All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 8, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:58
December 8, 2014, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh no, I didn't, I didn't see him.
I know I didn't see him.
Um Snerdley just asked me if if if I could see Chris Wallace if I could see the show.
I only saw the camera shot of me.
So no, because there was a delay, a little bit of delay.
Maybe it was here.
I would have had to look way off camera to see it, though.
So I did I did.
The bottom line, I saw if it was here, I didn't look at it.
Oh, I may, you know, I still haven't watched it.
I I I just I do not like I've never liked watching myself on TV.
I haven't watched it.
I've seen, you know, we we put, we took the uh he was really gracious and and asked me about Rush Revere and the American Revolution at the end.
He was really gracious about that, and they they they put a graphic of the cover up there and asked me about the book and the book series.
And I have seen that because uh Catherine took that video off and we we made a presentation of it on the Rush Revere website and the uh and the Rush Revere Facebook page.
I saw that.
And and I was I was really uh I have folks, I have to admit, I did I liked what I saw, and I don't normally like myself on TV, but the rush revere stuff that I did look at, because I I had to approve it, obviously.
I had to see the video before it goes up because I'm, you know, top dog run the show.
Um get grief from the revere team for that.
Because I really don't run the show.
But anyway, I did like it, looked good.
But he was really gracious asking about that.
But now these guys are telling me, this is first I've heard of this.
Both H.R., my trusted chief of staff and Snerdley are telling me that Chris Wallace's facial expressions when I was talking about how the polls regarding a government shutdown in my thinking are meaningless.
Well, he had a it was confused.
It was okay.
They're saying he was dumbfounded and perplexed, as though who could think this.
Is that because there was it was so outside the the the thinking parameters of the inside the bill.
Okay, well, I didn't see.
I guess I guess at some point I should watch this and and see that.
But if if that's true, if if that's true, then this is more deeply ingrained than I thought.
This belief in polls as the primary things that shape politics.
Well, you look, you and I know this, but but even knowing it, there's a part of me that wants to believe that people are able to compartmentalize these things and and not grant them so damn much power, but apparently the poll is everything.
Election results don't count nearly as much as polling results to some of these.
And I'm I'm not about Chris Wallace.
I'm talking about the establishment, the Republican consultants, all of it.
Apparently, polling data is all that matters.
But I still believe that they're hiding behind this.
I believe that they're hiding behind this poll that shows they would get blamed and the government shutdown.
They're using that as an excuse not to act because they don't want to act.
For whatever reason.
They don't want to fight, they don't disagree with Obama, whatever.
This budget business that's going on now is associated with it.
We are being funded by a continuing resolution that expires when does it expire?
Sometime this month?
Or is it early January that expires?
Don't look it up.
It does, it's it's it but we if we don't do something this month, then quote unquote, the government will run out of money and quote unquote the government will have to shut down now that you've heard it, been there, done that.
And so the Republicans have two options.
The Republicans can, in this lame duck session, do a continuing resolution for another couple of months to get them into February so that the next one that comes up, they would be in full control of because the Republicans will gain control of the Senate in January when the new electees are sworn in.
The other thing, and the one that looks likely, is that the Republicans will work with the Democrats in the Senate, because the Democrats run the show in the Senate still, and they're going to come up with a continuing resolution, miracle, miracle upon miracle, that will fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year, which is now through September 30th.
We haven't had a continuing resolution that has that has been that that length of time.
I don't know how many years.
Okay, the current continued resolution that we're working on now expires December 11th, which is Thursday.
And here's what's going to happen.
The Republicans, again, using this poll that claims the American people will blame them if the government is shut down, are going to go ahead and agree to an omnibus continuing resolution, essentially a budget for the remainder of the fiscal year, which will be all the way from now through September 30th.
Meaning the Democrats, even though they lost, are going to run the budget show for yet another year.
And we're all sitting out here and asking ourselves why and scratching our heads.
Why wouldn't you just force the Democrats to agree to a two-month CR, taking you into February, and then the Republicans, when they run the show, start acting like winners, and then do an actual budget.
And by the way, in February, Obama will present his 2016 budget that gets debated for all of next year.
And this is this is what they're thinking is.
They're thinking, well, look, we got to start debating the 2016 budget in February.
We don't need two of these things going at the same time.
And they're relying on this poll that shows they're going to get tarred and feathered and blamed and maybe never ever win another election, Mr. Limbaugh.
If they do something that causes the government to shut down.
And if the CR expires on Thursday with no extension, then quote unquote the government will shut down.
And this just has everybody scared to death because of the poll.
Now, living in the real world, the same thing happened last year.
Almost a year ago, exactly the same thing happened.
The continuing resolution expired.
There was a threat that the government would shut down, and it did, because Ted Cruz and the boys are running around flexing their muscles.
And so there was a 15 to 17% portion of the government that ceased operating.
But nobody, depending on services, was denied them.
Everybody got what they needed, and whatever wasn't available was made available retroactively, including the few government workers who were furloughed for a short period of time.
There's never any lasting damage from a government shutdown, including political, because the Republicans, after being blamed for shutting down the government last December, came back ten months later and won a huge landslide in the House and the Senate and in governorships.
I mean, it was another total shellacking.
And yet that doesn't mean anything.
The Republicans are hiding behind this poll.
It's a Washington Post poll.
And it shows that 53% of the American people will blame the Republicans if the government shuts down.
I don't know.
It's gutless, it's silly, it's it's tough to come up with uh unique ways to explain what the Republicans are doing.
And again, there's a logical conclusion.
The conclusion is the Republicans just don't want to fight on matters of spending, and they just don't want to fight on matters of immigration reform.
They just don't want to.
Whatever the fear they have about doing so is, they don't want to do it.
The problem for them is the American people have voted twice in droves for this to stop.
The American, that's the only way to read the November election results.
There wasn't anything in these election results which could be interpreted as voters want Republicans to help Obama get his agenda passed.
If they voters wanted that, they wouldn't have elected Republicans.
They'd elected Democrats slam dunk across the board.
Didn't happen.
There was nothing about the election returns that say the American people want the Republican to Democrat to compromise.
They work together and gridlock.
That's the opposition to Obama without doing a damn thing was elected in a landslide.
Nationally, the national portion of the Republican campaign did not have an issue.
They were mute.
They didn't say anything.
Individual candidates running for the Senate and so forth ran almost exclusively against Obama and Obamacare.
And they won big.
And now there's not a single Southerner in the Senate.
The South has been totally shut out from the Democrat Party.
They do not have.
I mean, they are in a shambles.
The Democrat Party, in a in a political sense, in terms of public favor, they are falling apart.
Now, that's not to say that their agenda is flailing.
They're two different things, and they still have the White House, and they have a president who's willing to advance his agenda outside the Constitution.
Don't misunderstand me.
That's why the American people want all of this stopped.
The only way they can do it, they think is to have a Republicans elected, but the Republicans will not do it.
So we're faced with two things.
Comprehensive immigration reform, otherwise Republicans get blamed for shutting down the government, and the Democrats and Harry Reid get to write the budget for the next year or the remainder of this fiscal year, which is just gonna mean all kinds of spending.
You know, Obama's already got the national debt up to $18 trillion.
What was it when he took it?
He's added uh 10 trillion, I think, himself.
70% of the national debt occurred in the last six years, and they still claim they're out of money.
They still claim they're not getting enough money.
It's just difficult to comprehend all of this.
So we're left to conclude that when it comes to spending and immigration, the Republicans really don't differ with Obama, but they have to come up with something to mollify their voters, something to explain to their voters why they can't stop Obama.
Well, because we might destroy everything we won.
We might destroy all the goodwill, which is just silly.
The American people didn't elect the Republicans to stand aside.
They didn't elect Republicans to sign on.
Is there anybody in their right mind who thinks this?
That the meaning of a Democrat landslide defeat is that voters want Republicans to assist Obama in advancing his agenda?
Let me put it a different way.
Are we really going to interpret the November elections as a mandate from the American people for the Republican Party to stand aside and let Obama do what he's going to do?
Is that what that election meant?
Because that's what they're telling us.
When they say they've got a poll that shows they'll be blamed again for shutting down the government, what they're trying to make us believe is that the American people will hate them so much that all the goodwill that resulted in their winning the election will be destroyed.
And they'll be hated, and their majorities will be worthless.
No, their majorities are going to be worthless if they don't use it.
And it appears that's what's happening.
Now, are you aware of this?
There's a third thing that is happening in sort of relationship to this.
The Senate committee report on the CIA's post-9-11 detention and interrogation program is going to be released.
The Democrats are insisting on releasing this CIA report now.
You know what this is?
This will be another catalog in how in how flawed and how mean and how extreme this country is because we tortured.
If you boil this down to its essence, the Democrats are going to release another report via a Senate committee that they still run on how rotten the CIA was, how bad our interrogators were, how mean we are, and how this is not who we are.
And they're going to once again release a document that catalogs all the torture and all of the abuse of all of these Al Qaeda prisoners that we had captured on the battlefield.
Now, why would the Democrat Party want to do that?
If there is anything that's old news, it's this.
But as I mentioned to you the other day, ladies and gentlemen, I have watched, quite by accident, I mean, I didn't even seek them out, two television shows.
And the plot of both these shows was all about torture and how reprehensible it is and how rotten the countries that do it are.
One show was Madam Secretary, which is a precursor to Hillary Clinton being elected president.
Tia Leone stars.
She uh becomes the Secretary of State when the existing Secretary of State dies in a plane crash.
Well, she used to be with the CIA, and she used to be in Iraq.
And while she didn't do torture, she saw it.
And she didn't do anything to stop it.
And her college age daughter finds out about it.
We're at 2014.
We're talking about things that happened in 2006, 2007, seven, eight years ago.
And on this show, just to shame these Hollywood writers and producers, the college age daughter, when she learns that her mom did not stop the CIA from torturing bad guys, leaves the house, moves out, totally disgusted with her mother.
Totally.
And her mother tries to say, well, the character's name Stevie.
Stevie, there's things that you don't know, and I'm not proud of it.
I don't care, Mom.
Torture, really torture.
I mean politics even now, and there's only one purpose for this, and that is to do damage to this country.
And that is to harm somehow the image of this country.
I have to take a break.
And there's still one more soundbite from Fox News Sunday, I have to lightning round.
All that and your phone calls are coming up, so don't...
A bunch of Democrat staffers wrote this Senate committee report on the CIA and how bad we are and all the torture that we did.
And Democrats are hellbent on getting this out while they still control the Senate.
The thing about this, it's all old news, and very little of it is true.
This is truly going to be damaging.
There's no other way to look at this.
Michael Hayden was on Slay the Nation.
General Michael Hayden, the former CIA director, was on Slay the Nation just, which nobody saw because I was on Fox News Sunday.
And he said that this Senate report is going to be used by our enemies to motivate people to attack Americans and American facilities overseas.
Which is the whole idea.
When the Republicans are in control, the Democrats want as much chaos as they can manufacture.
Republicans going to control the Senate, they're going to control the House, and the Democrats want as much chaos going on here and around the world as they can get.
Get this, folks.
I mean, if you're sitting down, this is from...
What is this from?
It's from...
Oops.
Oops.
This is from the Daily Caller.
Daily Caller is reporting that the University of Notre Dame...
A private college run by the Jesuit Order of Priests will offer a four credit seminar in spring 2015 entitled White Privilege Seminar.
The course is being offered as Sociology 25280, and all participants are expected to attend the White Privilege Conference from March 8th through the 14th.
In other words, what's going to happen here?
In a course at Notre Dame this spring for credit, Notre Dame is going to teach white students they are inherently racist.
That's what white privilege is.
Notre Dame is going to have a sociology course entitled White Privilege Seminar, in which the attendees are going to be shown how white students are inherently racist.
Examples will be offered, societal and otherwise, and ways to deal with it will be provided.
Students will not only learn the definitions of, the historical current paradigm of, and the causes and effects of white privilege, they're also expected to undergo a personal transformation, in which they leave the class and conference more aware of injustice and better equipped with tools to disrupt personal institutional or worldwide systems of oppression.
Notre Dame, where this will be taught.
Great to have you here, and it's time now to head to the phones, because if I don't do it now, we're not going to get there because I've still only done three things from the stack of stuff.
I've got stuff buried here that's just it's a gold mine.
And I just try to get to as many things as I can and integrate as many facets of the program as possible, which means we go to upstate New York and say hi to Rebecca.
I'm glad you waited.
I really appreciate that.
And great to have you.
Hi.
Hi.
Um I just wanted to make a point on the whole racial uh issue and stuff like that.
Um, I was watching the movie the other day.
Have you seen the Giver?
The Giver?
Yes.
No.
No.
Great movie.
Wait a minute.
Are you saying Gipper with the P?
G-I-B-E-R.
The giver.
It's based on a novel.
The giver.
No, I've not seen it.
Great movie.
Um, and pretty much the whole ideal of the movie was um what if everything was the same?
Everybody was equal.
Everybody was the same.
And um my point is pretty much it's an unrealistic idea to think that there's never going to be racism.
There's always, you know, that there's always gonna be um income equality.
There's always gonna be somebody who's a racist.
There's always going to be somebody who makes more money than you.
No matter how hard the world tries, it's never gonna be fixed.
Um it's just unrealistic.
Well, that's true, but that won't carry any weight with anybody uh because you can I know you didn't mean it this way, but some people could interpret that as saying it's pointless to even try, since it's impossible to achieve.
And then that would just fuel the uh the grievance industry even more.
What you say is is totally correct.
It's impossible to make everybody the same.
But that's what liberalism strives to do.
Equality of outcome, and the only way you can even get close to that is by making people as poor as you can or as miserable.
You cannot give enough money away to make everybody rich, but you can give just enough away to a lot of people to make them poor or miserable.
And in liberalism, equality is what counts.
But they want credit for their good intentions, you see.
This is the dirty little secret that few people really glom on to.
Every liberal program from Lyndon Johnson forward's been an abject failure.
The Great Society, in terms of achieving its desired end result.
The war on poverty didn't wipe out poverty.
It's still going on, in fact, and never going to be able to claim victory.
The Great Society, which was designed to end uh racial strife and poverty, Civil Rights Act, all these things have been abject failures.
And when you point this out to people who are behind it, this doesn't matter what about at least we tried.
And they want credit for their good intentions for for carrying, carrying and uh and and all of that.
What the truth of what you say is indisputable.
But the problem has arisen from the fact that now we punish the people who excel beyond the average.
We punish people who seem to be immune from circumstances that harm others.
And so there is now a stigma attached to success.
There is a stigma attached to achievement, and we have we're doing everything we can to demigrate those who have accomplished and achieved things by mischaracterizing it and by delegitimating it, or delegitimizing it by suggesting it's not real, it happened on the backs of others.
For example, the rich are not rich, they're thieves.
The rich got rich by stealing everybody's money.
The rich got rich by stealing it from the poor.
The math on that doesn't work out, but that's what they say.
And then the rich are really doubly mean because they don't share it then.
After they steal it, they don't give any of it back.
And that's the definition of trickle-down doesn't work.
But the point of all this is to roy the society.
The point of it is to constantly uh get everybody, as many people as possible in the whole mix of victimology and promote disunity, and you might say, well, why would anybody want to do that?
Because there is political power to be derived from convincing all those victims that you're going to fix it for them.
You never do fix it.
You always blame the opposing political party for the problem, and you convince the victims that you are doing everything you can to punish the people making your misery real, for making it for being responsible for your being miserable.
I don't know, certainly I said, do you think people are more miserable now than they ever have?
But I don't I really don't know.
Uh it's it's hard to say, because we live in an era where there is more media than there's ever been, and there are more people telling us how they've felt than ever before.
It could well be there was as much misery then as there is now.
It's just there wasn't an outlet for anybody who didn't know it.
There what I think what's different now is that publicly expressing your misery is a way to get sympathy.
Publicly expressing your misery, publicly becoming a victim.
It used to be a stigma to be a victim.
I was just talking about that last hour.
It used to be you'd hear people say all the time, I'm not going to play the victim.
Now, people, it's valorous to be a victim.
If you are a victim, that makes you a real American.
Real American, yeah, because you are being victimized.
You're being punished by this mythical, powerful bunch of people that are using you, chewing you up and spitting you out.
Now, it's it's interesting.
This question of is people more miserable now than they've ever been.
That's really impossible to tell.
But there's one thing I think is true.
The less time you spend interacting with people, sharing feelings, the happier you're going to be.
The more time you spend with people miserable and unhappy, whining and complaining, the greater the odds you're going to become one of them.
It's impossible to be around all that and not be affected by it.
I'm the happiest people, I'm convinced, are people who somehow are able to just compartmentalize all that away, or not even access it, not even go there.
It's hard not to, with as prevalent as media is today.
But uh I I the general sense that you get, I mean, I I don't know if it's like this for you, but I don't care wherever I go, there seems to be a melees.
I think back 20, 30 years ago, and there seemed to be.
And I don't want to fall under a trap saying this could be dead wrong.
Perceptions sometimes are not correct, but the perception 20, 30 years ago there was much greater happiness and acceptance overall of just day-to-day life.
Today we're pummeled.
I mean, the news is nothing but horrible, damning things that are happening to people all over the world.
And of course, it's not that things are happening, it's it's it's things people are doing to other people.
But that's not new either.
People have always been mean, people have always been unfair to others.
It's it's it's tough to say, you know, comparing one generation to the next or one era to the next.
But man, that's why it it I think it it's uh it's wise.
You know, every generation, as I've always said, every generation thinks it's living in the last days.
And every generation has people in it that think that things have never been worse.
But even in our politics, it could be accurately stated that we have been far more divided in the past at times in our country than we are today.
Civil war would be a great example of that in the period of time leading up to it.
The founding itself was not this magical thing that everybody supported.
So it's it it requires, I think, a mature temperance.
If you're gonna start trying to make comparisons along those lines, because people do it in order to try to predict the future.
Because everybody wants to know if is it getting better, is it getting worse?
The thing I think we can conclude is that in terms of our leadership, there isn't any uplifting or inspiring going on.
The president clearly isn't.
And there isn't at the highest levels of our government, highest reaches of our political power, you'd have to think long and hard to come up with a truly inspiring person.
Everybody seems enmeshed and swallowed up by all the pessimism.
And it does take effort to avoid it.
It's easy to fall into that pit.
That's why there have been people that made millions of dollars writing books on how to think positively.
And that's why you won't be able to find a book in the library called How to Fail, because we all already know how to do that, having done it numerous times.
But how to succeed, whoa, come up with a way that people think it can work for them, and you'll make a million dollars on the book.
Well, 400,000 after taxes.
Okay, here's an example of what I'm talking about.
By the way, let me admit something to you.
You know, I prepare the show every day.
I spend more time than you would believe in show prep immersing myself in what could only be described as the misery in our country.
I mean, to prepare yourself every day to talk about the latest in politics, the latest in culture, and sometimes even the latest in sports, is to is to immerse yourself in story after story after story of malcontent, discontent, distraction, unhappiness.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of joy in a whole lot of places.
And right in today's stack of stuff, I have three different stories, and let me, and they're all about the same thing, and let me read to you just the headlines.
The first one is from The Atlantic.
The incredible shrinking incomes of young Americans.
You know what this story's about?
This story is about millennials.
And this story tells millennials why and how they will never even get into the middle class, much less beyond.
And there's a name that you will not find in this story, and that's Obama.
The economic circumstances that are going to deny millennials entry to the middle class and beyond does not feature the name Barack Obama.
The next story is from Slate.com, why poor people stay poor.
The subhead, saving money costs money, period.
Now the point of this story is that when you have expenses that are caused by not having enough money, and that's you may think, well, of course that's obvious.
No, it means something specific.
When you are charged late fees, in addition to your bill, when you are charged disconnect charges, you don't pay the bill they disconnect, you charge it for it.
When you are faced with selective taxes in the form of court fines or fees, that that kind of expense makes it practically impossible to get when running out of money costs you additional money is what this story is about.
When running out of money causes or cost you even more money.
But it's still, it's another story about how you are destined to be poor and there's no way out.
And the third story is from the New York Times.
Unsteady incomes keep millions behind on their bills.
The New York Times writes a very descriptive story on the plight of a little family as they deal with job losses and a string of events that keep them from getting even one step ahead.
These people are living without a safety net.
They're portrayed as walking the financial tightrope every day.
They live one meager paycheck to check.
And of course, in this story as well, nowhere is it written, nowhere is the parallel between economic plight and economic policy mentioned.
The reasons you can't get a job, not mentioned.
The reason your job doesn't pay you very much, not mentioned.
The reason that the country is converting more full-time career-oriented jobs to part-time, not given.
All of these things are mentioned, but the reason for them is not.
And that would be Obama economics.
So in all three stories, there each story is a variation on how you do not have a smidgen of a chance to do well financially.
And all three of these, quite naturally, are liberal publications.
The Atlantic, Slate.com, and the New York Times.
And I guarantee you, their readers are going to read this, they're going to believe every word of it, and they're going to get down in the dumps, and they're going to get dejected, and they're going to start wanting to blame somebody.
And they're going to look around and they're going to find out well who's rich, who's got a lot of, who is doing well, and those people will get the blame.
And that's how it works.
The achievers and the successful become stigmatized as uncaring and selfish.
And then they become targets from whom we need to take even more.
Because if it weren't for their greed, if they weren't desirous of earning so much money, there'd be more to spread around to everybody else.
And that's what these stories imply.
Or at least the reader will infer.
And that you add to this whatever kind of poison they're being taught.
I'll tell you, I this this story that's about uh Rolling Stone and the Phantom Rape.
And there's a woman that wrote a story, I can't remember where.
She she's so off the rails, she is so consumed with rage.
She's making the point that every accuser we have a duty to as a default accept every accuser's word On rape or sexual abuse, because we women are truly hated in this country.
This is a writer at a major American publication, and I'm sure she really believes it.
I see stuff like this, okay.
Who told her?
She didn't leave the womb thinking this stuff.
Parents might have believed it, but more than likely, I'm I I think the poison that people are being fed at American universities explains a lot of this tripe.
Because that's where you find in the professori, that's where you find the real rage and the anger, and they've got tenure, and nobody can shut them up and disagree with them.
Okay, my folks, the fastest three hours and media are on a roll.
We've got one big exciting and busy broadcast hour to go.
▲
Export Selection