All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 23, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:16
October 23, 2014, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings my friends and welcome back.
You're tuned to the most listened to radio talk show in America, Rush Limbaugh.
Now into our 20 is it sixth or seventh?
We just had the 25th anniversary, right?
Or do we have the 26th?
I always get confused.
I always get confused because when we have the anniversary, I immediately start adding a year because that's the new year.
So, see, 88 and 25 would be one of 26 here.
That's exactly right.
26th year.
And, what, 24 of them at the top of the heap?
Great to have you here, folks.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man and the doctor of democracy.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
And the email address, LRushbo at EIBNet.com.
Just one quick thing here on the story in Canada, and we move on.
Because I alluded to it, I was making a joke.
Sergeant at arms grabs his gun, goes and shoots the shooter, and then casually walks back to the office, locks his gun up, job done, and got a five-minute heroic standing ovation in the House of Commons today in the Parliament.
And I said, you wait.
It ain't going to be long before some leftists are going to start complaining about guns in the halls of government.
But it's not quite that, but from the Atlantic magazine, Canada's difficult relationship with long guns.
Though the country has no Second Amendment, the struggle to control firearms has been a fraught one.
As more details emerge from Wednesday's shooting attack in Ottawa's Parliament Hill, one immediate and inevitable consequence will be a sharp renewal of discourse about gun control laws in Canada.
What a shock, right?
No, I'm just kidding.
Left never misses a chance to tie anything to the need for more gun control.
Despite being hailed for its incredibly low gun casualty statistics, Canada also has a relatively high rate of gun ownership with nearly 31 firearms per 100 people.
No.
So it was only a question of time before someone would shoot a soldier and yell Allahu Akbar and guns would be blamed.
Leftists, no matter where they are, are all the same.
So if the Allahu Akbar dude had not had a gun, why he would have probably used the bomb.
Which reminds me, I don't know why I've told this before.
I don't know why this just jogged into my head.
First time I flew to Sacramento for a job interview back in 1984, I go in, I do the job interview, and I head back to the airport.
I'm going to get on departing flights at Sacramento Intercontinental International, whatever it is.
And there are signs.
It's a cosmopolitan say, signs telling passengers what they can't take beyond this point.
And there's actually a picture of a bomb.
A cannonball bomb with a fuse coming out of it with a line drawn through it.
And I stopped and I stared at it.
I said, you're kidding me.
Seriously?
They have to put a sign up saying, no bombs?
And of course, there were no guns and whatever the order of the day was back in 1984.
But it's really, I've never forgotten.
Wish I would have been thinking, taking a picture of it.
But the guy would have used a bomb if they didn't have guns or what have you.
Anyway, my friends, it is what it is, and the powers that be are going to be doing pretzels, twisting themselves into every possible shape or form in order to deny the reality.
And it's a shame because if somebody really cared, if the authorities really cared to find out why this is happening, the answer is right in front of everybody's nose.
But the answer is one that the powers that be do not want to confront.
I don't want to have to admit that it's the answer.
And so they look for other plausible excuses, which just leads to further frustration among the general population.
It used to be, ladies and gentlemen, that David Rodham Gergen exemplified the conventional wisdom of the thinking inside the Washington Beltway.
David Rodham Gergen, whatever he said, whatever he thought, you could count on that being what everybody else in the power click thought and believed.
He was the arbiter, and may still be for many, of political correctness and conventional wisdom.
On CNN or wherever, nightline, you pick it, doing analysis, whatever David Rodham Gergen said, you could count on that being the conventional wisdom.
Well, I think it may be that that torch is being passed.
If not being passed, it's being shared.
John Heileman and Mark Halperin are quickly becoming the new arbiters of conventional wisdom in Washington.
They've written a couple of books.
They go on campaigns.
They gather all of this inside information that if they wrote about it as journalists during the campaign, it might have an impact on the outcome of the election.
But they don't share it.
They hold it.
They hold it for exclusive content for their book, books, which are published long after the election has taken place.
Last night on Bloomberg TV's, with all due respect, the title of the show, the co-host John Heileman had this to say about the Democrat Party and new polling on the 2014 midterm elections.
We've last seen polling that's been moving this direction pretty consistently for the last couple weeks.
I have resisted more than anybody the notion that a Republican wave has been forming, but the data is starting to look pretty striking.
That first number is now outside the margin of error, and the change, the trend line, is all bad for Democrats.
Not good.
I mean, when these guys, Heileman and Halperin, the new Gergen Rodham, Rodham Gergen, and when they make it official here that a Republican wave looks to be in the offing, I'm not saying they're right.
I'm saying all of Washington will get in line.
Well, pretty much all of it.
They're going to have their detractors because they have competitors.
They have people who would like to be thought of as the arbiters of conventional wisdom.
So you're going to have competitors who will disagree with them, but not very blatantly.
It'll be a respectful disagreement.
But these guys are clearly shooting for the title.
And Heileman says, yeah, we've seen the polling.
And it's been moving in this wave direction for the last couple weeks.
And I've resisted more than anybody the notion that this Republican wave has been forming, but the data starting to look pretty striking.
And that first number is now outside the margin of error and the change and that trend line, and that's all bad for Democrats.
And then Halperin, who's also a co-host of With All Due Respect, chimed in.
When voters start to think something's going to happen, it's much more likely to happen because voters are pretty savvy.
That's national.
If I look at some of these key races, it's very negative for Democrats in that data.
And that's new.
No, what's new is that key race data is beginning to look negative for Democrats.
Up until a week ago or two weeks ago, the national polling on be it a generic ballot or even throw a couple names in there, the national polling has looked like a huge Republican win.
But if you went to, say, North Carolina, the Democrat incumbent was still leading the challenger, Tom Tillis in this case, by a few points.
And in a couple of other states, even though this national trend appeared to make it look like a Republican wave or sweep, some of these key local races or state races showed something just the opposite.
Now, what Halperin is saying is that some of these key races now, which used to provide a different picture than the national polling, are starting to line up.
And we talked about this yesterday.
What happens with polling, you know it as well as I do.
The Democrat Party and the media are in charge of polling, and they use it to shape public opinion.
They use it to influence people.
Everybody wants to be in the majority.
Everybody wants to think that everybody thinks like they do or that they think like everybody else does.
So they'll publish polls that show a majority of people like Obamacare, a majority of people like Obama, whatever it is.
A majority of people, yeah, may like the Republicans, but really don't want the Republicans running.
And they'll run that all year long, trying to make it look like the Republicans, yeah, it should be their year and they do well, but they're not going to control anything.
And they try to get people believing that this Republican sweep or wave or whatever isn't going to happen.
And that's done to shape public opinion.
That's done to manipulate people into forming a conclusion that pollsters in the Democratic Party wants.
However, polling has a second phase, and that begins as we get to about now.
A month, five weeks, six weeks out from the election, the polling then, the results, all of a sudden begin to reflect a more accurate projection of the outcome.
Because a month, five weeks, six weeks out, the pollsters have to think of their credibility.
They know that nobody's going to remember a poll in June or July that had the Democrats sitting pretty.
Nobody's going to remember a poll even in September that said the Republicans weren't going to pull it off.
But they might remember a poll in late October, mid-October, which shows the Republicans not winning.
And then if the Republicans win, it looks bad for their poll.
So about now, they have to start shifting the polling results to actually reflect the reality as expressed by the poll.
And that's what these guys are saying.
We've seen the polling.
It's been moving in this direction pretty consistently the last couple of weeks.
Yes, because now you have to be truthful with it.
And I've resisted more than anybody this notion that a Republican wave has been forming, right, because we've been trying to prevent that.
But the data, it's starting to look pretty striking.
Now we've got to get real, and we failed.
We tried to stop this Republican wave with all of our polling in September and August, July, but it looks to be all for naught because the data that we've got now looks pretty bad for the Democrats.
And then Halperin climbs in and says, yeah, and you know something?
When the voters say they expect something to happen, then it's pretty likely to happen because the voters are pretty smart.
Really?
How often do they actually say or think that?
But that's what Halperin said.
When voters start to think something's going to happen, well, you know, they're pretty savvy, and that's national.
If you look at some of these key races, very negative for Democrats, meaning these races in these states where it looked like toss-up, now it's starting to shift where it's always had.
My point is, it probably always has been where it is now.
But in the weeks and months previous, they've monkeyed the results a little bit, Jimmy, to make it look not as bad so as not to dispirit Democrat voters.
They need massive turnout from women and African Americans.
Oh, how could I have forgotten?
Do you, folks?
I'm going to mention this.
I'm not going to get into it right now, but I haven't seen this anywhere.
But where I found it last night, you football fans, the Seattle Seahawks, what reminded me of this African-American, Seattle Seahawks traded wide receiver Percy Harvin, and the word leaked out because he was a clubhouse cancer.
He was ready to explode.
He was causing dissension in the ranks.
He was not a team player.
All this stuff started leaking out.
So they traded him to the Jets.
The Jets got him for very little because the Seahawks wanted to unload the gun, but nobody could figure out why.
I mean, he's a great player, but he wasn't showing up.
He was saying he couldn't play, refused to go in the game.
It turns out there's a story last night.
There is huge dissension in the Seahawks locker room over their quarterback, Russell Wilson.
He's not black enough.
I am not kidding.
Some guy named Mike Freeman writing at bleacherreport.com says he has heard this.
It's coming from the locker.
It almost parallels the situation with Donovan McNabb and T.O., Terrell Owens.
Owens accused McNabb of being too close to management, too white, too well-spoken, not down for the struggle.
And apparently, according to this Mike Freeman guy, the same thing is happening in the Seahawks, that Russell Wilson is out there doing all this PR PSAs and all his charity work and getting all this great puff piece media.
But he's too close to management.
He's not black enough and so forth.
And Percy Harvin just resented the hell.
And they had to get rid of Harvin because this was all going to blow up.
Now, people writing about this say they don't want to write.
They're very uncomfortable mentioning this, but that it has to be mentioned because their sources are telling them this is going on.
Denials, of course, are all over the place about this.
But the story does say this kind of thing extends well beyond NFL locker rooms.
Not black enough.
We've talked, there have been stories on this program in the course of 25 years where that has come up about some people.
Not black enough or they do too well in school.
That's being too white.
But apparently this whole thing has permeated, infiltrated the Seattle Seahawks locker room.
Now, I got to take a brief time out.
I have that other thing.
See, nothing gets past us here, folks.
By the way, that article on Russell Wilson not being black enough for some players on the Seattle Seahawks, that same article claims that teammates believe that Russell Wilson is unwilling to take responsibility for bad throws.
It's always, it's never his fault.
Some players are complaining.
It's never his fault.
Russell never screws up.
Somebody dropped a good pass, somebody ran a wrong route, but it's never his fault.
So things are effervescing out there.
And again, it's a story from, the guy's name is Mike Freeman, I think.
Bleacherreport.com.
I have it here.
I hadn't intended to get to it yet.
Here's Judy, Fort Myers, Florida.
Hi, Judy.
I'm glad you called.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Hey.
What a thrill this is.
I've been wanting to tell you for about 20 years that you almost personally, almost single-handedly, turned me from the dark side of liberalism.
Just an amazing, amazing thing to grow up listening to you all these years.
So thank you.
You know what?
I envy you.
I've never had a chance to grow up listening to me.
Well, I called about the shooting of the terrorist attack in Canada.
I heard a couple of Canadian officials yesterday say that they were shocked at what happened because Canada is a peaceful nation.
And I just, I sat up in my chair and just bristled when I heard that.
I thought, wait a minute, America is a peaceful nation.
What a peaceful nation.
Or are they saying that we aren't a peaceful nation and we deserve to be attacked?
No, no, no, no.
Let me tell you what that means.
That's a great, great point.
Let me tell you what it means.
It's the same thing Obama was telling voters in the 08 campaign.
Elect me and the bad people in the world will no longer hate us.
I'm not Bush.
They hated Bush and they were right to hate Bush.
Bush lied.
People died.
There were no weapons of mass destruction.
Bush and Cheney and five years.
And Obama comes along and promised that the United States would once again be loved and all of this evil would somehow slink away and we would all become unified.
Because finally, for once, for maybe the first time in 200 plus years, the world would see the United States as just another nation, not a superpower threatening them.
And they were going to love us.
And it'd be the end of these kinds of conflicts.
And as a bonus, the sea levels will start to come back down.
And the planet will begin to heal.
And all of this puke city rotgut.
The thing is, they believe this to a certain extent.
So when you hear this guy in Canada say, I'm surprised, we're a peace-loving country.
Don't they know?
That's what he means.
Don't they know we don't mean them any harm?
Don't they know we're not like Bush or some Americans?
We're a peace-loving country.
Don't they know?
That's what he means.
That's why it's dangerous having these namby pambies in position of power.
They think just their presence, their goodness, their decency, as they think it exists, is how you vanquish evil.
They're clueless.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Rush Limbaugh having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz happens to disagree with the Inside the Beltway conventional wisdom as expressed by John Heileman and Mark Halperin that there is going to be a Republican wave.
She says there's no way.
Not only is there no Republican wave, the Democrats are expanding the map.
Oh, absolutely not.
And just to give you evidence of that, I mean, who would have thought that less than two weeks before Election Day, the Republicans would have to be worried about losing a gubernatorial and a Senate race in Kansas, in South Dakota, in Georgia, in Kentucky.
I mean, these are blood-red states.
And normally the president's party in a second-term, midterm loses an average of 29 seats.
I would say that there's a good chance that we either don't lose seats or at best single digits in either direction.
We're expanding the map, and the Republicans' map is constricting.
Now that, in addition to being inane and delusional, is denial.
I mean, even if we're, they're going to lose.
She admits you're going to lose, but it isn't going to be a wave.
And the Republicans, they're not.
Oh, no.
They're going to win, but they're not expanding.
And the Democrats are going to lose, and they are expanding the map.
That's her job.
I understand it.
But nobody wants her in this job.
But for some reason, they can't get rid of her.
They've tried to get rid of her, and she won't go away.
She got something on somebody.
She making threats somewhere.
They don't want this woman in charge.
I mean, and it's hard to understand why.
She's ideal.
She's loud.
She's boisterous.
She lies about the Republicans as good as anybody does.
She's offensive.
She's coarse.
Everything you would think you would want in a party spokesman.
But for some reason, they've tried to get rid of Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz and she just, she won't go away.
She even did that big makeover.
You know, she was Renee Zellweger before Renee Zellweger was.
Do you know the USA Today has another four or five pages on her today?
And the Washington Post had five pages on Renee Zellweger and her, she does, she looks, she just looks different.
This, this, this is a.
This is more than if she looks totally different to me.
Some people wouldn't recognize her.
You had to point out that's Renee Zellweger.
Okay.
All right.
That's not the point to me.
The point to me is, hey, she's a woman.
She's an actress.
She can do whatever she wants.
Why does it rate five pages?
Why does her plastic surgery rate five in the Washington Post?
She's being hounded about it.
She's being lampooned about it.
And I thought by all these institutions I thought loved women and respected the choices women make and stood for the choices that women.
She being lambasted by media people that I always assume would be on her side as liberals.
But I'm not conducting a war on this woman over her plastic surgery.
It all does.
It comes down to what you look like.
For liberals, the surface is everything.
That's the first thing they notice about anybody.
How they look, skin color first, sexual orientation second, because that'll tell them everything else they need to know, they think.
Yeah.
Anyway, I just I'm amazed because if you follow the news, if you're from Mars and just landed here, you would think it would be mean-spirited war-on-women Republicans that would be behind this, but it's not.
It's the sensitive, understanding, tolerant, caring left, which is pages after pages after pages and stories after stories after stories saying, what did she do?
Clearly disapproving it, clearly thinking this doesn't look good.
I mean, that's the unspoken theme in every one of these stories.
What was she doing?
Well, yeah, but Pelosi, I mean, when she gets work done, you still know it's Pelosi.
I mean, she can't close her eyes, but at least you still know it's Pelosi.
And you still know that it's Boxer.
This is going to shock people.
Anyway, Ray Rice.
I have a feeling that the NFL may end up regretting something.
I don't know.
But Ray Rice wants to return to the NFL.
And he wants to cash in on what's happened to him.
He has filed a grievance against the Baltimore Ravens for wrongful termination of his $3.5 million contract.
He's going after the salary that he would be owed this season if he played after he had served his original two-game suspension.
He says, after that, whatever added suspension is double jeopardy.
Now, it's not legally double jeopardy because it doesn't apply, but in principle, he's been punished twice for the same offense.
And the second punishment is really, really punitive.
I mean, it's banned him from the league.
And so he's suing them.
He wants to play.
He wants his money.
And he's appealing his indefinite suspension.
And his legal team are arguing that he can't be punished twice for the same crime.
And I just, what happened clearly was a case of political correctness demanding knee-jerk reaction.
Once that inside the elevator video was seen, then everybody had to move fast and cover up what they thought was the original mistake of not suspending him more than two games.
Now, here is the story that I found it at a place called theBigLead.com.
That's where the story, this story quotes Mike Freeman at Bleacher Report.
So the headline, Russell Wilson isn't black enough, Seahawks players allegedly say.
And here's a pull quote from the story.
This again was similar to the situation with Donovan McNabb versus Terrell Owens.
And this again will be denied by Seattle people, but there is an element of this.
This is an issue that extends outside of football into African-American society, though it's gotten better recently.
Well-spoken blacks are seen by some other blacks as not completely black, and some of this is at play.
That's Mike Freeman at Bleacher Report.
After Percy Harmon was traded to the Jets, the leaks began almost immediately.
Harvin physically fought teammates.
Harvin pulled himself out of games.
Harvin may have been about to launch a mutiny against Russell Wilson.
Though presumably Wilson's camp spread word through Chris Mortensen at ESPN that Russell Wilson wanted to keep Harvin and help the troubled receiver through his anger and trust issues.
It seemed as someone watching from afar without inside access that Harvin's alleged issues with Wilson held the most efficacy in his ouster.
Now, see what they're getting at here is Harvin didn't like Wilson for a whole host of reasons.
A, wasn't black enough.
B, all a phony, just lapdog PR, all a charitable, Russell Wilson, perfect, just like Derek Jeter.
Does everything right, never makes a mistake, loved by everybody.
When he screws up, never takes the blame, always shifts it to somebody else.
And that combination of things led to Percy Harvin just being unable to cope.
And this story points out that Percy Harvin had a lot of friends on that team who agreed with him.
So it goes on to talk about a divided clubhouse, but the quarterback rules the day.
It's another wide receiver that learned the quarterback's going to win if you get in a fight with him, and you're going to be the one gone.
So they traded him.
And now the Jets have him.
Bleacher reports Mike Freeman shed some light on issues that Harvin had with Wilson and seemed to back an assertion that the Seahawks feared Harvin wouldn't be alone in a coalition against a quarterback.
Players said that Percy Harvin was an accelerant in a locker room that was quickly dividing between Wilson and anti-Wilson.
And there's also an element of race that needs to be discussed.
Now, my feeling, I'm reading here from thebiglead.com.
Or maybe this is Mike Freeman.
This story mixes what Freeman has written with what the writer of this story thinks.
And sometimes it's hard to tell who's saying what.
Players said that Harvin was an accelerant in a locker room quickly dividing between Wilson and anti-Wilson.
There's also an element of race that needs to be discussed.
My feeling on this, and it's backed up by several interviews with Seahawks players, is that some of the black players think Wilson isn't black enough.
I think that's from the Mike Freeman Bleacher report story.
And it continues.
This, again, was similar to the situation with McNabb and Terrell Owens.
And this will also be denied by Seattle people, but there is an element of this.
This is an issue that extends outside of football into African-American society, though it's gotten better recently.
Well-spoken blacks are seen by some other blacks as not completely black, and some of this is at play.
Now, Freeman notes that he doesn't agree with some of the Seattle players' sentiment.
He cites a tweet from a Daily News reporter that Marshawn Lynch, running back, Seahawks, was mad and almost didn't board the team bus when he found out that Harvin was traded, but eventually he did.
And then there's this little add-on here.
Greg Bishop, Sports Illustrated, profiled.
Get this now.
I didn't see it, but this past August, Sports Illustrated did a profile of Russell Wilson's friends.
And they're all white.
This past August, SI's Greg Bishop profiled Wilson's entourage, all of whom are white guys.
Wilson appears in too many commercials to count.
There always seem to be cameras around for his community service work.
Announcers always talk about his hard work and devotion to the game.
Since he entered the league, he's demonstrated precociousness and the Derek Jeter, art of speaking in a manner that'll draw praise from the media but convey nothing of discernible value.
So they're clearly setting this up.
And I just want to point out again that all of this is being said and discussed and analyzed by a bunch of people on the left, folks.
It's not a bunch of conservatives that run around saying he's not black enough.
It's not a bunch of conservative reporters that are trying to get this.
I am repeating it, but this whole black enough stuff and all this dissension and the fact that Percy Harvard or that Russell Wilson's entourage is all white guys, that's all the liberal sports media.
They are the ones that have race on the brain.
It isn't.
No, no, if you're looking, if you're trying to find the reference to Russell Wilson's entourage being all white, you will not find that at Bleacher Report Mike Freeman.
That's sports illustrated in August.
And then Greg Bishop.
And that story was referenced in the overall story where I found all of this at thebiglead.com.
Our show prep knows no bounds.
Here is Lori in York, Pennsylvania.
You're up next.
It's great to have you here.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Nice to talk to you.
I have three points that I think are important.
One is about the Quebec hit and run that happened on Monday.
That was a convert to Islam that killed a Canadian soldier.
Right.
And he was being followed by federal investigators because they thought he had jihadist ambitions.
And they seized his passport when he tried to travel to Turkey.
The next point is.
But wait, no, no, wait a second now.
This seizing of the passport is not.
I mean, I know they do it to keep them from traveling and joining ISIS, but it's not stopping them, is it?
No.
No.
Okay, your next point.
It's just keeping them in the country to do damage inside the country.
Well, no, no, I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that if you think, if authorities think that seizing a passport is going to stop them from engaging in jihad, it isn't.
Right.
And in fact, it may help you identify the ones that are going to act.
But I'm afraid that they think, okay, we've seized a passport.
We've dealt with that threat.
And that's obviously not the case.
That's my only point.
Right.
So that was a terrorist attack on Monday.
That was a terrorist attack yesterday.
Did you hear about the one of the 19-year-old boy here in New Jersey in June who was killed by Ali Muhammad Brown, who, when he was caught, admitted to three other murders in Seattle?
And he told authorities that he was doing his small part as vengeance for U.S. actions in the Middle East.
So that was a terrorist attack also.
And then the one that happened in Oklahoma, the beheading, the man that they called Alton Nolan, he was a convert to Islam.
And he changed his name, which nobody ever told anybody about, Joaquin Yisrael.
And from images on his Facebook page of terrorists, his captions were, these are some of my Muslim brothers.
These were jihadi terrorists that he said this about.
Okay, so your point is.
Well, these are terrorist attacks within our country, too, and nobody's even talking about it.
We're focused on Canada right now, and they are admitting that they're terrorist attacks, but why aren't we admitting it here?
Well, why aren't we?
I don't know.
Yes, you do.
There's any number of reasons that, depending on your perspective, would even make sense.
A, everything is political.
That's number one.
Number two, they could be saying, hey, we don't want to panic anyway.
We're not going to call it terror.
And don't discount this one.
And this is hard to believe.
But don't discount cowardice.
I'm telling you that a bunch of people on the left are afraid of these.
And they think the last thing they want to do is provoke them.
So don't call them on what they're doing.
And they may not do it again, or they may not be mean, or they may not, whatever.
But the overall thinking is, let's not confront them.
Oh, no, no, no, that would be bad.
That would just make them mad.
It's the left's approach on crime to begin with.
You know, hey, no, no, don't call those communists communists.
If you remember, back during the Cold War, Soviets were not communists.
It was taboo to call them communists.
It was too simplistic.
It was not nuanced.
And besides, it was provocative.
So when Reagan called them the evil empire, oh my God, you needed mass adult diapers for the State Department.
They couldn't deal with it.
One big, exciting, busy broadcast hour remains Rush Limbo, the EIB network.
U.S. to produce more oil and gas than Russia for decades.
▲
Export Selection