All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 16, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:37
December 16, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, that's just great, ladies and gentlemen.
Absolutely wonderful.
You see where President Obama's finally come up with a strategy to fight terrorism after all of these years.
Oh man, I'm so comforted.
He has announced, and he's gonna make the military more lean.
What it means is he's gonna gut it.
But rather than say that, he's gonna make the military more lean.
He's going to slash the military budget even more, even though it has already been slashed considerably.
But um I don't know, but I don't know how well how much do drones cost.
I mean, clearly the uh terrorism method that we're using here is uh is drones, which, of course, are not nearly as bad as torture, uh so-called torture.
Hey, folks, uh it it could have been worse.
I wouldn't have been surprised if he would have ordered the military to start walking around with their arms up, chanting hands up, don't shoot.
And it can always be worse with this guy.
This is the way you have to look at it.
Greetings.
And welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
This is the EIB network of the Limbaugh Institute for you find that funny.
Snirtley's practically on the floor.
It could have been.
I would would you've been surprised?
Hell, everybody else in the world is doing it on CNN.
Did you see this?
Those four info babes sitting there with their hands up saying hands up, don't shoot.
One of them had a sign said, I can't breathe.
It didn't happen.
Hands up, don't shoot didn't happen.
And it all it is it just the truth is no longer a fact.
The truth is not even objective.
The truth is is relative and it's it's a mess.
So it wouldn't have surprised me at all.
You know, Obama's trying to get in on the pop culture stuff if he'd had the military walk around with their hands ups and hands up, don't shoot.
So it could have always it could always be worse.
Great to have you folks again.
The telephone numbers 800 282-288-2, the email address.com.
You know, the state of journalism today is horrible.
Uh things that are untrue just jam pack lies or making it into the news routinely and regularly.
With uh sometimes corrections are made, sometimes they're not.
The rape story at uh the UVA with with Rolling Stone, I mean, they're just everywhere.
And I think I really do uh paying uh some attention to things over the weekend.
I think I think journalism is undergoing a tectonic shift right before our eyes that's not being seen.
The results of it are being seen, but what's actually happening isn't being seen.
It all starts in journalism school, but not entirely there.
But I think the drive-by media, you know, they they used to have a monop monopoly.
Let's review this for just a second.
Up until 1988, the mainstream media had a virtual monopoly on the news.
They had a monopoly on what they were going to report and what they were not gonna report.
And that's key.
That's big.
And you had exclusionary rights.
You were able to control the the thought and the opinions of the public at large simply by what you decided to cover and what you decided to not cover.
Then you add to that the monopoly to add opinion or bias to whatever you decide to cover.
So they owned it, and that was a lot of power, and they used it over and over and over again.
Everybody knows.
1988 came along, and this program started, and it gave birth to what is uh popularly called an alternative media.
First, it was this program giving birth to other talk radio programs, and a blogosphere came along, and then nine years later came Fox News, and the whole alternative media thing came up, and regardless what people think of it, it did destroy the mainstream media's monopoly.
And I think, and I have I have mentioned this on several previous occasions.
I think that the realization by the drive-by media their monopoly was over is the actual Moment in time that gave birth to the media as unabashed, out in the open advocates for the Democrat Party and its agenda.
They had always been that.
But prior to the monopoly ending, they were able to shroud themselves in this cloak of objectivity and fairness, mainstream, if you will.
They were able to camouflage who they were.
But the rise of alternative media in prominent places began obviously to challenge the orthodoxy.
And there were many things that the drive they lost power.
They saw power ebbing and flowing away from them.
And so they began to do things to, in many ways, prove to themselves they still had the power that they had under the monopoly.
And the desire to prove their power to themselves dictated and demonstrated a lot about the stories they covered in the polls that they undertook.
In other words, if you if you're going to cover the news, with the objective being to prove to yourself you still have the monopolistic power to bend and shape public opinion, then you are going to cover certain stories, ignore others, and you're going to cover them in a certain way to demonstrate to yourself as a accredited member of the drive-by media that your loss of the monopoly has not resulted in the total loss of your power.
Well, now we've been at this long enough that the alternative media, uh previously defined as me, talk radio, Fox News, the blogosphere, has given birth to yet another child, if you will.
And this is in large part social media related media.
Social website, Facebook, Twitter, but uh it's also blogs and websites.
But these are just, these are plain old, and I don't mean that in plain old and boring, but they're just average, ordinary, everyday run-of-the-mill regular people who have websites, who have constructed the websites and structured them to look official, could be one or two people made to look like a massive news organization underway.
And uh they they do things according to the journalistic model in terms of the way stories are structured.
Many of them are conservative, many of them are renegade conservative.
But the point is it is it is causing the drive-by media further panic, and the impact that all of this new media is having is clearly the erosion of the monopolistic mainstream media model.
That deterioration is continuing.
And they are very much they're they're now the dinosaurs.
I mean, literally, we joked about them being Jurassic Park.
They really are now.
Now, it's going to take a while for all of this to manifest.
I'm not saying that they're not effective.
I don't want anybody to misunderstand.
I'm not saying they've lost influence.
I'm just, I'm just saying the ground is shifting.
And many of them look at the New York Times.
Look at these newspapers.
They can't sell advertising, they can't keep up their circulation.
The New York Times is routinely buying out employees.
And if they don't take the buyout, they fire them.
They're not paying them very much.
Their severances are not very high.
All of their benefits packages are gone.
It's misery in many places, other than for a select few stars at these places.
And and uh in fact, David Carr, I think it's Carr Carter, I'm not sure which Bill Carter, David, one of the two people at the New York Times wrote a piece on this without even, I don't think really realizing what he was writing.
He was writing a piece on this new media.
He was ripping them to shreds, how they're not real journalists, how they don't have any credibility when you do a history check on them, you can't find anything that would qualify them.
But see, that doesn't matter anymore.
It doesn't, the internet itself confers authority.
Just the net itself.
And if you know how to structure your story or stories and your website, you can confer or have authority conferred on you whether you deserve it or not.
The American people, and I'm not being critical.
You know me, the more the merrier, and the freer the speech the better.
Uh I can deal with it.
I, you know, I'm in a content content content business, and I'm proud of my content, and I make it up and I don't lie about it, so I got nothing to worry about.
But the people in the drive by who have been living a lie for all these years are being exposed.
And they are in panic, and they're running stories that are flat out untrue.
They're running stories flat out untrue because they're ending up hiring people that have no business being hired as journalists.
They're hiring little inculcated propagandized young skulls full of mush out of out of political science departments or out of journalism schools or whatnot.
Here, there's a the story we had, just this is just one example.
On Friday, I reported to you via the New York Times that the Pope, Pope Francis, had told a young boy that his dog would go to heaven, and that he would see his young dog in heaven because animals are part of God.
Turns out Pope Francis didn't say it.
Pope Francis didn't get anywhere close to saying it.
Pope John Paul VI said it years ago in a specific circumstance to comfort a six-year-old, I think, who had asked him a question about it.
He was not speaking, even Pope John Paul VI was not speaking in any official papal announcement authority.
He was just trying to comfort a kid.
The New York Times just made it up.
And they had to write an immediate correction.
On Thursday, the New York Times reported that Pope Francis was endorsing the thesis of the cartoon All Dogs Go to Heaven.
On Friday, they were pressed to run a correction suggesting the media are eager to promote the notion the Pope is frustrating conservatives and breaking with long-standing Catholic teaching.
And that is exactly why the Times wrote what they wrote.
They wrote what they wanted to believe was true.
They they wanted the Pope.
Remember now the left despises the Catholic Church for a whole host of reasons.
And so this Pope has come along and has given them some encouragement.
This Pope Francis has come out in their minds and attacked capitalism, and they had to retract, retract that, by the way.
But the Pope has said a number of things that the drive-bys and the left consider to be attacks on conservatism.
And that all that's all it took for the New York Times to think they had a scoop and think they had a story because I think, and I've joked about this in the past, but I think this is absolutely true.
I think to, I don't care, and I think I can prove it in the audio sound bites today.
And if not in the if not in the audio soundbites in the stag of stuff.
I think that the Democrat Party today, the American left and the U.S. media, if there's any distinction in them, really do consider American conservatives to be a bigger threat to their way of life,
their version of America, what they think is true than they consider the Taliban or Al Qaeda or Iran or any other foreign enemy, the Chikoms, the Russia, and I'm not exaggerating.
This is another one of those things used to joke about that actually has come true.
And I really do think that they are so twisted with this hatred for us, that the moment they see a shred of anything that might indicate that conservatives are going to take it on the chin, so the Pope, the vicar of Christ telling a guy, the papal statement that dogs go to heaven.
The New York Times knows that Catholics are gonna or conservatives are gonna have an outrageous reaction to that.
That's why they did the story.
Just to tweak us.
Just to try to convince us that another of our precious and beloved institutions, in this case the Catholic Church, was abandoning us.
I'm telling you, the sense of war and opposition and hatred for American conservatives by the American left.
I don't think it's something people have a full grasp of.
I'm I'm without doubt convinced that nobody in the Republican establishment understands it, except to the degree that they agree with the Democrats.
I think you get the budget deal, you look at the way things happened there.
You look at Jeb Bush who's announced an exploratory committee today.
It is clear, ladies and gentlemen, that the number one No, no, don't, Mr. Sturdley.
You're still stuck some years ago in the usual model or paradigm how Washington structured and acts and behaves.
I'm telling you.
As far as the donor classes of the Democrat and Republican parties, and they're the ones with power, the donor class, the Tea Party or conservatives poses the biggest threat on a day-to-day basis to them.
Far bigger than the Taliban, far bigger than Al-Qaeda.
So anything that can happen that can be reported as conservatives taking it on the chain.
Any evidence that we are losing, any attempt to beat us is going to be at the top of their lists.
And I don't, I don't think there is any question about this.
So they you've got a bunch of unsettling, upsetting things happening in journalism, causing some of them.
Heads should be rolling at Rolling Stone and any other number of media places.
The outright lies that are ending up as news.
You've got four analysts and maybe an anchor at CNN sitting there, hands raised in solidarity with something that did not happen.
A news network, claiming to be America's leader.
Hands up, don't shoot.
And this Pope story is just one example.
The number of corrections that had the New York Times alone corrections page could fill the bottom half of the front page most days.
So there's, I think, earth-shattering things happening, but not clearly visible.
You see the results of them.
It used to be that Stephen Glass at the New Republic who was fired eventually just making things up just left and right didn't matter.
Canned without a second thought.
It turns out that the uh infobabe that wrote the fraudulent story on rape was a classmate of Stephen Glasses when they were in college, wherever it was in 1994, they were classmates, may have even known each other.
But in addition to these young kids, the quasi journalist coming out of school already oriented this way, their prof the professorates, or the professoriate, if you will, the faculty of these places is uh in large part responsible for the creation of these uh attitudes.
I've got a well, I've got to take a break.
That's what I've got to do.
I just saw the clock.
So we'll be back.
Sit tight.
Here's how the fraudulent New York Times story began.
Pope Francis has given hope.
Now, listen to this.
You have to read this in in the context of who's the enemy here.
Why is this story written?
Story is written, aiming at conservatives.
It's a yang-n-n-n-n-it's we're beating you, we're gonna kick your butt, we hate you, you conservatives.
Here's another of your precious institutions abandoning you.
That's the theme.
Pope Francis has given hope to gays.
See, we conservatives are supposed to be mad about that, you know.
Uh Pope Francis has given hope to unmarried couples.
Yeah, we conservatives are supposed to hate that too.
Pope Francis has given hope to advocates of the big bang theory.
Yeah, we're supposed to hate that too, see, because that's evolution.
So you conservatives, this Pope's abandoning you, now, says the rights Rick Gladstone, New York Times, now, Pope Francis has endeared himself to dog lovers, animal rights activists, and vegans.
See, you conservatives are losing everybody.
The Pope recognizes that all of the weirdos on our side are actually the normal ones, and you are the freaks.
During a weekly general audience at the Vatican last month, the Pope speaking of the afterlife appeared to suggest that animals could go to heaven, asserting that holy scripture teaches us that the fulfillment of this wonderful design also affects everything around us.
Italy's newspaper analyzing the Pope's remarks concluded he believed animals have a place in the afterlife.
And then they go on that story further is written in a way to frustrate conservatives, and then they had the next day to run a correction.
Pope Francis said none of this.
That whole story was made up from a single quote of Pope John Paul VI in a non-official moment, trying to comfort a little six-year-old boy who had asked him if his dog was going to go to heaven.
And the Pope, Pope John Paul VI decided he wasn't gonna get deep and in the weeds with a six-year-old.
And so he made a decision.
That was years ago.
And the New York Times, New York Magazine, there's another story here.
Monday's edition of New York Magazine included an irresistible story about a Stuyvesant high school senior named, of course, Mohammed Islam, who'd made a fortune investing in the stock market.
Except that he didn't.
He made zero.
It was a totally fraudulent, made up story, not checked because the narrative of the story was too dreamy, a set upon Muslims scoring big in America.
We're back great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh behind the golden EIB microphone, executing assigned host duties flawlessly, zero mistakes.
Let me give you another example here.
Well, that the New York magazines, let me flesh that out for you.
New York magazine, irresistible story about a styvent high school senior named Mohammed Islam.
And Mohammed made a fortune investing in the stock market.
The reporterette, Jessica Pressler, wrote regarding the precise number, though he is shy about the $72 million number.
He confirmed his net worth is in the high eight figures.
The New York Post followed up with a story of its own, with the fat figure playing a key role.
And their headline was Has Scroll Student scores $72 million playing the stock market.
And it turns out the real number is zero.
In an exclusive interview with Mr. Islam and his friend Damir Tulamagadabatov, who was also featured heavenly New Yorker story, the baby faced boys who dress in suits with the tie clips came clean.
They got swept up in a tide of media adulation.
They made the whole thing up.
They made the whole thing up, and it ends up in New York magazine and the New York Post.
For the longest time, the smartest thing to ask about any news story you read, watch, or listen to is it true?
It's amazing what is happening.
And then there's this.com ran an article on Friday.
A Penn State professor named Sophia McClennan.
Sophia McClennan is distressed that the Colbert Report is coming to an end.
She loved the Colbert Report because it skewered conservatives, and it finally made America the country it should have been all along by making fun of conservatives and relegating them to these places of idiocy and irrelevance, the Colbert Report was the greatest thing that ever happened to America.
And she wrote this.
The Colbert Show affirmed American values for those who think critically.
For the first time in decades, we had a comedian critiquing conservatism and suggesting that such critique was the highest form of patriotism.
She's celebrating that mocking, making fun of conservatism is patriotism today.
And then she said this, and this is the key right here.
Finally, we had someone remind us that you could care about your nation and simultaneously find American exceptionalism disturbing.
And there you have it.
A professorette at Penn State lamenting the loss of a comedy show, because a comedy show finally put conservatives and conservatism in its place.
Because this talk about how great America is, this talk about how special and unique America is got to go.
American exceptionalism is disturbing.
And throughout modern liberalism, well, not even modern, throughout all of liberalism, you'll find maybe even the foundational theme is a blame of America, a dislike for America, a resentment of America, as exceptional as a superpower as what have but the point of this is, folks, that to the Republican Party, the Democrats are not the big threat, you and me are.
Not the Taliban, not Al Qaeda, not Islamic jihadist terrorism.
No, no, no.
That's a threat, yeah.
But we'll we'll take care of that with some drones and we'll peer down the military.
The real threat is American conservatism, the Tea Party, and anybody in conservatism or the Tea Party who it uh somehow becomes prominent.
Paul VI, not John Paul, Pope Paul VI that made the comment to the to the uh young child.
I said, did I say John Paul VI?
I'll correct myself.
Pope Paul VI is the one the New York Times took his words and put them in the in the mouth of uh of Pope Francis.
Uh and by the way, this professor out at Penn State is not alone.
You know, I don't know how widely read you are on all of this, but because it's my job, man, I read all this stuff, and I'm telling you, it's getting harder and harder to remain in good cheer.
I can't tell you how ticked off I am every day by 11 o'clock.
Literally ticked off some of the stuff I run into.
And my tech blocks, I can't escape this stuff about how America sucks.
I can't escape celebrating when America takes it on the chin.
I can't escape these professors and these lies and all this crap that's in the media about everything that's so-called wrong with it.
Meanwhile, we're losing everything this country's known for.
The culture is rotting away, the culture is corrupting itself away, being perverted away, and all of that's being celebrated.
People trying to stand up and defend the culture and stop it and make it whole again are considered the enemy, and the whole notion of American exceptionalism is uh is considered threatening.
And the point of it all is now that even lying in the media is perfectly fine.
It doesn't matter.
What is the phrase fake but accurate?
And they concocted that after Dan Rather made up the whole thing about Bush and the National Guard.
Well, it was true.
The documents might have been fake, but it was a true story.
So the fact that it was accurate and could only be confirmed with fake things didn't matter.
The fake was okay because in their minds it was true.
And so the same thing with rape in the Rolling Stone story.
Well, it may not have happened, but we know it happens all the time.
And this is a good story to get out there and have it in the public consciousness.
Yeah, maybe these guys that were accused didn't do it, but it still happens.
You know it and I know it.
And it's like Ferguson, Missouri.
Well, okay, the gentle giant may have robbed a story.
And the gentle giant might have inserted himself in the cops car.
And the gentle giant might not have had still doesn't erase the fact that white cops are killing black kids every day.
No, none of it's true.
It doesn't matter.
See, the truth is relative.
It doesn't matter, fake but accurate.
Okay, the Pope didn't say, but it still it still let us really rip conservatives all the hill, so it's worth being wrong, and nobody will see the correction anyway.
So, in the process, as so often happens with liberalism, the standards, everything is being corrupted, everything decent, is being corrupted, torn apart, perverted, and what have you by a bunch of miserable, unhappy people who simply cannot be happy no matter what they do and no matter what happens.
But it's it's it's corrupting countless institutions that people trust and that and still do, and that people believe in.
I mean, for crying out loud, American exceptionalism is easy to explain.
These people even lying about what that is.
American exceptionalism, in their minds, you know what they think we're doing with it?
They think we're running around and say, we're better than you.
We're better than you Europeans.
Yeah, we're better than you, Africans, we're Americans, we're superior, we're better.
That's not what it is.
But that's what they think it is.
And of course, that's just that's not right.
Everybody say nobody's better than anybody.
It's not right for us to do that.
Besides, those people are probably better than we are.
We have everything we have because we stole it from those poor people.
It's just perverted sickness out there everywhere.
And uh I just, you know, you do what you can to battle it and fight it, but it seems they just do not stop.
They're just on a forward, constant, almost smothering march with this stuff.
I can remember pieces written by Victor Davis Hansen over the years, the past 20 years, National Review Online, where he would chronicle this decay.
He would chronicle the corruption in this element of the news or this element of society or that part of the Democrat Party, and his belief was that the corruption itself would cause ruination.
That we really didn't have to take any remedial action because these people were corrupting themselves.
They were corrupting their own institutions, and nobody would buy what they were doing.
Nobody would believe the outrageous claims, and he was wrong.
And everybody who thought like that was wrong.
They're not, they are corrupting themselves, but they're not losing.
At least on the surface.
Anyway, I got to take a quick time out here, my friends, but sit tight, it's Rushlin Blah, the EIB network, back as our quest to save America rolls on unstopped right after this.
Here's another example.
Another example in in the mind of a consumer.
How the truth doesn't matter.
It's an AP story about the uh the UVA rape story that was in Rolling Stones, a Rolling Stone magazine, who, by the way, have not retracted the story.
All they've done is apologize for some things, and they have not retracted it.
You can still read it on the website.
They've not retracted that.
And it didn't happen.
But look, from an AP story about the fake UVA accuser, Jessica's friends, one of whom is quote, Jessica's the so-called victim.
One of her friends is quoted as saying, but if anything, the takeaway from all this is I still don't care if what's presented in the article is true or not, because I think it's far more important that people focus on the issue of sexual assault as a whole.
So if Rolling Stone runs a totally made-up story about campus rape by a fraternity, it's good, even if it's all lies, even if none of it's true, because it's still focused attention on campus rape, even though there wasn't one.
It's still focused attention on sexual assault.
I think there is an outgrowth, by the way, to all of this caring.
And I'm I'm gonna admittedly have to be very careful here.
Because this just hit me last night.
We all know the NFL's in a lot of trouble for a whole host of reasons.
The NFL, what what year was it they began October is pink?
the month every season that they devote to consciousness raising for breast cancer.
Ever since that began, the NFL has been plagued by one bad story after another, despite all the consciousness raising, despite all of the attempts at doing good, look at instead what has happened.
And that month of October hadn't bought them any credit credibility or any good vibe or anything.
And then there's another result of all of this.
That I don't know.
Is it good?
Let me just ask this question this is the first formulation of the question, so give me some time to work on this.
But is it good for the country at large for people to be running around all day every day thinking that they might have a deadly disease?
Or that they might get one later today or tomorrow.
All of this consciousness raising about things.
How many hypochondriacs is it creating?
How many people are doing nothing but thinking about disaster befalling them with all of this?
How many people go through every day when now with just a minor malady?
Oh my God, oh my God, did I drink too much coffee today?
Am I gonna have a heart attack?
Oh my god, I'm a good.
I know, I know I'm treading on dangerous water here, but but but it's a lot of this has turned everybody inward and self-conscious.
And the things that are just ups and downs and hills and valley of life are now daily potential tragic disasters.
Don are you rolling your eyes because you think I'm a thin ice, or do you think I'm being brilliant here?
You think, see, they all think I'm on thin ice, and I probably am.
I'm not being critical of anybody.
I'm just I'm just no, no, I don't want to, no, I don't want to go back to the day when people got sick and didn't know about it.
But look, and didn't have everybody didn't have health care.
Health care is worse today than it was before Obama got hold of it.
That's my point.
With all of this, we we we now need consciousness raising about assault on campus, and in order to raise for what purpose do we want to raise?
We'll do a lie.
We'll have a major story that's totally untrue to raise consciousness about for what end?
Who does this who does it target?
Who is guilty but not guilty?
Who's doing the assaulting that didn't happen?
And who's paying the price for that?
Who's paying a price for doing something that they didn't do because the story says they might do it because of who they are?
All of this is made up.
All of this is fabricated.
We're creating circumstances that don't exist, mindsets, prepared to accept disaster where it doesn't happen.
Meanwhile, where it is happening, the people guilty of it are recording PSAs telling us not to do it.
The people doing all this disaster-oriented stuff, the people, the actual reprobates are doing PSAs and going on television and guesting on TV shows, telling us that our consciousness needs to be raised, and we need to stop doing this when we're not doing it.
When it isn't, whatever it is, spousal abuse you name it.
Hey, you know, this is this is a good thing that you're talking about here.
Uh the the loss of honest media targeting anything conservative.
Do you take any hope in people seeing what you're talking about more and more?
Yeah, I do.
Look at the last two midterm elections.
I think the American people see clearly what's happening here, and they don't like it.
I think the American people are totally up to those voting anyway, Are very aware of all of this.
And they're voting to stop all this stuff.
All of this stuff the American people were unequivocal about.
Stop it.
Bring it to a screeching halt.
And what did the what did the political class in Washington do?
Just the the political class in Washington with this budget deal, essentially the two parties got together and they turned to the electorate who voted in November and went you.
That is precisely what they did.
And you don't want to, you want to know why Jeb Bush is thinking of running?
I'll give you a possible, including the fact he may actually want to be president, he may actually want to do this.
But he's also being looked at as a savior by the big money donor class and the cons and the consultant class, the establishment of the party to head off the tea party.
They're going to pull out all the stops to make sure that a Tea Party type conservative doesn't get the nomination.
And if that means somebody like Jefferson, it could be a sacrificial run just to make sure that a conservative doesn't get the nomination in 2016.
There's a whole bunch of stuff under the surface here that's percolating and effervescing.
And it's all about us being the number one enemy of these people.
And we have to take a brief break at the top of the hour.
We'll be back before you know it.
And as you can imagine, they're lined up with vigor, venom aiming for me on the phone.
▲
Export Selection