All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 7, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:47
January 7, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I've been looking for it now.
I just, I forgot to look for it.
I didn't remember to look for it until I have four minutes or one minute left.
No, I'm looking for that economist piece.
I found a companion piece for it, but I, well, you know what?
I can do two things at once here, and I will eventually find this.
Anyway, greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
It's great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, behind the Golden EIB microphone at the Limbaugh Institute.
Here it is, home of the unbrave.
Just found it for Advanced Conservative Studies, Limbaugh Institute.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, the email address.
Sorry, folks.
Grab some stuff from the printer.
282-2882.
I never lose my place.
800-282-2882.
No, I had to print out an email.
I got an email from a guy during the break.
We got a couple of soundbites here from Obama.
I'm going to put those at the bottom of the stack.
Okay.
Get this.
Dear Rush, I'm serious.
I got this email.
You always blame the people responsible when these events happen.
You always say we should blame the shooter in a school shooting and not some movie or not some TV show.
So why are you blaming Obama?
Why are you blaming fear and cowardice in the Western world and not that French magazine for offending people?
Do you understand what this guy is saying?
If he were to be consistent, what his email would say, you always blame the shooter or the perp in these school shootings.
You say, don't blame movies or TV shows.
Why are you blaming cowardice and fear in Western civilization instead of blaming the French magazine?
The guy should have said, instead of blaming ISIS.
We got a guy here who thinks the French magazine is responsible for what happened.
This is exactly my point, folks.
And I wonder how many people out there today, and I think you would be shocked in certain sectors of this country at the number of people who think the French magazine is responsible.
That there had been enough evidence, what happens to you if you publish cartoons or stories that mocks or makes fun of Islam that this is going to happen to you.
They had it coming to them, or at least we should have understood this is what happens when you do this.
This is exactly my point.
It would never occur to me.
I'm sorry, maybe I'm so out of touch.
It would never occur to me to blame Charl Ebdu.
It would never occur to me to blame the 12 people that got killed.
They didn't commit suicide.
So this is actually one of my points.
But don't miss it.
I'm not blaming Obama here.
I'm saying these actions have consequences.
The American left is who it is, is who they are.
Liberalism is what it is.
The grievance industry is what it is.
The grievance industry believes the U.S. is responsible for a lot of things bad that have happened in the world, and therefore there's a price to pay.
We have to understand why people don't like us.
We're not the solution to the problems of the world.
We are the problem, particularly our military.
That's a widely held view in academia, probably in Hollywood, and in much of the dark corners of the Democrat Party.
Now, they believe, and they're also very arrogant and narcissistic.
And they think that their view of things is shared by everybody.
And so they probably are using transference or projection.
These ISIS guys probably, they see the problems the way the Democrats do.
Yeah, the U.S. has done this.
Maybe these guys have gone too far getting back.
But yeah, it would never occur to them to blame ISIS.
And that's why you have Mrs. Clinton.
You got to play the soundbite again.
Number 26.
Look, folks, it's not me saying this.
It's not me making up that they're saying.
This is actually Hillary Clinton back on December 3rd talking about how the Democrat Party is going to save the world now by utilizing what she calls smart power.
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.
I'm sorry, folks, but if you believe any of that, then it just follows that we must share in some of the blame and accept some of the responsibility for what these people do and what they think.
If the onus is on us to try to understand them and to empathize with their perspective and their point of view, and therefore to properly define the properly defining the problem, understanding their that means what is it about us they don't like?
And how can we change that?
Well, we're doing it.
We're closing Gitmo.
We're getting out of Afghanistan.
We're claiming defeat everywhere we can on the basis that it's none of our business anymore.
And part and parcel of that is we had no business there in the first place.
And if you have a grievance against us, we're in Afghanistan, okay, you're right, but we're getting out, so don't hate us anymore.
It's not seen that way by these guys because the grievance is not that we were in Afghanistan.
The grievance is not that we were in Iraq.
The grievance is not that we elected Bush like it is for Obama and the Democrats.
The grievance is that we exist and that we're non-believers.
A simple, single grievance.
And I think these events are seldom one-offs.
I've got a soundbite coming up from, let me see if I can find it right quick.
It may be near the top here.
Yeah, grab soundbite number eight.
This is a former Navy SEAL on Fox and Friends today, Jonathan Gilliam and Elizabeth Hasselbeck talking to this former SEAL.
He said, what do you think about the machinery that was used, the weaponry that was used?
What does that say to you?
I see training, the way they're moving with them back to the car.
They have some muzzle discipline.
But what we need to start looking at right here, that's the third thing we need to look at real quick, is that this just happened over here.
Coordinated attacks do happen in multiple countries.
And we need to start looking, instead of just raising our awareness of the NYPD, we need to start doing things like shutting Times Square down to traffic.
Right now, would you prefer the Times Square be shut down right now in response to what's happening in Paris?
I just drove through there in a cab.
And it bothers you it's not?
It terrifies me.
This is a guy who's been there.
This is a former Navy SEAL Jonathan Gilliam.
And he makes the point.
Look, and he's exactly right.
In New York City, there's an ongoing effort to discredit the cops because this idiotic mayor grew up thinking the cops are the problem.
And 20 years ago, nobody ever thought somebody like this would ever be elected mayor, but here we are.
So what we all used to laugh at and consider parlor jokes or extremism is now running the country, or at least running some cities.
See, what's happening to the cops in New York is exactly, it's a great microcosm of where we are.
We're the problem.
And what do the cops do?
The cops ferret out the bad guys by design.
Look, I hate having to qualify everything I say by acknowledging that it's never perfect, but nothing ever is.
But the point, the cops are not out there to injure people.
The cops are not out there to kill wantonly.
It's the other guys that do that.
But who are we heading on now?
Mayor and all this.
This is silly.
And I'd much prefer the perspective of this former SEAL.
He says, shut down Times Square.
These are coordinated attacks.
And by the way, he makes another great point.
This is a military attack that had military training to it.
This is not a bunch of guys in the deserts of Iraq have commandeered an SUV or a Humvee grabbed all some guns and rode into town, lighting everything up.
This was a planned, rehearsed, staged attack.
And if there's one, there are others.
I don't know about closing Times Square.
I just like his perspective on this is not just an incident about France.
Just as 9-11 in this country was not solely about the U.S.
It's about Western civilization.
One other thing here from the federalist.com website that I mentioned earlier.
Let me read something again just to put it back in context.
Worse, the U.S. paid for ads in Pakistan that starred Hillary and Barack Obama that repeated untruths spoken by the president and Hillary, claiming that the U.S., 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.
This video they're talking about.
And Obama, by the way, when he was at the U.N. and made that speech that we played this on a couple times now from where the world will not belong to people that defame the prophet of Islam or whatever.
In that same speech, Obama, in his own words, blamed a video made by an American.
And then you remember what else he said, folks?
He then, he's now, who is his audience at the UN?
It's the Star Wars bar scene, okay?
It's a bunch of thugs, dictators, totalitarians, authoritarian.
So what does Obama say?
He knows his audience.
So he just blamed his poor sap, who's an Egyptian, by the way.
He's not an American.
His name is Nakula Nakula.
His mom was lazy when he was named.
His first name, same as his last name.
He's an Egyptian, but Obama called him an American.
An American made this video.
And then, do you remember, Obama said, why didn't we just shut the guy down?
Well, because we have laws, because of our laws, which allow free speech and blah, blah, blah, blah.
He thought that he had to take time and explain to these other dictators why he hadn't already killed the guy.
The guy already was in prison, but he had to explain to this audience of the unit why, why, okay, this guy's responsible for all this crap that happened.
Well, why didn't you deal with it?
Well, we have laws.
I can't deal with it the way you would.
That's unbelievable.
Except the point is that our country does not reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.
In fact, we state quite clearly that we believe everybody has the right to denigrate the religious beliefs of anyone they care to, from Mormon to Methodist to Muslim to Christian, you name it.
And the U.S. government has no business weighing in on videos made by Americans.
And the U.S. government had no right to try to get Google to pull it down when people objected to it.
People have never even seen it, by the way.
Obama fed this.
He stands up, blames a video for five or six weeks that nobody ever saw.
It's like you remember in the days just before we all learned about Monica Lewinsky, there was a picture that ran in one American newspaper.
It was Bill and Hillary Clinton in their swimsuits.
It was an ugly picture.
And they were dancing on the beach in the Virgin Islands.
One newspaper ran that picture, the Los Angeles Times.
At the daily press briefing, Mike McCurry got a question to the effect: Do you reject that picture?
It was posted to the president in the first place, and nobody else had seen it.
This was pre-internet days.
I mean, well, it's not pre-internet, but it's nowhere near widespread as it is today.
And all these reporters, what picture?
What picture?
What are you talking about?
And here came McCurry with a giant cutout of the picture.
This one.
The whole thing was staged.
There wasn't even any music, it was learned.
He was dancing silently on the beach out there.
And of course, it was done on purpose to create this image of love and devotion on the part of First Family in days before they knew that Lewinsky's story was likely to break.
Well, here comes Obama feeding this already existing rage by telling the world of a video that nobody saw that denigrated the prophet that did all this stuff.
He fed this stuff that happened is the point.
And that's why these words have consequences.
This administration uses words to shape images in public relations and to create good vibes and feelings of compassion.
But people around the world hear the words of the leader of the free world.
And if the leader of the free world is going to dump on his own country for a video nobody's ever seen and spend six weeks blaming it for the death of one of his ambassadors, well, what the hell do you expect is going to this is, I think, tied.
All of this is tied together.
Getting out of Afghanistan proudly, making a deal with another dictatorship in Cuba, proudly, getting out of Iraq, proudly, claiming defeat as a moral victory, proudly.
And all of this ostensibly to tell these bad guys, you don't have to hate us anymore.
See, we are getting rid of all the things Bush did that made you hate America.
But we're not Bush, and it's a new day in America.
This stuff happens, and the guys are scratching their heads.
Which takes us, peeking and scratching our heads, to Jean-François Calhoun, our Secretary of State, who once served in Vietnam.
Well, I have to take a break.
Just clock.
But he had a little statement State Department we have, and he spoke it in French at probably seventh grade level.
But that's why he thinks he's qualified to be sektreistic, because he can speak French.
I'm not making it up.
By the way, if you're on hold, I appreciate it.
I appreciate your patience and hang in there.
We're going to get to your calls in the next segment.
Here's John Kerry's State Department today.
First of two soundbites.
No country knows better than France that freedom has a price because France gave birth to democracy itself.
I agree with the French Imam who today called the slain journalists martyrs for liberty.
The murderers dared proclaim Charlie Hebdo is dead.
But make no mistake, they are wrong.
Freedom of expression, that this magazine, no matter what your feelings were about it, freedom of expression that it represented, is not able to be killed by this kind of act of terror.
Wait a minute, this guy speaks French.
What's he pronouncing it Charlie Hebdo for?
Even I know that's not how you pronounce it.
It's Charles Hebdo, if you want to anglicize the French.
Charlie Hebdo?
What is this about France?
What does he know that I don't?
France is a birth of democracy, gave birth to democracy itself.
Well, now wait, what is he talking about?
What in the world is he talking about?
He's got to be talking about something.
Is this clown claiming that the French Revolution is what inspired us to do ours?
What in the world is he talking?
Anyway, I'll sort this all out later.
Here's the next.
This is Jean-François now addressing the issue in Francais.
I'd like to just say a quick word, if I may, directly to the people of France.
Je vaux, madrasais, dir actement parisien ma tour le français pour le dir que tour les americas, ce tien alleur coté non solmond d'or la colour et la condemnation de ce terrible acte violence, but que nouson mes galmond solidaire de votre engagement da le bataille la lut control l'extremisme et de votre determination.
This guy protégé la valeur.
Stop the tape.
Wait a minute.
This sounds like it's from the Balkans to me.
Maybe a little chikom in there that this is French.
Siper au extremists all are extremists.
No doubt talking about America there.
Tea party.
Extremists.
Anyway, there he is, Jean-François Carlis.
And that is, by the way, one of his prime qualifications to be Secretary of State is because he speaks French.
And Europeans really love this bilingual stuff.
That's how you really prove that you're educated.
All right, just one more thing here before we get to the phones.
Welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh.
Talent on loan from God.
I think John Kerry just said that he's a jelly donut.
I had somebody that speaks French listening to what he said.
And I said, it sounded like he said he was a French donut, a jelly donut.
Anyway, CBS News out of Washington's run just posted a story.
And I'm trying to figure out why they would do this.
And you might be curious, too, when you hear it.
Headline, White House questioned French magazine's judgment in 2012 for publishing Naked Muhammad cartoon.
The White House criticized French satirical magazine Charles Ebdou in 2012 for publishing cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney questioned the magazine's judgment after publishing.
You see, I get an email today from some clown who wants to know why I'm being inconsistent in holding the people who did this to blame.
Well, why am I not blaming the magazine for offending Islam?
Obviously a low-information voter who decided to try to get my goat ear by sending me a seminar email.
How many young people do you think today actually think the magazine is to blame?
Because they offended?
Well, don't, don't.
Before you react.
Oh, you're okay.
You think it's widespread?
Because I'll tell you what, the whole, if one person in a school says something offends them, what does a school do?
They shut it down.
If one person's offended.
So the offended, capital T, capital O, they are also a very powerful group.
And I wouldn't be surprised to find a lot of low-information people in this country think the magazine is to blame because they offended this bunch.
It's a satire magazine.
It's, it's, it's, well, that's right.
That's right.
Chris Rock, Chris Rock, noted comedian, says he will not play college campaign anymore because they don't laugh at satire.
They're all offended by it.
They don't laugh at comedy anymore.
They're wringing their hands in fear or whatever, but they're offended by it.
That would surprise you.
Anyway, Jay Carney, who was then the press secretary back in 2012, questioned the magazine's judgment after publishing images of Muhammad naked.
We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad.
And obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this.
Carney told reporters in September 2012.
Carney said the images would be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be a flamethrower.
You put this story out now, and this is almost CBS publishing a story.
The White House warned them.
The White House warned them.
Obama knew they should have listened.
Therefore, it's these people's fault.
Is that an unreasonable take on this?
We know that CBS wants to make Obama look good.
And in their convoluted world, making Obama look good is blaming the magazine here.
They were warned.
Obama told them, you don't publish pictures of the Prophet naked, not even in a satire magazine.
You can do it about any other religious leader, but you better not.
All right.
As I said, we go to the phones.
And yes, I've got the economist piece here.
Home of the unbrave.
And there's a companion story with it, by the way.
Cosseted children growing up unable to cope with failure.
We'll get to this stuff.
This is all from Monday's stack.
And here we are on Wednesday.
I told you I was going to keep it all.
We start with Sally in Columbus, Ohio from the Ohio State University.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Very well.
Thank you.
Good.
I'm so happy you've taken my call.
You know, as I've been watching this Islamic terrorist attack in Paris, I've just been waiting for someone to pick up on the glaring, horrific hypocrisy of this administration.
I was stunned when I heard John Kerry refer to the French cartoonist as, I believe he said, martyrs for liberty.
But yet, the administration, the same administration, really, even though Hillary was the one that was fueling the fire, she was intent on calling the producer of the video as having a cynical purpose.
He was provoking rage.
He was disgusting and reprehensible.
And I just, you know, I am so glad.
I've been hoping somebody in the drive-bys would maybe do this, but they didn't.
And of course, Rush, you did.
They're not either.
They won't do it.
They won't.
I started the program by, has anybody seen them recall what Hillary said earlier in December?
And you won't.
They will not.
She's the presumptive nominee.
They're not going to insert her in this.
The only way they would is if she could look good doing it.
But they can't publicize what she said back in December, make her look good.
It's glaring.
It's hypocritical beyond belief.
Well, it is hypocritical.
To me, it is like, are French, are the French dead allowed to have what John Kerry referred to as expression of freedom?
And anyone from this country, although we're not sure about the video producer's nationality, he was reprehensible.
He had done it for cynical purposes.
And I just, I think that that speaks volumes of what really may have happened in Benghazi.
So easy to condemn, but yet so easy to defend.
And that was pretty much my statement, Rush, that you've nailed it all.
I'm glad you called.
And thank you.
I appreciate that.
Mrs. Clinton's not being hypocritical.
This is glaring incompetence, folks.
We are going to be at even greater risk if this woman, if she really believes what she said, grab it again.
Sound by 26.
I'll play this up over and over and over.
Drive-bys aren't going to play it.
I'm going to make sure as many people as possible can.
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.
Now, look, that may be hypocrisy, but it's worse.
It's incompetence.
That is head in the sand ignorance.
That is dangerous.
If that kind of thinking, which is, by the way, what happened today and any future attacks are not going to change Mrs. Clinton's opinion.
I will guarantee you, she's sitting wherever she's sitting here, maybe at Epstein's house getting a lowdown of what happened there.
She is, I'm sure, probably believing her comments to be even more valid today.
That if we had taken time to reach out, as she would say, and if we had taken time to the best of our ability to psychologically understand and empathize, then maybe we could have prevented this from happening.
These kinds of events, you might the left, people like Hillary Obama, they're not capable of shame.
They're too arrogant, folks.
And there's too much narcissism and hubris involved here for them to ever experience shame or to even admit that they've been wrong about something.
So, something like this is not going to teach them a lesson.
It's just going to further rivet in her mind that she's right.
But this is dangerous.
And it's therefore risky, I think, for us to even contemplate this kind of thinking continuing in the Oval Office.
Now, this interest, this CBS story, I want to go back to this for just a quick second.
White House questioned French magazine's judgment in 2012 for publishing Naked Muhammad cards.
The CBS puts this out today.
This is my point.
They think that they can make Obama look good.
Hey, he warned them.
CBS, they're not interested in humiliating Obama.
They're interested in building him up.
So they think they're doing him a favor here.
Hey, Obama knew.
Jay Carney knew.
They warned these people, Charles Abdou, they warned him that this would happen.
So they want to be seen as having great foresight and predictable ability.
Now, Carney said this.
Press Secretary Jay Carney questioned the magazine's judgment after publishing images of Muhammad Naked.
So we're aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad.
Obviously, we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this.
He said this in September of 2012, right after the Benghazi attacks when the White House was in full cave-in mode.
It's important to remind you or to inform you exactly when the White House proudly warned Charles Ibdu.
Hey, you guys, because bad things could happen to you.
That was right after Benghazi when we were caving big time.
More telephone calls when we come back.
Going back deep, folks, audio soundbites archive.
We've got it.
Jay Carney, September 19th, 2012, shortly after Benghazi, unidentified reporters: hey, the French government has decided to temporarily close their embassies and their screws in several Muslim countries after a satirical weekly Charles Ibdu published cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad.
Is the White House concerned that those cartoons might further fan the flames in the region?
We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad, and obviously we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this.
We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory.
But we've spoken repeatedly about the importance of upholding the freedom of expression that is enshrined in our Constitution.
In other words, we don't question the right of something like this to be published.
We just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it.
And I think that that's our view about defense in the Muslims.
That's wanting it both ways.
No, no, we don't object to them publishing.
We just think the timing's bad.
Well, what?
When did he say this?
He said this right after Benghazi.
And remember, we are out trying to blame an American video for what happened in Benghazi.
And then along comes Charles Ebdu with their cartoon and clouding the issue here.
Now, Shar Ebdu published its nude cartoons of Muhammad.
This didn't happen yesterday.
This happened last week.
Charles Ebdu published its nude cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad on September 19th, 2012, just a few days after the Benghazi attack.
So even though that CBS article is careful to avoid mentioning it, Jay Carney's remarks you just heard were just a little more than a week after the Benghazi attack.
And by the way, Charl Ebdu, it's been compared to Mad Magazine.
Don't know what kind of magazine it is, satire.
And the Charlie, it's I see Charlie Hebdo in English.
The Charlie of Charl Ebdu is the equivalent of Charlie Brown in the peanuts.
He's one of these beloved idiots of a character.
But stop and think of something.
Here's the White House.
And we've had Obama at the UN.
And when was that?
This is September the 19th.
Obama was.
Let me get the date.
Somebody give me the date of Obama, Soundbite 3.
Look it up.
I can't find Soundbite 3 in my stacker.
I'll put it the.
Okay.
Okay.
So Carney says this is September 12th.
And September 19th.
September 12th, cartoons published, and Obama on September 25th.
So here's Carney.
We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad.
And we have questions about the judgment of publishing something.
Does anybody ask why only satire of this religion causes reactions like this?
Not just in the White House.
Well, I take that back.
The Danes had their cartoons, and they paid the price for it.
They had their attacks.
There was a murder there.
Well, this magazine, by the way, this magazine, just so you know, this magazine's an ultra-left-wing magazine, by the way.
This magazine is the most anti-religious, satirical magazine.
It satires every religion.
It makes fun of every religion.
But when they made fun of Islam, whoa.
And this is my exact point.
And I realize I've made several great ones today, so I better specify when I talk about my point that we are acting as though we are cowering in fear here and treating this grievance as though it's just, and therefore we're enacting policy that's designed to quiet these guys down.
What do you think getting it?
Well, there's multiple reasons for getting out of Afghanistan.
Let's face it, Obama's got many reasons for doing that.
Same thing in Iraq.
There's many reasons for normalizing relations with the Cuban dictatorship, and there's many reasons for closing GitHub.
One of those many reasons is to try to send a message to these guys.
Hey, hey, we get it.
We get it.
We're not in Bush anymore.
You can leave us alone.
And it's doing the exact opposite.
All it's doing is creating images.
And these are evil people.
And their mindset is one-dimensional.
It's ideological.
And it is they have to vanquish non-believers.
And there's no way that we can get them to leave us alone in the way Obama thinks he gets Republicans to leave him alone or any other political enemy he might have here domestically.
Obama's speech to UN was on September 25th.
Carney's out there speaking of September 12th.
Shah Ebdu publishes the cartoons of September 19th.
So Carney's actually, you know, the pictures had to be a little bit before that for Carney to know that they'd been published.
But it's all about Benghazi, is the point.
All of this happened after Benghazi.
And one of the problems with it, Obama's out trying to blame Nakula for all this.
And here comes his French magazine gumming up the works.
That's also a factor here.
Don't think it's okay.
Please, all of you on hold, snurdly, tell them they're coming up.
I'm going to get the phone calls in the next segment.
Even in a monologue sub they've been on hold too long.
Jameis Winston disappointed Susan in Tallahassee because he's going to go pro.
He's leaving Florida State.
She would moan and judge.
▲
Export Selection