All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 24, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
30:25
November 24, 2014, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, friends.
Great to have you back.
It's Rush Limboss serving humanity while executing assigned host duties flawlessly, zero mistakes.
Look at me as your real anchor man, America's real anchor man.
And the doctor of democracy.
And America's truth detector.
Here we are at 800-282-2882, the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
So the grand jury has reached a decision, but nobody knows what it is.
Well, some people know what it is, but it hasn't been publicly announced.
And so everybody's on pins and needles now, trying to figure out what it's going to be and prepare a response based on how it goes.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
Let's go to Meet the Press Sunday morning.
Uh let's see.
Correspondent Ron Allen was uh interviewing a protester in Ferguson by the name of Rasheen Aldridge.
And the correspondent for NBC News said, Do you think that they're going to indict the police officer, sir?
No.
You don't.
If there was an indictment, we wouldn't stop protesting.
We would continue to be out there trying to seek change.
Change is changing the system, the justice system.
Uh so people are not in the system for time that they don't need to be.
And change could also be a livable wage for people, so they don't have to continue to live paycheck to paycheck.
They understand that this isn't the same standard civil rights protest.
This is a group of folks who are just tired of being pushed against the wall.
And once you're pushed so far, what do you do?
You fight back.
Well, uh, what are we to make of this?
So we're sitting here, we're minding our own business.
We happen to stumble across an audio soundbite from Meet to the Press yesterday, in which a protester on the ground in Ferguson says that they're not going to stop protesting even if the cop is indicted.
Because it's not about that.
It's about changing the system, the justice system.
So that people aren't in the system, that they don't need to be in it.
And it's about a livable wage for people, so they don't have to live from paycheck to paycheck.
This is a group of people tired of being pushed against the wall, and once you get pushed so far, what do you do?
You fight back.
So, as everybody who wants to be honest about this knows, it even it isn't even about the gentle giant.
Not anymore.
And this guy just said it.
Even if there's an indictment, we are going to keep going.
On Face the Nation yesterday, Bob Schiefer interviewed the president of the NAA L CP, the National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People.
His name is Cornell William Brooks.
And Bob Schiefer said, as you well know, this grand jury may well not return an indictment here.
They may take no action.
And what I'm hearing, it's going to be a very hard case for the prosecutors, probably to prove.
Now, are you concerned about if that happens, what the reaction of the community will be?
Do you think it will be violent if there is no indictment?
I am concerned.
I am concerned because we have a prosecutor who had five complaints filed with the Justice Department concerning his police departments by the NAACP.
He failed to take action.
This was before Mike Brown.
He then conducts a grand jury uh process where he essentially dumps evidence into the laps of the grand jury with little direction.
So are we concerned?
Yes.
But we're more concerned about the failure of the grand jury to be given the kind of direction as is typically the case.
And we're concerned about a grieving family in an outraged community.
We want justice for them first and foremost, but we want to prevent more Mike Browns.
Right.
So he's where there's going to be violence.
And he would know.
And so Schaefer said, Well, are you urging people in the community not to commit violence?
Are you saying to them, look, this is not going to help?
In fact, it could hurt our cause.
Or what are you telling them, sir?
Absolutely.
The Indul ACP is always doing for uh civil disobedience, nonviolent protests.
Right.
We've done that over the arc of our history, and we do so now.
We're calling upon our members, members of the community To respond to this decision in a nonviolent fashion.
Right.
Everyone has a right to express their rights under the Constitution.
In fact, we have an obligation.
But we need to be clear here.
There's an asymmetry of responsibility.
The police have the greatest responsibility to keep peace and order and to behave in a fashion that encourages nonviolence, not to agitate the situation.
See, so the facts don't matter here.
The facts don't.
The police are supposed to sit aside, just stand aside.
They're supposed to let whatever happens, happens, because if you make agitators mad, they're going to get angrier and you got a worse situation.
Let the agitators go.
If you've got people that are looting, let them go.
It's worse if the cops move in and stop them and just make them mad.
We can't have that.
And uh the the police have the greatest responsibility.
I mean, even if a suspect launches himself into the police car, and even if a suspect attempts to get the cops' gun, the cops should do nothing about it because to try to stop the assailant would just anger the community.
Well, that's what I heard, because I'm comparing what he said with the facts that we have as to what happened with the gentle giant.
Now, CNN, CNN's really invested in this case, folks, as they are invested in most news stories and their outcome.
And over and I've been paying a little attention here during the breaks, and over on CNN, they're saying, they're hoping that at the very least the grand jury will come up with something, even if it's a lesser charge against the cop.
They say at CNN that the grand jury knows the public expects them to charge him with something.
And by the public, CNN means the professional protesters in Ferguson and around the country.
Another analyst at CNN just said, and I'm paraphrasing.
The grand jury go home during the week.
They only meet once a week or so, so they must be hearing what the people in the community want.
And therefore the grand jury must weigh what the community wants against the evidence in the case.
Totally wrong.
What the public wants is irrelevant in a sterile and uncorrupted world.
But we are not in a sterile and uncorrupted world.
And what the people want should have as much or some influence on the grand jury, every bit as much as the evidence, thank you, CNN.
They want the grand jury to be directed.
So they want to hang somebody it defeats.
All right.
The civil rights movement, in part, ladies and gentlemen, came into existence to fight and stop mob rule.
They were the victims of it.
They were the victims of mob rule.
And the civil rights movement was born out of that, and therefore it had as part of its charter, if you will, to stop mob rule.
Now they're asking for it.
At least this analyst on CNN is asking for m for mob rule.
This do they not understand how dangerous it is?
I don't I don't no, I don't I don't think they have any concern with how danger how dangerous this is.
This is uh I look I all of this is a product of many things.
At the top of the list is how desperately bad public education is.
That's that's number one.
Number two, what has replaced public education in how certain people are raised.
The idea that a grand jury is supposed to listen to the public, they think the same thing at the Supreme Court.
Uh so in effect, uh this this particular analyst at CNN is actually seeking a form of mob rule.
If the grand jury is supposed to go home and pay attention to what the community, quote unquote, whoever that is, wants, and then they're supposed to mix that in with the evidence that they have heard.
You've also got here, it's a very subtle thing with the intimidation of the grand jury's been going on here, too.
I mean, those people live in the community, just like the officer did.
There's so a whole lot of uh a whole lot of factors here that that uh that go into play.
Uh it's it's it's a fast I I it it really is.
Uh and of course, when these kinds of statements are made, say on CNN, there's nobody at CNN to correct them.
There's nobody at CNN to say, Well, are you sure this is what you want?
Are you sure you want the grand jury to acknowledge and pay attention to the mob?
That's what it's been in Ferguson.
You want the grand jury to listen to the mob, i.e., the protest, and factor that in.
But you don't hear that at CNN.
You see a bunch of nodded heads as though they completely understand and think it's a totally understandable, legitimate reaction.
Now, I mentioned earlier, grab soundbite number nine.
I mentioned earlier that uh John Lewis, the congressman from Georgia, who was beat upside the head down in Selma back in 1964.
His career was launched because of Selma, and he has been very vocal about what's going on in Ferguson and calling it the second coming of Selma.
We had that soundbite for you last week.
Well, they asked Obama about Obama was on this week with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday.
And Stephanopoulos said one of your heroes, John Lewis of Georgia, has suggested that if there's no indictment in this case, it would be a miscarriage of justice and another turning point like Selma.
Do you agree with that?
You know, I love John.
Uh I didn't see the quote, so I don't want to comment on uh uh what John specifically said, but I will say this that the kinds of ongoing problems we have with police and communities of color around the country uh are not of the sort that we saw in Selma.
But we're not talking about systematic uh segregation or discrimination.
Uh they are solvable problems if, in fact, law enforcement uh officials are open to the kind of training that and best practices that we've seen instituted uh in a lot of parts of the country.
Uh oh, it sounds to me like Obama's not down for the struggle.
Well, he did throw the police under the bus, but he also told them this isn't Selma.
He told him it's not nearly as bad now as it was back in Selma.
So he he's not down for the struggle.
I mean, he if if if he wanted to confirm what John Lewis would have said, he would have said, yes, I think I think we're seeing Selma unfold again.
It's sadly uh very unfortunate, but he didn't say, ah, this isn't Selma, come on.
We don't we don't see this kind of massive systematic segregation or discrimination.
Now we still have some problems.
We got the cops, don't know what they're doing out there, like that guy up in Cambridge, but nevertheless, it's not nearly as bad.
He said the cops are still stupid, but we can train them.
We have some re-education camps all set up.
We have some sensitivity training centers, and we got the cops on the just show up at these everything and be fine.
Here's Lou Ann in Morgantown, North Carolina.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hey, Rush.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate the CDs of the Rush Revere books.
I'm legally blind.
And to be able to enjoy these books has been a real blessing to me.
Louis, how old are how old are you, Louis?
Um 60, almost 61.
I was brought up in the Air Force, by the way.
Brought up in the Air Force.
Mm-hmm.
My dad served 22 years.
Uh there were times when he was not with us because he was T DY.
Uh, other times we were able to join him when he was stationed on Guam in the uh mid-60s, and then we were stationed in England uh in the early 70s.
Uh we were able to Be a family group then.
But this last book, the American Revolution, Rush, it brought tears to my eyes.
Tears of joy, because of the family situation that is talked about in this book.
When the family was able to come back together, it reminded me of being able to rejoin my dad.
Or when dad came back to us.
It was just the book is unbelievable.
I just can't tell you how much I appreciate it.
And by the way, we are sending the books as well as the CDs to our grandson who lives in West Virginia.
He's only five, but he already reached second grade level.
Wow.
Must be homeschooled, obviously.
Uh well, more or less.
My mom started him on the Your Baby Can Read program.
Yeah.
Before she passed away, and my daughter has kept up the program.
In fact, she's gonna buy another program for my grandma who's not three with sold.
I was I was talking with uh with with uh Mac and for Catherine last night, but so many adults like you are giving us feedback on this book, The Rush Revere and the American Revolution, for precise well, a number of reasons.
One of the reasons is yours, but we're hearing from so many adults, and I'm this is the last thing I expected.
We're hearing from so many adults who didn't know some of these facts about American history in these books.
These books are for kids.
The facts that you bring out are so real because I I love history.
My dad was a child of history, and he instilled that in me and my brother.
And to hear the actual historical facts being brought forth.
Ladies, I want to assure you, I do not know Luann, and she is unpaid.
I you are doing one of the best reviews, recommendations, recountings of this book, that you're doing it almost as well as I could.
Well, Rush, I bumped into people at Walmart.
By the way, I'm a Walmart greeter.
Uh, I can still see well enough to say hi, welcome to Walmart.
Uh, even though I've been told I could be on disability, I say no.
I want to be a maker, not a taker.
But I tell people at Walmart, you gotta get these books.
Well, uh there's nothing I can add to that.
I mean, I Luann, um thank thank you so much.
Can you I tell me, hang on, I want to get your address.
I want to send a signed copy of the book for you for your uh for your did you say your grandson?
Uh I've got uh Caleb, he is fine.
Hang on, hang on, we'll get that on just don't hang up the phone.
All right, here's what I here's what I saw in CNN.
I just want to play the audio for you.
This is uh Don Lemon, our old buddy Don Lemon.
Fresh off lessons on oral sex on CNN, is now talking to Well, yeah, that's what he was doing.
It was last I didn't play the Bible.
I didn't because there are children, as evidenced by our last children, they're readers of the Rush Revere series, listening to this program.
And I I can't have that kind of stuff on this with Don Lemon advising a woman on how to punish a guy during oral sex.
Well, you can advising her, yeah, she didn't know.
She claimed she didn't know.
He was educating her.
Well, why didn't you?
It was about using teeth, okay?
And that's as far as I'm gonna go.
And then he apologized for it if anybody found it offensive, which is the only thing you didn't say was that isn't who I am.
But it is.
Anyway, we love Don Lemon.
Where would we be without Don Lemon on CNN?
I hope they never ever farm him out to some distant bureau as a street reporter.
Any rate, he's talking with uh the justice correspondent Evan Perez about the news that the grand jury in Fergusons reached a decision.
Don Lemon said, How about your protest?
Does it have any teeth?
Because I know about teeth.
Now the charges that are under consideration, if Officer Wilson's indicted, take us through that.
There's a variety of charges, including obviously murder and manslaughter, and that's been the big discussion is whether or not Uh this grand jury having heard uh all of the evidence that's been presented and obviously all the concern whether or not they will uh they will choose to do something perhaps on the lesser charge.
There's a very high bar, Don, as you know for some of these cases, uh, given the facts that we know publicly, uh there is a very high bar uh uh typically in these cases with uh with law enforcement uh and police shootings.
So the concern was perhaps you know you'd have uh a grand jury pressured into uh one of lesser charges uh in order to to placate the public.
They know, as you said, what the media's been saying and all the public reaction to it.
This is a this is this is not a civil rights activist.
Well, yes, it is.
He's all CNN correspondent, though.
CNN Justice Department correspondent.
And he is the guy who suggested the grand jury be pressured into one of lesser charges in order to placate the public, because they know the grand jury knows what the media's been saying, and they know what the public reaction to it.
Therefore, the grand jury knows what the people, i.e.
the mob, expect.
The thing is, I don't care what you think you know, you don't know all the evidence that was presented to that grand jury.
No matter what you think, and including you, Mr. Perez.
This is the thing.
Nobody knows all the evidence that was presented in there.
I'm kind of surprised how little of it's leaked to uh some of it has.
Well, I don't know if it constitutes leaks, but uh there are always things.
Is that the thing about the media that they all think they know everything, and the sad to say the media is some of the most uninformed people in our society because they're so tunnel-visioned, they know what they think is important, they know what their outcome desire is, and anything outside of that doesn't even register.
And then when they find out like the Duke Lacrosse case, what a classic.
When that case was finally thrown, they were floored.
They could not believe because they fell for every bit of hyperbole that that prosecutor knife wrong was isn't it.
They just fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.
They could not believe that case was thrown out.
Nor could the faculty who wrote the letter demanding that the the uh three students be kicked out of school.
And then when the real facts were known, they didn't know how to process them because they hadn't even considered anything other than what they know.
You know the way to visualize this?
The the media look at what they look at through a straw.
Not even rose-colored grasses, glasses.
They look at it through a straw.
That's all of you the universe you can see with your two eyes when you're looking at some put put a straw up to your eyes.
That's what they see, and they aim that straw at what they want to see, and that's all.
So you get a comment like this.
This CNN hired this person to be a correspondent, and this person's out describing things that are illegal if they happen in a grand jury.
And he's describing them as though they should happen, they probably are happening, because the media has talked about it, and everybody watches the media, and everybody pays attention to the media, and everybody's afraid of the media, except Uber, which wants to do a number on the media, and so the media's lining up trying to take out Uber now.
But that's another story.
Here's Peter Staten Island.
Great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Uh, I'm great, an original WABC listener since 1988, and I'm a very nervous caller.
But in any case, uh when Obama was speaking about immigration, I said to myself, Oh, I like that too.
And that's because he says what he thinks we want to hear, not what he wants to do.
And when Giuliani, who you were mentioning before, was mayor in New York City, he said what he felt had to be done, and 100% of the establishment was against him, and he pushed his programs through and he changed the city.
Hello?
Yeah, I'm I'm um uh I'm yeah, you you you changed topics.
I mean the middle, you were talking about Obama, then you went to Giuliani.
I'm trying to you're you're saying you you're saying Giuliani was right.
Giuliani was a tremendous job in New York City, and what we need to have is we need to have politicians that turn around and come up with programs.
Beyond 100% of the establishment says we are against it.
And as far as immigration is concerned, for example, we should turn around and saying, Great, everybody that has been here for five years, um, we're gonna give them an immediate um piece of paper that says, yes, you can work here.
All you have to do is apply like everybody else.
Yeah, but that's not enough.
Yeah.
You watch, that's that's not gonna be enough.
That's not what that's not because the if people have been here five years, but they're still illegal, they're gonna be given green cards, all right?
That's not I'm not I'm not talking about green cards.
I'm talking about for starters uh uh work visa.
Uh a pure work visa that says you are allowed to legally work here.
Yeah.
For that you have to do an application that has to be very has to be able to be verified.
Then you have to generate an e-verified system, not like the one that we have right now.
Are you are you are you making a suggestion or are you commenting on what is?
I'm making a suggestion.
Okay.
Okay.
If you have an e-verified system that that gets done that you may write out and saying, okay, everybody in America, give me a proposal.
I want to I want you to develop a new e-verify system.
And so you think this would stop them from coming?
Because once once you the reason that people come to America is because they want to have a job.
If you close off the jobs, the border closes itself.
You don't have to militarize anything.
Whatever we have now as far as the border is plenty enough because when you have fifty people coming over one piece of border rather than a thousand, and we know that those fifty are only coming to do sex trafficking, drugs, or terrorism, then it's much easier to close that.
Okay.
Well, but that leaves out a whole host of people that are not coming to work.
Yes, but we don't want them.
The Democrat Party does.
See, that's the thing.
The Democrat Party needs them.
The Democrat Party can do whatever it can to get them, including provide them the benefits they're not legally entitled to having.
Yeah, but if all but you obviously also can't get benefits if you're not here legally.
If you and and and the the biggest problem, the biggest problem that you have is you'll have the people that are hiring all the people that are coming here to work.
And they have been paying them off the books for the last whatever uh 30 years.
And their whole business um structure depends on on that.
So you're gonna have an outcry from from the people that are actually supporters of the Republican Party to some extent, um, having huge problems because they have to redo their business model.
But once you once you basically indicate to people in North and Middle America in in the South and Middle America, yeah, but see here Peter, here's here's the problem.
You're you you are addressing this from a point of view where you want to solve it.
And where I uh uh I'm not trying to be uh insulting, but the Democrat Party is not at all interested in making this work as you have devised.
The Democrat Party wants the exact opposite of what you have laid out.
That's why they want to do this.
Uh and they are in charge of it.
They are the ones making all this happen.
Now I I we're gonna take a break here, but this would be a good transition to explain what okay, what's gonna happen now?
What what is, and I don't mean legally, but okay, Obama just did his executive amnesty.
What does that mean in the real world?
And I will tell you what I think when we get back.
Don't go away.
Okay, here's what I think is gonna happen.
As is always the case, Obama thinks he's solved a problem.
And then no problem is ever solved.
Obama has created a brand new problem, or he has exacerbated a problem, I think.
I think with this move, this executive amnesty, the southern border is gonna now be flooded with even more and more people.
And the message is Come here, get here, and eventually you are going to be legal, or you'll be granted permission to stay.
They won't deport.
Just the thing is to get here.
That's the message that's been sent.
And I think that means that, and this is, by the way, a no-brainer.
I think illegal immigration is going to increase in the near term.
This does not solve a problem.
This only exacerbates a problem.
For Obama, it's not a problem.
The Democrat Party is not a problem.
To them, this is all an opportunity.
For the rest of us, it is a problem.
The point is that what Obama did is not going to solve any actual problem with illegal immigration.
It's going to make it worse.
Now, the point of saying that, the public is already opposed to this.
If it does get worse, it's going to provide the Republicans with even more ammo to go piece by piece in stopping this.
I mean, it could end up, and this is a long shot, I know.
But this could end up.
Obama could have.
And look, I know it's a long shot, but we're back now to optimism, false optimism, pessimism.
I'm looking at this optimistic.
We're looking at a possibility here where Obama is going to make this worse and could actually have shot himself in the foot.
Because remember, what Obama and his gang want is comprehensive immigration reform.
You know what that is?
That is man broad-based, comprehensive means everybody's given amnesty and everybody is legal and everybody is a citizen right off the.
That's what they want, comprehensive, and they want it now, to deal with every illegal here.
But Obama didn't do that.
He went piecemeal.
He's going to, I think have the end result be more illegal immigration, more pressure, and that that five million number is going to end up not even becoming close to dealing with the problem.
Obama wants you to think he's dealt with the problem.
Obama and the Democrats want you to believe that this is the beginning of the solution of a problem, and it's not.
Remember, the government doesn't solve liberals do not solve problems.
They create new ones.
The old unintended consequences angle.
Although in this case, these consequences may be fully intended.
The Democrat Party wants this flood to continue.
And it will mark my words.
And there is an outside chance that it will make it harder, which is to our benefit for the Republicans to agree with comprehensive immigration reform.
That's what we don't want.
It's a short week, ladies and gentlemen.
Three days we are here live.
Two of them remain.
And as always, we'll be back.
They're going to be here 21 hours, revved up and re we do not phone it in ever, even during holiday periods.
If we're here, it's 150% pedal to the metal.
And we'll be back in that same form and mode tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection