All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 27, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
October 27, 2014, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Okay, so let me see if I understand this.
The states want to set up their own Ebola quarantines.
Why would they want to do that?
That's because they don't trust the federal government's quarantine protocols, right?
Means they don't trust the CDC.
Means they don't trust Obama.
The Ebola czar, who has yet to make an appearance, they had a 27 member meeting, though.
They had an Ebola meeting with 27 people.
Problem solved.
Greetings, my friends.
Great to have you here, kicking off a brand new week of broadcast excellence behind the Golden EIB microphone, the telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, and the email address, ilrushbow at EIBnet.com.
So one week before the election, we have here a bunch of states that are deciding to do their own quarantines, and the regime is flipping out.
Obama and his gang are flipping out.
They want to be in total control of the quarantines.
And so one week before the election, once again, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has caved and is seen as we need to quarantine Chris Christie is what needs to happen here, folks.
This is the second election in a row.
One week prior to the election, the governor of New Jersey ends up, well, I don't know, arm in arm, hand in hand, in bed whiff.
I don't know how to characterize it.
But responding to Obama's demands.
I'm sorry.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I really think the Republicans ought to make sure that Governor Christie gets quarantined.
From now on, once we get to a week before an election, we need to find a way here.
He finds himself in the middle here again, taking center stage of another national crisis with another Obama hug moment, and Governor Kumo doing the same thing.
But that kind of makes sense because Governor Kumo and Obama are in the same party.
Now, and yeah, no, I've got Hillary.
Hillary's at the top of the stack, and we'll get to that.
We're going to get to all of it here today, folks.
We've got, as is the usual case, a full load, if you will.
But I hope all those people who complain about Barack Hussein-O being such a hands-off president, notice how quickly he acted to try to stop New York and New Jersey and Illinois from quarantining people coming back from Ebola countries.
That was an impressive show of power, don't you think?
Already, Cuomo and Christie have been forced to cave before Obama's onslaught.
So it's really clear that Obama can act and he can act fast when it's something that really matters to him, such as making sure that people who might have Ebola aren't cooped up for 21 days.
This is unbelievable to me, but it's happening right before our very eyes.
I mean, who do these governors trying to protect?
Who are they?
The presidents in their state think that they are.
The residents in their states say that who's trying to be protected here?
They are doctors, these governors.
They're not doctors.
They have no background whatsoever.
They're just political hacks.
They should realize they need to concede any such decision to the Ebola Tsar.
I know the Ebola Tsar knows nothing about Ebola.
I'm being facetious here.
It all started with this nurse who didn't want to be quarantined to hell with you.
You remember Nancy Snyderman?
I don't know.
You let her run around and go to the food, the soup Nazi place.
Well, I want to do the same thing.
It is.
It's totally, it's classic.
I don't know.
It's there's no adult in charge.
Yeah, the nurse says she's going to hire a civil rights lawyer and everybody.
You know what I was thinking about earlier today?
Just a brief aside here.
You know how after every election we get a book.
Somebody writes a book with all the things that happen in a campaign that we would love to have known during the campaign.
But they withhold all that stuff for their book afterwards, where it can't be of any use other than selling the book.
So I want to know who is writing the Ebola book.
When are we going to find out the rest of this story?
Every time a scandal breaks or every time Obama breaks something, I always wonder what reporter is withholding what we should know right now for his or her book that will come out after it's all said and done, a year after Obama leaves office.
We'll probably get the true story on Amnesty, the true story on Ebola, and how they were all tied together from the Oval Office, but we will not know that, even though there are probably people who know that and could document it now, we will not be told that.
We'll be left to surmise that.
And after the fact, we'll get another book that explains all of these details.
Yeah, and speaking of books, Cheryl Atkinson's book is out, and there's a couple of real blockbuster charges.
And it's not just her details of bias.
You know what someone did?
Somebody planted, somebody hacked her computer.
Somebody from the regime, she's not sure who, but she knows this happened.
She's the former reporter from CBS that tried to cover Fast and Furious, tried to cover Benghazi, and was shut down by her network, by the White House, shut down by everybody.
And she has revealed that something that we all know, the assignment editors inside all of these networks actually make decisions on what stories to cover based on whether they will or will not help Obama and the Democrat Party.
I mean, she documents it.
Again, we know this.
It's crystal clear to anybody paying attention, but she documents it.
But somebody in the regime hacked her computer and planted a classified document on it.
And the only reason to do that would be then to later on charge her with hacking and charge her with illegal possession of classified documents when she had nothing to do with it.
She found it buried or somebody found it for her deeply rooted on her computer.
I mean, they were doing all kinds of things to set this woman up.
And they didn't just shut her down.
They were prepared to try to do some lasting damage to her career and her reputation.
But that, again, that brief description just barely scratches the surface.
And of course, Mrs. Hillary Channel, I tell you, this Hillary statement on businesses don't create jobs.
Look, folks, she doesn't even really believe that.
This is the point.
This is how deranged and filled with lunatics the Democrat Party base is.
She is saying that.
And the fact that she said that tells me how afraid of Elizabeth Warren she is.
Elizabeth Warren's been running around.
We know her pet phrase, you didn't build that, Mr. Factory Oner.
You didn't build that, Mr. Business Owner.
You didn't do that.
You couldn't have done that without all of us.
We paid the taxes to build the roads.
We paid the taxes to build the bridges.
We paid the taxes for the stop.
We made your business possible.
You didn't build that.
Now, that's one of these outrageous.
And Obama echoed it.
We start laughing at it, thinking, nobody's going to buy this.
It's asinine.
But the Democrat Party base not only buys it, they want to hear it.
And there have been rumblings about Elizabeth Warren seeking the White House, and that's laughable too, except to them.
The Democrat Party base all jazzed about it.
The fact that Hillary's out there now pointing out that businesses don't create jobs, that trickle-down doesn't work, and we've proven it.
I mean, if it weren't for Trickle Down, her husband would not have had a roaring economy in the 1990s.
But that's not the point.
I don't want to get distracted here by debating the point of Trickle Down because it works and all this, and that businesses don't create jobs.
She's just saying this is the thing that everybody here has to know.
That's what her base is demanding to hear.
They want confrontation.
They are filled with rage.
They are filled with hatred.
This is the kind of crap that happened all during the Iraq war.
These kind of inane, asinine, genuinely stupid statements and claims that their base rapidly, and I mean that literally, rapidly embraces and supports and demands to hear all the time.
They are really demoralized.
The Democrat Party base, profoundly demoralized.
Look, if you were in that base, you would be too.
You just got your nirvana six years ago.
You got your Messiah, got Obama elected, and he's implemented a lot of what you believe in, and the country's falling apart.
And there's no happiness, and there's no joy in Mudville or anywhere else.
There aren't any jobs.
There is no equality.
We've got racial strife in the NFL.
We got wife beating in the NFL.
We got black enough in a league that's 80% black in the NFL.
Nothing's happy.
There's no joy anywhere.
You would be too if everything you believed in was allowed to happen, permitted to happen for six straight years and a mess ensued.
How many times are they going to say, yeah, well, you know, we just didn't have enough money.
Yeah, well, you know, we just didn't have the right guy.
You couldn't get a better right guy than Obama, right?
It was a messiah.
He was the one we were all waiting for.
We're the ones we're all.
I mean, so they're sitting out there.
They're alternate states of denial, rage, anger.
And so Mrs. Clinton, and the reason I think this is important, maybe I'm whistling in the dark here, but the Republican Party is the competitor.
The Republican Party is going to be running against Hillary or Elizabeth Warren or whoever gets that nomination.
And this, well, yeah, they're going to be the other team on the ballot.
Let's not split hairs here.
My point is, it would serve them well to understand what they're up against.
And my only point, okay, don't believe that Hillary really thinks businesses don't create jobs.
She knows it's not true.
Look at all the jobs Whitewater created.
Look at all the jobs, probably the FBI files that she and her husband purloined and had for all those years.
Look at all the jobs Monica Lewinsky got.
Don't tell me that businesses don't create jobs.
She knows they do.
Her husband knows that they do, but she has to say that.
She has to say, that's the kind of people voting for Democrats.
That's what we're up against.
And I just think all information helps when you get into a campaign knowing who it is that you are opposing.
Anyway, this is a little bit of a setting the table.
There's much more in addition to all of this.
Obama's post-election plans for a secret radical agenda.
New York Post.
And remember, Obama has said he's going to stay in Washington after his term.
I don't know if he's actually going to do it, but he said he's going to.
Presidents don't do that.
They go back wherever, home, new home, and he has bought a couple places, but he said he's going to have a place in Washington.
There's only one reason to do that, and that's to protect the agenda.
Now, these people, unlike Republican presidents who, when their time in office is over, they skedaddle.
And if everything they believed in begins to be unraveled, they just sit tight and say, yep, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles.
But that's not the way Obama is going to be.
If the next president, or whoever it is, begins to unravel or tries to unravel the Obama agenda, he's going to stay in Washington.
He's going to speak up about it every day.
He's going to have the media in the palm of his hand.
That'll never change.
And this new Republican president is going to be tarred and feathered every day, originated by Obama, although his fingerprints won't be on it.
Well, maybe they will.
He may not have any compunction about speaking out.
So now there's this story in the New York Post by Paul Sperry, a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of A Great American Bank Robbery, which exposes the racial politics behind the mortgage crisis of prime mortgage.
It's his article here called Obama's Post-Election Plans for a Secret Radical Agenda.
Meaning, even when his term ends, the implementation of what he believes doesn't.
These people are in it for real.
It's not just something to win and lose every four or eight years and then do the most with while you're in power.
This is all these people live for.
Got to take a quick time out.
We'll come back.
We'll continue as we get started with another full week of busy broadcast excellence right here at the EIB's Southern Command.
Welcome back, folks.
Rushland Boy having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Somebody help me out here.
Is it just me?
Or didn't the CDC used to say that it was up to the state health departments to come up with how they were going to handle potential Ebola patients?
Didn't the CDC say that?
It sounds familiar to me, but I guess that's all out the window now.
The states have no say in what they can or can't quarantine or who they can or cannot quarantine.
But don't try to take a bag of oranges into California or you're going to be facing jail time.
Don't you dare try to take your dogs to Hawaii.
If you do that, your dogs are going to be quarantined for 120 days.
But somebody with Ebola coming back from an African, or somebody that's on the verge of, we can't, no way.
We can't discriminate.
You know why?
You know why we can't do this?
The argument, the whole argument against quarantining health workers coming back from Ebola countries is that doing that will discourage other doctors and nurses from going over to West Africa to help out.
You see?
People will gladly put their lives on the line to try to help Ebola patients in Africa, but they won't put up with the inconvenience of being quarantined for 21 days in order to protect the lives of their family and others here at home.
I can see that.
I'm being sarcastic for those of you in Rio Linda.
Which leads me to another question.
What is boy, this is really thin ice.
Maybe I shouldn't ask this question.
No, I'll go ahead.
I'll put it out there.
What is the point in going to a Western African country to help with Ebola if when you come back you refuse or object to being quarantined so that if you're contagious, you will not spread the disease.
Why?
If you're willing to go over there and help contain it, then why do you not wish to do the same thing when you get what's the point?
Are these people just trying to show how good they are?
We're good people.
We care.
What is this?
Is it about them?
Are they doing this to get noticed?
Are they doing this for PR?
Are they doing this for image enhancement?
Are they doing it because they really believe in the cause?
Governor Kubo said that if we quarantine you, we will cover the wages that you lose.
Anyway, it's all out the window now.
Because Obama, this is the UK Daily Mail.
Obama forces Chris Christie into embarrassing U-Turn to allow Ebola nurse to leave New Jersey quarantine tent.
Chris Christie was forced today to allow a nurse being kept in a tent in a hospital parking lot to go home in Maine after intense White House pressure to relax a mandatory 21-day quarantine that Christie had imposed at a state level.
The embarrassing turnaround came after Obama chaired a White House meeting on a rules and successfully lobbied Christie's New York counterpart, Governor Andrew Cuomo, to relax their quarantine rules, even as Americans grow more concerned about the possibility of a pandemic emergency.
Cuomo gave in on behalf of New Yorkers, but as of Sunday, Christie was still pushing for more aggressive measures to protect New Jersey and saying he had no second thoughts about the policy.
However, it says here that Christie is a likely entrant into the 2016 Republican Party presidential primary, and the intergovernmental Ebola skirmishes will provide both major political parties with new ammunition.
And that's why I say here we are one week.
One week before an election, and once again, we have a Republican governor caving or seeking to be seen arm in arm hand in hand with the President of the United States.
As I say, quarantine some governors, folks.
I mean, really.
Hey, we're back, Rush Limbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
By the way, something else coming up on the program today.
The media is starting to spin the election results via poll analysis.
I'll just give you an example here.
There's an Associated Press story that ran yesterday, and it was actually run.
It was a little dispatch for editors and producers at websites, newsrooms, so forth, clients of the AP.
GOP Advantage, Advisory, U.S.
And here was the note to editors and producers from the AP.
Early voting has started in states nationwide, and Election Day is drawing near.
I guess the AP doesn't know whether people working at news bureaus know that or not, so they had to remind them.
And when the votes begin to be counted, the Republican Party will have a built-in advantage as it seeks to keep control of the House of Representatives.
The reason?
A years-long plan by Republican strategists to take advantage of the 2010 census and reshape congressional districts in key states to pack large numbers of Democrats into relatively few House districts while GOP voters are spread out more evenly.
So it's a little piece on gerrymandering, but the point is, when is the last time you ever heard early voting helps Republicans?
I don't think I don't remember ever hearing that.
I have never heard a Republican tell me, man, I love this early voting.
You realize what a leg up it gives us.
It's the exact opposite.
The conventional wisdom is that early voting is rife with early voting Democrats, many of them voting even though they're dead, many of them voting numerous times in different places as different people.
In other words, a lot of fraud going on out there.
But I've never heard early voting tagged as a Republican advantage.
So the purpose of this story is to prepare these editors and producers in these newsrooms that are clients of the AP that it looks like a big Republican win is coming and here's why.
And they're basically saying Republicans have cheated because the Republicans took the 2010 census and they redrew the districts to help themselves as though it's never been done before.
And with public education the way it is, you may have a whole bunch.
I mean, based on Cheryl Atkinson book, it's frightening the people in positions of authority and power who are determining what is news and what isn't and how it gets covered.
And it quite very well be that there might be some people in high-ranking positions in newsrooms, editors and so forth producers, who do not know that gerrymandering has been used forever.
They might really think this is a first-time Republican trick.
But even if they don't, even if they know what it is, the point is the AP is starting to spin now that the Republicans are going to win.
And this is not a story for the public.
Now, it may be used by editors in stories that are then reported, written, aired for the public.
But the point is AP is starting to spin this.
And I've noticed this in a couple of other stories today.
They're starting to spin, meaning they're starting to explain why the Republicans are going to win.
And in this case, it's not because the Republicans are preferred.
Oh, no.
It's not because the Democrats are hated and despised.
Oh, no.
It's not because people are dissatisfied with the Democrats.
No way, Jose.
Nope.
The reason the Republicans are going to win is because of 2010 and they got to redraw the districts.
This is just about house races, not the Senate.
But since I am able to read the stitches on the fastball, I see this stuff.
I see what they're doing and why.
And it's just another little indication, not something that you should take to the bank or make a big bet on, but it's just another of many little indications that the drive-bys think that the Democrats are in for a drubbing.
Now, you can find stories that suggest the opposite, too.
It's not as though it's all just a one-way street.
So that's just a little bit more table setting.
Let's go to Mrs. Clinton's audio sound bite.
This is, where was she yesterday?
Is a campaign event for Martha Coakley in Massachusetts.
It's not coincidental that she says this in Massachusetts.
That's where Elizabeth Warren is from.
And Elizabeth Warren is being touted, kid you not, by a bunch of people on the left as the successor to Obama.
And they love her for one reason.
You didn't build that.
You can't, you cannot cream capitalism in one sentence better than Elizabeth Warren and Hillary have tried to do here.
Mr. Factory Owner, Mr. Business Owner, you didn't build it.
We built it for you.
You're just greedy.
You're just selfish.
And you're unfairly successful.
And you're unfairly rich because it was sweat and toil and taxes and work of all of the little people that made it possible for you.
And are you sharing it?
No.
Are you giving it back?
No.
Are you paying fair wages?
No.
You didn't build that.
That's what the Democrat base just can't get enough of.
So Hillary goes in to campaign for Martha Coakley running for governor in Massachusetts.
And this is just a portion.
This is the money part of what she said.
Don't let anybody tell you that, you know, it's corporations and businesses that create jobs.
You know, that old theory, trickle-down economics.
That has been tried.
That has failed.
It has failed rather spectacularly.
You know, one of the things my husband says when people say, well, you know, what did you bring to Washington?
He said, well, I brought arithmetic.
Now, I may be on a limb here.
You may disagree.
She may really believe it.
I don't think she does.
There's no way.
I mean, this is so asinine.
If businesses don't create jobs, corporations, then who does?
I mean, if you work for GE, who do you work for?
If you work for the EIB network, who do you work for?
I mean, the government didn't create these jobs.
But again, this is what Democrat voters consider red meat.
This is what they want.
They want their hate massaged.
They want their rage-filled hate for successful people fed.
And Mrs. Clinton is more than, you should see the video of this.
She intended to say this is not a gaffe.
This is not a slip-up.
She's rubbing her hands together leading up to this line.
She can't wait to deliver this line.
And I guarantee you that the Elizabeth Warren, you didn't build it, is a factor in this.
But it's so asinine.
The bit about trickle-down, that is an attack on Reaganomics.
An old theory, trick about economics.
It's been tried.
It's failed.
No, it worked overwhelmingly.
It's called capitalism, and it works every time it's tried.
But you know what this gets to?
I have been talking in the past month or so about trying to explain how it is that people can live through robust, thriving, growing, abundant economic times for, let's say, six of the eight years of Reagan.
The first two were in a recession from Carter and we're coming out of it.
But overall, on balance, those six years of Reagan reducing the deficit, reducing unemployment, growing the economy at record levels.
The economic growth was so robust, it continued into the 90s.
Bill Clinton's tax increases were not even enough to kill it off.
And Clinton benefited tremendously from it.
And yet people that live through it can easily be persuaded that it failed, that Trickle Down is a failed theory, even though they lived through it.
Even though their economic times had never been better and are abundantly worse now, they can still be made to believe that years of abundance and prosperity didn't happen or only happened for a few or were fake, fraudulent.
And I know the answer.
I know the reason why.
It's because the Republican Party doesn't champion those events, doesn't explain why things are working, and more importantly, does not explain.
Even today, there's a golden opportunity out there for the Republican Party to explain this mess.
There's a golden opportunity for the Republican Party to explain all this lack of respect for authority on Ebola.
Whatever the issue, economics, debt, lack of jobs, welfare state growing, general may, whatever it is, there's a reason all this is happening.
It's called liberalism.
It's called the Democrat Party.
It's called Obama.
It's called his policies.
And you don't even have to make it personal to illustrate it.
Republicans are afraid they're going to be accused of personally attacking the first black president.
But there's a way of explaining to the American people why this isn't working and what the solution is.
And if when things work, the Republican Party would then take the time to explain why it's working, it may well be that people would remember it and continue to prefer it.
But since that is absent, the Republican vote is always more of a protest vote, like it looks like this one's going to be.
People get mad with the Democrats.
They get mad at the things Democrats cause and they want to change.
So they'll vote the other guys.
But after a while, they'll feel it's safe to go back because the other party is not doing a good job of communicating what it believes in, why what it believes works, real world examples being offered at the same time.
So Mrs. Clinton's simply taking advantage of that.
She's taking advantage of the fact that the history revisionism of the 1980s is still there.
Trickle down doesn't work.
Trickle down is unfair.
Trickle down, rich got richer, poor got poorer.
Trickle down, yeah, well, the reason it didn't work is because the rich don't share their money.
They take it from everybody and then they hoard it and they don't give it away and they don't share it and they don't give people raises, whatever the hell it is.
It's all lies.
And she knows this is all lies.
But her base wants to hear it.
The Democrat, your average Democrat voter demands to hear this.
If she doesn't say it, she doesn't have a prayer of getting a nomination if there's somebody else out there who will say it, such as Elizabeth Warren.
Let's go back to July 13th, 2012, Roanoke, Virginia.
President Obama wanted to get in on the act himself.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help if you got a business.
You didn't build that.
Somebody else made that happen.
Same thing.
Now, the White House tried to slide out of that, claiming that people were misinterpreting the president's comments, take them out of context, but they weren't.
He said it just as Elizabeth Warren said it, and Hillary has said it just as they both said it.
Quick time out.
Back with much more after this.
Don't go away.
It's the Rush Lindbaugh program on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network into our 26th busy broadcast year.
We start on the phones in this hour with Patrick in Morristown, New Jersey.
Patrick, thank you for calling.
Great to have you here, sir.
Hey, Rush.
Yeah, hi, Patrick.
How are you?
Congratulations on the Steelers.
Oh, thank you.
Yeah, yeah, that's something odd happened.
51 points?
So I was telling this trainer, as far as Barack Obama in a pantsuit, a.k.a. Hillary Clinton, what she's doing is being a high-information voter like myself, it's very easy.
You helped me to be able to read the seams on the fastball.
When they throw out the lines, I work for a 500-person medical equipment company, which was started over 70 years ago through hard work and innovation and creativity.
Like you said, I'm not sure who creates the jobs if companies like this don't.
The 500 families are able to support themselves through somebody who started this.
And I think they're naturally steering the low-information voters towards the government creates everything and the government does everything.
And it's just very obvious what they're doing.
It's a cost-warfare play.
Anybody who starts a business or is successful in a business is bad.
And if you're working for somebody who has a business, you're good and the government's good.
It's just very obvious what Barack in the pantsuit is doing.
Exactly right.
Well, it's everything demonizing the successful.
It is delegitimizing the private sector, private enterprise.
It delegitimizes the normal pursuits that people have traditionally thought necessary for success or the pathway to success.
And even though she didn't say it, I mean, if private corporations, large businesses and small businesses don't create jobs, then who does?
Well, if these businesses didn't build themselves, there's only one answer.
The government's actually doing all this.
But the point I think that you're making is a valid one.
In addition to feeding the insanity that now constitutes the Democrat Party's base voter, there is that they're not just feeding it, they are also shaping or trying to shape the minds of other people who are not, you call them low-information voters, but they're not attuned each and every day.
And I look at normally we would be laughing ourselves silly about this.
I remember 25 years ago, 20 years ago, even 15, when a Democrat would come out and say something literally asinine like this, we'd laugh about it.
We'd joke.
We'd talk about how desperate they must be.
And we would all conclude, nobody's ever going to believe this.
Now, what are they doing?
Gosh, how desperate are they?
Nobody's going to fall for this.
And sad to say, here we are in 2014, and a lot more Americans than we ever believed have actually fallen for this stuff.
Actually can be made to believe it, can be made to hate private enterprise, can be made to distrust whatever the Democrat Party wants to make them not believe in and distrust.
It is overwhelming.
A, the amount, I don't know if you talk it up to stupidity or fear or what have you.
All I know is that 25, 20, 50, 30, whatever, it doesn't matter.
This kind of stuff would have guaranteed Mrs. Clinton a ticket out of any serious campaign.
She would have demonstrated herself to be dangerously unqualified, misinformed, and a national joke.
Today, it's something she has to say in order to have a chance in the Democrat Party because they have been successful in making enough of their people believe it or want this to be true.
That sadly, I mean, you can laugh at it all day long, but it's not funny anymore because all these years, people were believing this crap that we all thought was just nonsense.
And as such, you know, here we are, rational, intelligent, and we don't know how to relate to this.
I don't.
I know you never get in an argument with a fool because people will not be able to tell who's who after a short time.
Anyway, folks, we're in a 27th year.
We just concluded year 26 back in August.
You know, they start to run together now.
At any rate, hang in, be tough.
We'll be back.
▲
Export Selection