Rush Limbaugh Program - January 7, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 7, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:24

January 7, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	Okay, now uh what was it that Mrs. Clinton said?
	This is before everybody went away on the holiday break on the Christmas break.
	What did Hillary say?
	She said, I'm asking rhetorically, because I know what she said.
	Everybody knows what she may have forgotten, but I haven't.
	She said, we've got to empathize with with our enemies.
	And we've we've we've got to endeavor to understand them.
	We have to endeavor to understand how what we do makes them feel.
	And we have to endeavor to understand and use empathy in dealing with them.
	And we can't always just consider them flat out enemies.
	They have points of view that it would be worth our effort to try to understand.
	That's what Mrs. Clinton said.
	I wonder why nobody's bringing that up today.
	I wonder why I haven't seen one reference to Mrs. Clinton's prescription for dealing with these people.
	I haven't seen one network mention it today.
	And I don't think that we will.
	Greetings, my friends.
	Great to have you here.
	Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, a telephone number if you want to be on the program.
	800 282-2882, the email address El Rushbow at EIB net.com.
	Twelve are dead.
	Twelve people.
	Have you seen the video of the of the Paris police officer begging for his life and being shot?
	Well, it was a it's a YouTube video.
	I was able to watch it once, and I went back to try to watch it again, and it's it's now unavailable.
	It's considered to be private, it's pretty brutal.
	And it's we're up now to 12 people dead.
	This is a Paris satire newspaper.
	A newspaper called Charlie Hebdo, and I'm that's the English pronunciation.
	I'm not sure how it's pronounced in Anglicized French.
	Charlie Hebdo, I don't know.
	But the um details are 12 people dead, actually 11, at least 11.
	It's up now to 12 when you count the police officer.
	Eleven people were killed when gunmen arrived with Kalishnikovs.
	And a rocket launcher opened fire in the offices of the satirical newsweekly Charlie Hebdo in France.
	It's across the Seine from the Eiffel Tower.
	And just down the river from Notre Dame to the east, where this thing was located.
	This was a full-fledged military-style attack.
	This was not random neighborhood ne'er do wells.
	This is an important aspect of this, I think.
	That it was a full-fledged planned and executed military-style attack, complete, obviously, with training and rehearsals and weaponry and everything else.
	The French president, Francois Hollande, or Hollande, who immediately headed to the scene of the shooting, described it as a terrorist attack.
	Our president informed of this at 8.40 a.m.
	This occurred around 6 o'clock our time.
	6 a.m. Eastern time is the best my memory is telling me when this happened, but Obama was informed about it.
	The violence it was called in France at 840.
	He had not had his daily briefing yet.
	At 840, let's go to the audio soundbites.
	It's on CNN's new day.
	White House Press Secretary Josh Ernest was all over TV today, not Obama.
	The press secretary was on TV sounding like the president today.
	And during a discussion about the terror shootings at the French satirical newspaper, Charlet Ebdo, the fill-in co-host Alison Cameron.
	Does anybody know why she left Fox?
	You know, she was she was over there At Fox.
	She was uh Fox and Friends Week of Saturday morning uh anchorette uh infobabe and some other stuff, and the next thing I knew she's over there at CNN.
	You didn't hear anything about that?
	You don't know Snarly, your fingers usually pulse on this kind of stuff.
	Well, anyway.
	Uh Alison Camarada was talking to Josh Ernest, and she said, Josh, what is the president saying at this hour?
	This is 8 40.
	This is a couple of hours after the attack on the newspaper in Paris.
	The president is aware of uh the tragic events that we've seen uh in Paris early in the morning uh U.S. time.
	Uh, the president does have the presidential daily briefing on his uh schedule this morning as usual.
	So the president will be meeting with his national security team this morning, and I'm confident this will be uh on the agenda.
	I can tell you that uh the United States condemns in the strongest terms uh this horrific act of violence that we've seen in France.
	Obama's aware at 8 40, a couple hours after the fact hasn't had the daily brief yet.
	Now I'm not no, no, no, no, don't misunderstand.
	I'm not taking the occasion here, folks, to make well, maybe a little.
	But for crying out loud, this is you you this is there's no question this is a full-on terror attack for which immediate action should be taken in similar locales in this country.
	These are very rarely one-offs, anyway.
	I just I I found it pretty interesting that the press secretary was sounding more presidential today than Obama usually does, sounding more decisive, but he was afraid to call it terrorism.
	It was a deadly attack.
	Uh, it was a horrific act of violence, and he's pretty sure that Obama was going to be talking about it at the Daily Brief, which had not yet happened.
	Probably still celebrating the election of Boehner as Speaker of the House over at the White House late last night.
	Maybe that's why the late start today.
	Anyway, uh next on CNN's News Day, the co-host Chris Cuomo said to Josh Ernest, you keep using the word violence, but this is an act of terrorism.
	That's what the president of France called it.
	You're referring to ISIS and other bad actors.
	You know you're fighting a large group of people, somewhat similar concern.
	Do you see this as an act of terrorism?
	Is this something that has to be condemned on that level?
	This is an act of violence that we certainly do condemn.
	And it and uh if based on this investigation it turns out to be uh an act of terrorism, then we would condemn that in the strongest possible terms.
	What is there to doubt here?
	What see, I think this illustrates one of the problems that the civilized world, I don't think it's not just the United States, I think the civilized world is really up against the civilized world is cowering in fear.
	These people, and have been for a long time.
	And the extent to which the civilized world is cowering in fear extends even so far as to be afraid to talk to call this what it is.
	There is no question, there is no question the civilized world is in a defensive posture.
	When you have the likely Democrat 2016 presidential nominee saying about people like this, hey, we gotta be careful and we must empathize with them.
	We must try to reach out and understand their grievance.
	We have we have created such a widespread grievance industry throughout this country and throughout the civilized world.
	I'm just it's it's obvious it's it's imprisoning people in Great Britain.
	It has everybody's uh hands and feet in shackles in the civilized world.
	We're literally in fear.
	We're afraid to call stuff what it is, and it's got us handcuffed.
	It has us, it it literally has us afraid to deal with this head on.
	And this grievance politics has taken such a great hold, and I I really uh I mean this in the bottom of my heart.
	There's a this whole notion of grievance politics, the there's a grievance industry now.
	It has its roots in the civil rights movement, but by no means is it contained there.
	Uh the grievance industry practically encompasses all of left-wing politics.
	Everybody is a victim, everybody has a grievance against this mythical majority, which is made up of mean spirited evil extremists who all happen to be Republicans.
	And so anyone, plus, if you add to that the years and years and years of teaching and informing and inculcating the idea that the United States is illegitimate, which clearly the left is done.
	When you spread the word that the United States has mistreated the world, and that therefore we kind of are owed this kind of.
	That's why we must try to understand what Mrs. Clinton means when she talks about needing empathy.
	We're guilty.
	We have a role in this.
	People otherwise wouldn't be mad.
	They have a legitimate reason to be mad at us, so we better get serious and find out what it is and understand it.
	That's what she means.
	And this grievance industry, which has at its root, the United States has misbehaved since its founding.
	The United States has had a much bigger footprint all over the world than we ever deserved to have.
	We have run her over to world trampling everybody and everything.
	We've stolen, we have appropriated, and that's why we're a superpower, and it's illegitimate and it's unjustified.
	So this stuff, plus our relationship with Israel, all of that has combined to create at the highest levels of our leadership this idea that there is some evidence that the United States is responsible for this to an extent, I don't know to what extent, but that we certainly have some guilt about this.
	That's what the whole grievance industry is about.
	And clearly ISIS has a grievance with us, clearly Al-Qaeda does, clearly militant Islam does.
	And when your entire political identity, as either the Democrat Party, the American left, is rooted in the fact that the United States is the problem in the world, and its allies, by the way, and not the solution to the world,
	then you end up in a in a cowering in fear in the corner position where you are defensive and even tolerant in some cases of the assaults that we experience.
	And don't doubt me on this, that there are people at the highest levels of power in this country, and not just in Washington, but hell, I'm probably practically Ivy League looks at the U.S. this way, a higher education, which I really believe is at the root of so many of the problems we have in our culture.
	I really do.
	But it's patently obvious that we're afraid to call this what it is.
	We're afraid to call these people who they are and what they are.
	We're afraid to correctly identify them, even so far as being a little recalcitrant in even calling it terrorism, and waiting around for somebody else to do it first, and then, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, they said fine, we could say it then.
	So Owen has called it terrorism an act of terror.
	Fine, gives us the opening to do so is as well.
	We're pulling out of Afghanistan, and we're announcing it with pride.
	We're pulling out of Iraq or already did, and we're announcing it with pride.
	We're closing Gitmo.
	Obama's got a fire sale going on again.
	Anybody noticed every day, and more and more people are releasing there.
	Why?
	Because Gidmo was said to be a terrorism recruiting tool.
	Okay, so we're going to eliminate the recruiting tool of Gitmo.
	Right?
	We're going to close it now, and we're going to release everybody, and that's going to show these people, hey, it's a new day.
	You don't need to worry about the U.S. We understand you have a grievance against us, and you may have a point, just like the Chicoms were told, you don't doubt me on this, folks.
	There was an under-secretary of state.
	There was a meeting at the White House.
	I mentioned this before the Christmas break.
	All the details are kind of foggy to me now, but the point is that the Chicons had done something that violated human rights or whatever, and somebody in our regime stood up with a visiting ChICOM Politbureau member standing there and said he understood that it was really not fair of us to criticize the Chicons because we have our own civil rights violations in this country.
	And I forget what he was specifically referring to.
	It might have been immigration.
	It might have been, I don't know, but it was something silly, but do not doubt me that there are people that think this.
	Bill Blasio, de Blasio, this guy has grown up hating cops.
	This guy has grown up despite this guy has grown up believing cops are the problem.
	Twenty years ago, nobody thought anybody like this would ever be elected to anything.
	He'd just be a street corner rabble rouser.
	Twenty years later, here he is mayor, bringing to life all of this this idiocy and this extremism.
	He really does have an animus against cops.
	He really does.
	Well, if you think the police are the problem in the U.S., it's not a big stretch to think the U.S. is the problem in the world.
	And so we're making all of these public show we're recognizing Cuba, and we're not making Cuba whole to any of the terms of the deals they made.
	We are uh openly embracing dictatorships all over the world.
	We're closing GitMo, we're getting out of Afghanistan.
	And under what premise?
	Well, we're going to show these people that we're not George Bush anymore.
	That's right.
	We're going to show these people we don't hate them anymore.
	We're going to show these it's a new day.
	And then they're going to hate us anymore, and they're going to leave us alone.
	It's a new day.
	It's what Obama promised in 2008, and voila.
	Such a deep and profound misunderstanding of evil.
	And you know the best way to express that or explain that?
	In this country, it is the Tea Party that arouses real anger and thoughts of evil in the Democrat Party in the left.
	Not ISIS, not Al Qaeda, but the Tea Party.
	That's who they think is evil.
	These guys, we got to empathize.
	You ever heard Hillary say we need to empathize with Tea Party?
	Need to empathize Sarah Paler, need to empathize Ted Cruz.
	Nope.
	But we do need to empathize with these guys.
	And let's not forget this.
	I'm going to play this, and I got to take a break.
	This was Barack Hussein Oh, our president, September 25th, 2012, at the UN, after he had spent all this time once again blaming a video nobody had ever seen for the Benghazi attack.
	The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.
	That's our president at the UN in 2012.
	And we'll be back.
	Don't go away.
	Ah I did.
	I really did.
	We're back.
	Rush Lindborg, great to have you.
	EIB Network 800-282-2882.
	The thing I was trying to remember, it was a assistant secretary of state, Michael Posner.
	It was in May of 2010 who told a delegate from China that the U.S. had its own human rights violations, and so we couldn't really come down hard on the Chicons because we had our own.
	and he was talking about Arizona's immigration laws as evidence of the United States'human rights violations.
	So don't doubt me on this.
	Now there's one other thing.
	I need to actually parse my own self.
	I have spent time today referring to the grievance industry and the aspect of grievance.
	That is the seems like everybody and their uncle has a grievance against the U.S. And that all of these grievances are considered justifiable.
	They're considered valid.
	But when talking about the attack on the newspaper in France, this really isn't about grievance when you get right down to it when we know because we know who did this.
	This and this is something that we still haven't come to grips with.
	This is this is my precise point about Western civilization now living in a totally defensive posture rooted in fear.
	It really isn't about grievance.
	It really isn't about these people are not doing what they're doing because they have a grievance against us, other than the fact that we exist.
	This is about ideology.
	This is about the ideology of militant Islam.
	It's not so much that this group or ISIS or Al Qaeda or name your subsidiary has specific grievances against us.
	It is that their ideology opposes our entire existence.
	And the ideology is called their religion.
	But it's an ideology to these people, and it tells them to make war on and conquer non-Muslims.
	But boy, don't dare.
	Oh no, you don't say.
	Oh no, don't say that.
	That'll really make them mad.
	So we don't.
	We cower in fear, and we don't call it terrorism, and we blame ourselves or try to.
	Half my brain tied behind my back just to be fair, just to make it fair.
	It's a daily daily thing here, the EIB network.
	800 28282 and the email address, L Rushmow at EIBNet.com.
	Here is Mrs. Clinton.
	This was back on December 3rd in Washington, Georgetown University, during a foreign policy conference.
	Here is Hillary Rodham Clinton, the presumed Democrat presidential nominee in 2016, which makes her the presumed president-elect in 2016.
	This is what we call smart power, using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security, leaving no one on the sidelines, showing respect even for one's enemies, trying to understand and insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view, helping to define the problems, determine the solutions.
	That is what we believe in the 21st century will change.
	Change the prospects for peace.
	There you have it.
	Presumptive Democrat nominee 2016, Hillary Clinton on the same day, twelve people murdered in a full-on military-style attack from Al-Qaeda or Muslim ISIS extremists, militant Islamists.
	That's right.
	We need to not leave anybody on the sidelines.
	We need to do smart power, use every tool, show respect, even for one's enemies, trying to understand, and insofar as psychologically possible, trying to determine via empathizing with their perspective and point of view, solutions.
	It's breathtaking.
	The naivete and the danger this kind of thinking puts all of us in.
	This is incompetence.
	This is head in the sand, ignorance and incompetence.
	On proud display, by the way, that this was considered brilliant.
	This was considered really, really forward-thinking intellectualism.
	And it's exactly the kind of crap that we get, probably in faculty lounges all over this country.
	As the true eggheads among us who think they're the best and the brightest, sit around and theorize and pontificate on how they are the only ones capable of understanding the nature of the problem, and therefore they are the only ones capable of dealing with it and understanding it.
	When they haven't the slightest idea, they lead the parade of cowardice, unwilling to even identify this for what it is.
	Now, I don't want to be misunderstood.
	The grievance industry is real and it has dramatic impact.
	The grievance industry, primarily in domestic politics in this country, but it transcends domestic.
	The grievance industry is rooted in anybody with a grievance against anybody in power, particularly the United States, is valid.
	All grievances are valid.
	They're all justified.
	And therefore, must be taken seriously and must be addressed.
	Now, I don't think that ISIS ISIL, Al-Qaeda.
	I don't think they have any grievance against us other than the fact that we exist.
	I again need to emphasize my view that what we're dealing with here is a raw ideology.
	That is disguised as a religion, rather brilliantly and on purpose, by the way.
	You call it a religion, and it automatically takes on unassailable characteristics.
	But it is an ideology.
	The nature of their grievances, they don't they don't have any grievance against us because of our civil rights record.
	They don't have any grievance against us for this or that.
	Their grievance, if you call it that, uh, is actually their claim that we have no right to exist unless we recognize their religion.
	It is their ideology, not their grievances.
	It's their ideology that tells them to make war on non-believers, on non-Muslims, and that in turn requires this jihad against Western civilization, not just the U.S., but the civilized world.
	And it's regardless, there's there's no policy change we could make that would calm these people down.
	And that's what I mean by they're not actually grievance related.
	Now, Hillary thinks they are.
	This is the point.
	Hillary, Obama, the rest of these people, they all think they are grievance related.
	And that's why they think if if if they make changes in U.S. policy, that we can buy these people off, such as closing Wantanamo Bay, such as blaming this this poor sap that made this video that nobody saw.
	So whatever.
	If we make subtle or dramatic policy changes, we can send a message that we're no longer George W. Bush, and we're not these cowboys riding all over the world killing people who disagree with us.
	So they think it is grievance.
	They think everything else is.
	They themselves have grievances against this country that were fomented when they were in college.
	Or even before that, by their mentors and their parents and their and their friends, whoever.
	And because of their arrogance, they think everybody looks at the world the way they do.
	So if they have grievances against the U.S. and say Mahmoud Ahmedini Zad comes out and lists his, hey, they understand.
	Did you ever notice how similar Ahmadini Zad sounds about the U.S. when the Democrats talk about it?
	I'm not trying to be needlessly provocative here.
	It's something I noticed during the 2012 campaign, 2008 campaign.
	Every Democrat was listing complaints about this country.
	Mario Cuomo did it back in 1984.
	This speech that he was heralded for was a list of grievances against the U.S. And uh and Ronald Reagan, and you hear our enemies listing the same thing.
	So I'm my point is that leadership in this country, Democrat leadership, they have their grievances against this country, and they think that they're justified, obviously.
	So when they hear somebody around the world with grievances, they have a maybe a little bit of relatability.
	But the mistake they make is assuming that our enemies have the same grievance or problem with the U.S. that they do, and they're missing the boat entirely when it comes to militant Islam.
	The only grievance that militant Islam has about us is that we exist and that we are non-believers, and that's it.
	Boy, you don't say that.
	No, that's oh, that's that's that's not smart power.
	That's not empathy.
	That's that's not understanding their perspective and point of view.
	That's needless name-calling.
	That's just personal and uncalled for.
	So we're hamstring.
	We can't even, Even at the White House, two hours after the event, we can't call it what it is.
	And this stuff is going to keep happening.
	And I mentioned yesterday that I have in my accumulating stack of stuff, starting with show prep over the weekend for my return to the air chair on Monday.
	There's a, I should dig this out in the stack, there's a column that ran in The Economist, which is a UK publication, focuses on economics, but it's actually like a Time magazine.
	It's the UK version of time in one sense.
	They got a whole story on the fearfulness plaguing America.
	That our children are fearful, that their parents are fearful, that parents are reading raising children in fear.
	Afraid to let them go on sled rides down a hill near the house.
	Never know what calamity could occur, could occur.
	And their point is that we're raising a whole generation or two of people that are not prepared.
	They're fearful, and they've been led to believe that people don't like us or justified and have reasons for it.
	But the fearfulness is the point.
	It's permeating everything, including speech.
	There's a piece at the Federalist.com today, which is one of these uh new, relatively new conservative websites inspired by the EIB network, as most modern-day conservatives have been inspired by this program.
	And it's a really great site.
	There's a bunch of them, campus reform, there's all kinds of uh young conservatives popping up, and it's changing once again the the entire composition and makeup of standard ordinary everyday what it used to be journalism.
	And I think the drive-bys are the last to figure out what's happening.
	They're stuck in the fact that they lost their monopoly back in the late 80s and early 90s when this program came along and talk radio blew up and Fox News started in 1997, but they're losing it again.
	The blogosphere, the internet, there's all there's a whole new outburst of new media there.
	And the internet is where the the drive-bys went to find sanctuary when the alternative media, such as this talk radio and Fox News sprang up, started burying traditional cable news networks that have left, like CNN, uh MSNBC, uh, you name it, but it's happening to them all again, and I don't think they noticed this one.
	They think all these little offshoots on the internet are little minority, very small, not impactful at all little sites, and they're ignoring them if they even know who they are.
	One of these sites is the Federalist.
	There's a bunch of them, as I say.
	Um, but this one, this piece, how President Obama Sold Out, Charles Ibdu.
	Two years ago, a crude video against Islam was used as pretext by Islamists in various countries for riots and violence, though that same video had nothing to do with the coordinated attack on U.S. outposts in Benghazi, resulting in the assassination of U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and the three others.
	The Obama regime claimed it did.
	The Obama regime even rewrote talking points to blame an imaginary protest against the video as leading to those deaths.
	And the imaginary protest was in Cairo.
	Remember when the State Department, when the U.S. Embassy in Cairo issued an apology on the anniversary of 9-11 and nothing had happened.
	And we issued an apology in advance, should there be any riots celebrating 9-11.
	Celebrated.
	This is Egypt, don't forget.
	And the the stated purpose was to get out in front of any protests and silence them.
	Stop them.
	If we just, here we go again, admit our culpability.
	If we just admit, if we just apologize, we were the ones that were attacked.
	But if we just apologize, maybe they won't protest.
	Well, not only did they protest, then it blew up over in Benghazi and Libya.
	And you know the rest of the story.
	Obama and Hillary ran out all over the world blaming this video.
	Nobody had ever seen it.
	They rewrote talking points at Susan Rice out of five Sunday morning talk shows to make the point.
	And not long after that, Obama spoke to the United Nations, and among the things he said, he had this to say about people who mock Islam.
	The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
	That's our president at the United Nations, September 25th, 2012.
	And in that same speech, he blamed this video that nobody had ever seen.
	It blamed an American who made a video that justified all the riots that were taking place.
	Hence their belief in this grievance notion.
	But that was not all.
	Do you remember?
	The United States paid for ads in Pakistan, starring Hillary and Barack Obama, repeating all of the untruths spoken by the president and Hillary, claiming the U.S. was responsible for these video was responsible.
	And the ad that we paid for that Obama and Hillary starred in that ran in Pakistan said in part we reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.
	Hillary Clinton said of the U.S. government, we absolutely reject content and message of a video nobody had ever seen.
	I have to take a break, but stick around, I'll tell you where this all going.
	You probably can figure it out.
	Hey, has anybody heard from Reverend Wright on what happened in France?
	Well, now has Reverend Wright stood up and said, Francis chickens have come home to roost.
	Well, he said that after 9-11, 2001 in this country.
	Did he not?
	Obama's pastor.
	Has he said that about France today?
	I kind of doubt it.
	And I checked an email.
	It's typical, you know, these libs send me these emails.
	They're funny, folks.
	Don't matter.
	I don't get mad.
	I enjoy reading them.
	So what's the point, Mr. Limbaugh?
	So what are you?
	Okay, let me cut to the chase.
	You know what the point of all this is?
	By going to the UN and saying that a video was responsible for the death of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
	When it wasn't, by sending Susan Rice on five Sunday morning talk shows to spread that lie to run ads in Afghanistan or Pakistan, starring Obama and Hillary.
	Continuing this lie that a video, these actions have consequences, ladies and gentlemen.
	That the president of the United States going to the UN 2012, saying the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
	And by the way, in Obama's official statement today, there's not one mention of Islam or Muslims.
	I didn't expect there to be.
	But we have a false narrative here, as it's now called in the drive-by-me.
	We have a false template, a false narrative.
	We've had a false narrative ever since Benghazi happened.
	And my point is, this country's leadership has fed the beast.
	This country's leadership has fed the rage.
	Not just this country's all of Western civilization, which is cowering in fear.
	All of civilized world afraid to deal with this for what it is.
	All the Westernizers who think in closing, Git Maw will solve it.
	Getting out of Afghanistan will stop it.
	All we're doing is trumpeting our weakness.
	But when Obama shows up, the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.
	Then you have the president of the United States rationalizing barbaric behavior and punishing some poor oolf who just made a video that nobody ever saw.
	So these actions have consequences.
	But our leadership uses words to cast and shape images and PR and buzz.

▲