaving, I think until this gets under control, that's a measure that policymakers ought to be looking at.
Well, here you have it.
Mike McCall, who is from Texas, Republican, thinks that we ought to be focusing on the patients and making sure they don't get out of Africa.
Not whole populations, just the patients.
Does that sound cold-hearted, mean-spirited, extreme?
It'll be said it's cold-hearted, mean-spirited.
Well, in fact, let's go to the next soundbite is the guy that NBC wanted to replace with Jon Stewart.
We have a soundbite here from F. Chuck Todd.
And he was on Meet the Press, the show NBC wished that Stewart would have hosted.
And he said this about the Ebola crisis and the 2014 midterm election, which, again, makes the point to the media.
The only thing relevant here is how any of this affects Democrats in November.
One of the reasons why I think Republicans are going to this issue is they want to keep nationalizing the elections.
The more nationalized they are, the better for Republicans.
One of the reasons why I think politicians have felt so comfortable playing this fear card is the media has gone right in.
Right.
He says the media is guilty of following Republicans down this path.
Why is it, would Jon Stewart have ever said this, by the way?
Would Jon Stewart have acknowledged the Republicans could win anything on Meet the Press if he were hosting it, like F. Chuck just did here?
I mean, F. Chuck just said the more nationalized elections are, the better for Republicans.
Now, why is that?
What is that a full-on admission of?
It's a full-on admission that nationally Obama is in the tank.
It's a full-on admission that the people of this country have no more desire for any more of Obama or his policies.
And the media knows it.
And therefore, if the Republicans nationalize and capture them, then that's not fair.
And the media is making a mistake by letting the Republicans get away with this.
That's what F. Chuck's point is.
So basically, Chuck Todd's saying Republicans are using Ebola in the midterm races against Obama.
Now, Jon Stewart would have said that.
So I don't think we have to really rip into F. Chuck so much, because Stewart, he would have said the same thing there.
But I'm telling you, what?
What?
I'm telling you, this is the point.
You had better wake up and realize the smell of coffee.
They do.
You were busy screaming calls in the first hour, and I could tell by your facial expression you were not listening because you were screaming.
There's this giant ad out that the Republicans are being blamed for the spread of Ebola because of budget cuts, just like the school lunch cuts.
I mean, it's a vicious ad.
It's nothing but Republican faces and the word cut, and they're blaming the spread of Ebola on Republicans.
And here comes Chuck Todd saying Republicans are using Ebola in midterm races when it's the Democrats.
It's just a replay of the school lunch cuts, only this one is Ebola.
And you ask, did people believe the Democrats, when they claimed the Republicans, wanted to starve kids?
Yes, they did.
And the kids fell right in by writing letters to the Republicans.
Please, Mr. Congressman, I can't learn anything if I'm starving.
Please don't cut my school lunch.
So I checked the email during the break, and there were quite a few.
There always are.
I go by subject line.
That's how I find the ones that intrigue me.
And I paraphrase them.
I don't read them verbatim.
One guy said, well, Rush, you say that the, well, you're reporting others saying the ISIS strategy is failing, but you're not telling us why.
Well, I will.
It can be boiled down to something very simple.
We're waiting for somebody else to do something.
See, we've, in Obama's mind, we've taken the big step.
Now, it's somebody else's turn to come in and help us out here with ground forces.
That's what we're doing.
We're not, it's not fair and it isn't right that we do everything.
A little bit more involved in that, but sets a table for the answer.
Here's George in Charleston, South Carolina, as we go to the phones.
Hello, George, and welcome to the show.
Well, thank you.
This has been quite a while before I tried to call in here.
And after my lecture from Snooigly, I'll try to get to the point and cease the accolade.
The point I'm trying to make, or I was trying to make there, is that the liberal spin to this whole Ebola thing and this African man that came over, boarded the plane, knowing that he probably had Ebola, infecting a whole country, possibly, should be treated like a man who had AIDS, spreading it around, knowingly spreading it around.
It's a crime.
They're making him out to be sort of a, not a hero, a son of a folk hero.
This guy wasn't treated well because he has a, we have a negative predisposition toward African.
Now, he's serving a precise purpose for the race industry.
He's allowing them to say that he was not treated or given the same treatment white people or because he's from Africa.
So he's really being painted as a giant victim.
And who can blame him for wanting to come here?
If you had it, you'd do the same thing.
But he never had a chance because this is a racist country which once had slaves.
And that's basically the answer.
Nobody is ever going to treat him as a criminal, no matter what.
Here we are back at it, Il Rushbo.
And here's Dr. Frieden at the Centers for Disease Control.
He's the director at his press conference this afternoon in Atlanta.
Here is the apology, the apology to the nurse for violating protocols.
I want to clarify something I said yesterday.
I spoke about a breach in protocol, and that's what we speak about in public health when we're talking about what needs to happen.
And our focus is to say, would this protocol have prevented the infection?
And we believe it would have.
But some interpreted that as finding fault with the hospital or the healthcare worker.
And I'm sorry if that was the impression given.
That was certainly not my intention.
Yeah, so I apologize if you thought I was blaming the nurse.
I was, but you weren't supposed to get that.
But if you did, I apologize.
What we mean, see, we're not capable of understanding the way these guys think and talk.
They're superior to us.
And he says, I spoke about a breach in protocol, and that's what we speak about here in public health when we're talking about what needs to happen.
And our focus is to say, would this protocol have prevented the infection?
And we believe it would have.
Okay, well, you also believe then it was violated.
So the apology is what?
It's kind of mood, isn't it?
I mean, he's still standing by what he said.
He's just apologizing if you understood what he was saying.
Essentially.
I love these public apologies.
I'm sorry.
That's not who I am.
Don't you love that one?
I'm sorry.
That's not who I am.
I do not abuse women.
I do not rob convenience stores, and I certainly don't point guns at people.
That was not me.
And I apologize if anybody was offended.
So you never really apologize for what you did.
You claim you didn't do it, and then you apologize for offending people if they got offended, but you never apologize for what you did.
They have this down pet.
I don't care who it is, but there's a full-on apology think tank business here that teaches people how to do it.
You know, ladies and gentlemen, I spend a lot of time reading things written by leftists.
This is how, and I have for a long time.
And this is how I know who they are.
And it's how I know what they believe, because they tell us.
Now, oftentimes they camouflage it, but if you have a large enough base of knowledge about them, you know when they're camouflaging and when they're masking themselves.
But it's not hard.
This is one of the things that is an ongoing frustration of mine.
It's not hard to understand these people.
It's not hard to find out who they are, what they really believe.
I interviewed Mark Stein, occasional guest host, this program.
He's got a new book on.
I interviewed him last week for the next issue of the Limbaugh letter.
And we got to talking, and he has this, he had a, he had made a statement that I needed him to explain.
I need some clarification.
He said, you cannot have a conservative government with a liberal culture.
And I wanted to know if he meant that literally or if he meant it in some other context, because clearly, if the Republicans win the presidency in 2016, we're going to have, maybe not a conservative, but we're going to have somebody who's not liberal as president in a liberal culture.
And by definition, that will be a, let's say, Republican government.
Now, I know the bureaucracy is populated with career leftists, but we're speaking theoretically here.
The point he was trying to make was, it doesn't matter.
If we don't change the culture, we're never going to really change anything.
We can have all the conservative presidents we want.
And if that doesn't mean or translate to or result from a change in the culture, if the culture remains dominantly liberal, pop culture, entertainment, all that, news business culture, if that doesn't change, then the two can't go together.
Meaning, there's no way that a conservative or Republican president is going to tame liberals who oppose him.
And so I brought up Reagan.
And I said, how would you explain that?
That was a dominant liberal culture then, because it always has been in the modern era anyway.
And yet, Reagan won two landslides.
And he reminded me of something I didn't need to be running.
He said, Reagan was still hated and reviled and all that.
And that's true.
But Reagan still won two landslides.
And never got rid of the Department of Education, but we did cut taxes and we made some inroads and got some more sensible policies on a lot of things.
And there were Reagan Democrats.
There were Democrats leaving the party and becoming Republicans.
Now, the culture still despised Reagan, but we had an effective conservative president in the midst of a liberal culture.
And if what Stein had said was literally true, that you cannot have a conservative government with a liberal culture, then what do you have?
What is the purpose of a conservative slash Republican winning the presidency if it simply can't coexist with a dominant liberal culture?
Well, with that thought in my mind, I ran across an opinion piece at a blog site, a website called a Talking Points Memo.
And it's headed up by some guy named Joshua Micah Marshall.
And the guy that wrote the piece is named Ed Kilgore.
It was last Wednesday, and Kilgore speculated that religious conservatives and other conservatives might eventually in attitudinally conduct what would in effect be a secession from the United States.
Let me read it in his words.
As the religious liberty movement continues to develop, you could see it morph into a theoretical foundation for a parallel society in which the painful diversity of contemporary life and its disturbing clatter of demands for equality and non-discrimination and rights is simply excluded along with government schools and secular news and entertainment.
Presumably, the Republican Party could thrive as the exclusive political champion of this parallel society, the one party for the one-party state of conservative conformity operating at the margins of the heathenish remainder of the country.
His point here is, and it kind of, the reason it interested me, is because it intersected with what I had read that Mark Stein wrote, that you can't have a conservative government with a liberal culture.
This guy is basically saying at some point Republicans are going to realize that, okay, they oppose gay marriage, same-sex marriage.
They oppose all the assaults on religion.
They oppose all the demands, all these minority groups for equality here and non-discrimination here and rights over there.
And they're simply going to, you know, screw it.
We want to live amongst ourselves and we want to sequester ourselves away from all of this because we have no desire.
His point is that he thinks conservatives look at all of that as the rotting of our culture of the deterioration of the American culture.
And it's happening right before their very eyes.
And he thinks that they don't have any desire to live amongst it and be part of it.
And he said it wouldn't surprise him if a parallel society formed, not a physical relocation of everybody into one or two states that would then secede and have their own culture.
It's just that they would, by virtue of behavior, they would end up living amongst each other so they wouldn't have to be surrounded by all of this, what they consider to be cultural rot.
And I was kind of fascinated the way Kilgore wrote this because it was not, I mean, it's got its snide, snarky components, but not overly so.
Might seek to create within the U.S. a parallel society in which the painful diversity of contemporary, the liberals love this, the painful diversity, meaning we're going to define this country by virtue of the way it looks on the surface.
We're going to have quotas and we're going to have the right percentages here and that's going to define our greatness.
And we're going to make sure that marriage, anybody who wants to get married can get married now and to hell with these religious views.
And his theory is that at some point, really rock-solid conservatives are going to get sick and tired of trying to coexist with that and basically, if not physically, state by state, form population centers where only people like them live.
So they want to deal with it.
And his point in this is, what does that mean or what would it mean for the Republican Party?
He says there are Sunbelt suburbs, in fact, where this is pretty much already a reality.
Sunbelt suburbs.
He's speaking of places like Arizona and parts of Florida, Texas, where like-minded conservatives have gravitated to neighborhoods, counties, areas where it's only them.
He says there's danger in too much reliance on liberating conservatives from judicial activism via an ever-expanding zone of religious liberty.
Opponents of same-sex marriage and abortion contraception could become complacent and lose the spiritual muscle tone provided by fighting to restore godly norms for all of them.
It's feared that if the conservatives ever did this, that it would weaken the Republican Party.
He makes one mistake here.
He assumes here that the Republicans want these votes.
He makes the mistake of assuming that the Republican Party desperately wants the Christian rights support, but they don't want it to be too loud.
His theory is that the Republican Party desperately wants their votes, but they want them to shut up.
They don't want them to go to the convention.
They don't want them to talk about what they believe in, but they want them to vote for them.
And I think what he's missing is, I'm finding it more and more wherever I go.
So-call people who think of themselves as moderate Republicans proudly tell me that things have gotten so bad to hell with the social issues.
I'm through with it, Rush.
To me, it's all economics now to hell with a Christian right, to hell with this social stuff, to hell with abortion.
It's all killing us.
I don't want any part of it.
I think the Republican Party ought to tell them to go take a hike.
We don't want they're killing the party.
All this social issue.
I'm hearing this more and more, and it's not new.
I've been hearing it.
And every time I hear it, I point out, well, there are 24 million votes, and you can't win without them.
You just can't win.
The Republican Party cannot win without them.
And I think the Republican Party's gotten to a point where that may be okay.
And if it results in a two-generation or one generation or 20-year setback, fine.
They'll start rebuilding with a new coalition that does not include the social issues because they think that people who hold those as most important are genuinely holding the Republican Party back.
Do you disagree with that?
There's no way.
I mean, it's that's why they want amnesty.
That's why they're and so anyway, I just, this whole notion, because it got me to thinking, if a Republican wins the White House, and if the rep, let's say it's Ted Cruz, I mean, there's a conservative president in a dominant, and Mark Stein said, you can't have, that won't work.
You can't have a conservative government and a liberal culture.
Something's got to give.
And I thought, that's fascinating.
So why are we trying to win then?
Now I've got to take a break.
I'm sorry to leave you hanging there, folks.
We're not through.
Ladies and gentlemen, this parallel society thing is fascinating to me.
And I can't quite pinpoint why, but when I find myself in this position, I always find a way to make myself clearly understood.
The idea that conservatives are looking at the country and seeing cultural rot and deterioration with all of these traditions and institutions under attack, all the things that have defined an orderly society, a law-abiding society, defined the founding are under assault by people demanding fairness and equality and non-discrimination.
And minorities left and right are demanding to be treated as majorities.
They are saying they're perpetual victims of the founding of this country.
Country owes them this.
And a lot of people see the country falling apart, trying to grant all of these demands.
And the theory goes, they're not going to be part of it anymore.
To them, it is particularly religious conservatives.
It is unacceptable.
And so the formation of a parallel society exists.
Now, the Islamists, I mean, there's a parallel itself here.
The Islamists and their main champions.
And one of them is the president of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
One of his beliefs is to pressure Muslims into assimilating in the culture of the West is a crime.
And Erdogan is the president of Turkey.
He's a grand pubah.
And he claims that to pressure Muslims, say, for example, in the United States, to pressure them to assimilate in the culture, into our culture, is a crime against humanity.
So what they want is a parallel society within a society where they govern their affairs under Sharia law, and we handle our affairs according to the Constitution and everybody peacefully coexists.
Now, one of the reasons this is so interesting is that our government tells us that Recep Tayyip Erdogan and these other Islamists, they're moderates.
We're told that they are moderate.
These are the moderate Muslims that we can do business with, and the moderate Muslims that we can do business with want a parallel society of Islamists living in America under Sharia law.
And everybody else goes about their business.
The same people, the same people, the Barack Obamas and the Chuck Schumers, and you name it, the same people in this country who tell us that guys like Erdogan are moderates tell us that the Christian right, religious conservatives, Judeo-Christian people who believe in religious liberty and want to live under the Constitution are extremists.
This is how the Islamists in our midst can be called moderates.
They want a parallel society under their own law that makes conservative Christians who might want the same thing are nutjobs, wackos, extremists, and have to be dealt with.
Same people.
It's Democratic leadership defining both groups.
And it's the conservative Christians who end up being the wackos and the extremists and pose the real danger.
I have been remiss in getting a decent number of phone calls in today, so I will make it a focal point of the next hour.
If you're on hold, hang in there and be patient and know that I appreciate it.
And we'll get to you soon as we can.
So hang in there.
Be right back, folks.
▲
Export Selection