All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 8, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:12
January 8, 2015, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, I'm looking at my email during the break here and I'm being told by a lot of people they had no idea that French cops were unarmed.
Okay, well, let me add, by the way, and just to fall deeper into the insanity here.
Bloomberg News says that the terror attack in Paris shows the need for even stricter gun control laws.
Greetings, folks.
Welcome back.
Rush Lindbaugh, 800-282-2882.
So the cops on the scene yesterday didn't have any guns, no weapons.
Meanwhile, the terrorists had rocket launchers, grenades, RPGs.
They had Kalishnikovs.
They were weaponized.
They were militarized.
This was an attack, obviously the result of serious military training and rehearsal.
And I'm looking at the email, and it's stunning how many people are shocked that the Paris police didn't have any guns.
Well, let me add to it then, the two cops who were shot, do you know how they arrived on the scene?
They rode their bicycles.
That's right.
They came peddling up.
After hearing about this attack, and the cops were dispatched, the two who were shot showed up on bicycles.
And in the midst of all this, I'm not kidding you.
Bloomberg News says the terror attacks in Paris shows the need for stricter gun control.
Yeah, we got the guns out of the hands of the cops, but somehow the criminals still have them.
The left cannot, I mean, how many times have I told you this story?
Fashionable Fifth Avenue, New York, dinner party at the home of a moderate Republican.
Big name.
You'd know it.
I apologize for never mentioning these names, but it's out of respect to these people.
They did invite me to have these events discussed.
But you would know the name.
It's not a name of anybody prominent at this moment.
It's a name from the past.
And anyway, I didn't know at the time, but I'm invited to these things as a circus act.
Here are all these New York moderates, and they may as well be, they're friends with the New York liberals.
And at the time, my program was brand new.
Nobody ever heard of me.
There wasn't any other conservative media.
This is before Fox News and before the Blogosphere.
And these people are just curious as they can be.
So I got invited to all these things.
And I took me a while to figure out that their curiosity was not really genuine.
They just wanted to know who is this kook?
Who is this?
And I ended up going as a circus act.
I was there to entertain them, but that's not what I was aware of.
And anyway, when the conversations got serious, then they had to change their assessment that I was a kook.
I went from being kook to a problem.
And I'll never forget the gun control conversations.
I mean, gun control and abortion, two issues that moderate Republicans in New York leaned on me about more than anything else.
And they implored me that I had to be the one to do something about it.
In fact, I was once asked and very honored to address the National Rifle Association Convention.
I think it was in Nashville or Memphis that year.
And I agreed.
Now, this would have been 1993, 94, somewhere in that, again, before Fox News for the Blogosphere.
I can't tell you the number of moderate Republicans that came up to me, just in everyday life, not just these people hosting dinner parties.
Do you realize the opportunity you have?
I said, what do you mean?
Do you realize the change you could make in this country if you'd go down there and you accept this invitation to ENRA and you go down there and tell them that they must, if they are to survive, change their attitudes and start supporting gun control?
I don't think I've ever told you people this.
But I had all kinds of people, including left-wing media types, telling me, you want to put your name in the, I mean, you're big now, but you want to own me.
You go tell these people, you'll be the one, you're the biggest conservative in the country.
They'll listen to you.
You go down and tell them that you will be made forever.
I kid you not.
Now, naturally, I didn't do it.
Just the opposite.
But I remember at this fashionable Fifth Avenue dinner party at the big dining room windows overlooking Fifth Avenue and right beyond Fifth Avenue, of course, Central Park.
And the host, the prominent moderate Republican, came up to me, said, you know, this gun control, we've got to do just too many damn guns out there.
And people listen to you.
You have got to do, you.
And I said, you know what, sir?
And I pointed out at Central Park, I said, if you could convince me that everybody who obeys the law giving up their guns will also result in the people we can't see right now over in Central Park giving their guns up, then maybe we could talk.
I can, why are you hell-bent on the law-abiding getting rid of their gun?
They're not the problem.
Do you think gun control laws are actually going to get criminals to give up their guns?
By definition, they have guns illegally, and they're going to continue to.
And the more you disarm the law-abiding, the bigger targets you make.
None of this common sense mattered because their position on gun control was how they maintained entree into the highest stratus of the elites, highest status or strata of the elites.
They were all elites.
They wanted to be continued thought of as elites.
They wanted to remain elites.
And being right on gun control and abortion were two things, particularly if you were Republicans, that you had to do to be accepted and welcomed by leftists in New York.
And so the actual common sense or lack of it, my argument didn't even permeate.
It wasn't about that to him.
To him, it was about getting rid of guns.
There are too many guns.
We need to get rid of guns.
The whole concept of taking guns out of the hands of the law-abiding didn't matter.
It didn't permeate.
The idea that the law-abiding would be at greater jeopardy, because criminals by nature are going to get guns illegally.
They already do, that argument also failed to impress because it wasn't about substance.
It was about image.
It was about style, not about substance.
And it's been the same thing with abortion.
But now here we have this attack over there yesterday with Kalishnikovs and military-style weapons.
The cops are disarmed.
They show up on bicycles.
And Bloomberg News has a story that the reason is we still don't have strict enough gun control laws in France.
Today we got the New York Times with a story claiming the biggest, the two biggest threats are blowback against Muslims in America.
Oh, that would be horrible.
And I guess there never has been any.
But it's predictable every time there is a militant Islamic attack, a terror attack.
New York Times, next day, wringing their hands.
Oh, the potential blowback.
Oh, no.
Oh, the horrible things that might be done to Muslims.
Oh, no.
That never happens.
And yet, it's the New York Times worried about all this blowback.
It was the New York Times encouraging this kind of blowback against the New York cops in their support of this mayor.
Grand jury renders decisions.
Eric Garner, Ferguson, Missouri, New York Times, left-wing liberal media doesn't like it.
So they join forces with civil rights lunatics and start encouraging, hyping, feeding the rage against the cops.
And they dare write a story today worried about backlash when they are the ones sponsoring it against the cops in New York City.
What a pathetic sight.
French police arriving on this scene at this magazine, which has been decimated with military-style weapons.
And here come the gendarmes on their bicycles with billy clubs.
And the Bloomberg news reaction is: see, we need even stricter gun control laws.
Do you know what USA Today did last night?
USA Today and their website last night, a newspaper today, published an op-ed by a radical Muslim cleric in London.
He's a regular lecturer on Sharia law.
He is an acknowledged radical.
He is a proud radical.
And he believes that there should be Sharia law everywhere in the world.
He distributed leaflets and pamphlets which say, behead those who insult Islam.
He distributes pamphlets which say to hell with freedom of speech.
And yet he's honored with op-ed space in USA Today.
Why do you think that happened?
By the way, let me say something.
May not be a bad thing in the real world if people would read it.
I mean, here's a guy who is a leading radical Muslim cleric, and he is explaining what they want.
We don't have to tell anybody.
He's doing it for us.
He's credible.
He is who he is.
Far different than, say, me telling you what they intend.
You can rush.
Come on.
Nobody thinks that.
But here's the guy himself who thinks it writing at USA Today.
But that's not why USA Today gave him the space.
USA Today did not give him the space, I'm guessing, because they wanted militant Islam to be exposed.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
You know why they did it?
We must be fair.
We must be fair.
Militant Islam is under assault today because people misunderstand the nature of the attack in Paris.
Militant Islam is under assault, and we must make sure that there is no blowback.
We must make sure that there is not any violence.
And so we'll be fair.
And we'll give a militant Islamic cleric, what do we call it?
Equal time To make his case, to show that we're fair, to show that we don't discriminate, to show that we take them seriously.
That's why USA Today did it.
They didn't do it hoping this guy would expose for once and all what we're really up against.
No, no, they did it from a purely defensive posture.
Hey, hey, these people are under assault.
It's only fair that we give them some space to defend themselves.
It's only fair because we must prevent a backlash.
Right.
So, look, I'm going to spend a little bit more time on this.
I'm going to tell you what this guy said, some of it in his op-ed.
And there are other things in the news.
This story with the pedophile, Palm Beach, Bill Clinton, continues to percolate out there.
It's percolating.
The drive-by's ignoring it so far.
The inquirer is on this, like they were on John Edwards for a while.
But there are other things too, as you know, even stuff remaining from Monday I haven't gotten to.
Plus, there's your phone calls.
All of that coming, not a dull moment, is my point.
Hang in there, beat up.
America's real anchor man doing the job that drive-by media has failed to do for the last 30 years.
Also, America's truth detector and a doctor of democracy.
It's a PhD position here at the distinguished prestigious Limboy Institute.
Back to the phone, Saratoga Springs.
It's Jim.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello, sir.
Hi, Rush.
I just wanted to say your first hour was brilliant.
I just wanted to follow up on that thought about the New York Times article and the mind of the liberal thinking person and the policies of this administration.
Basically, it goes up to the top that the administration, the State Department, is infested with liberals, and they feel the same way.
They don't want Europe to go back to be conservative.
They feel the same way exactly as the New York Times do.
They don't want us to come out and basically state what's going on, that radical Islam is a threat to the world.
The President of the United States yesterday made a comment that this is the reaction of a few.
And then he just received.
Was that, by the way, can I stop you?
Jim, was his statement not pathetic in the world for crying out loud in light of what just happened?
It was as weak-limped wristed.
It was so pathetic, I can't believe it.
I agree.
And how has anybody in the media not question this and say, what is wrong with you, Mr. President?
I thought you were a smart man.
This has been going on every week.
We have some kind of attack.
And it's astounding that this continues to go on.
And he says these stupid things.
And that's my point.
That's what liberals do.
They do not want to accept the fact that because they fear a backlash of conservatism.
And that's exactly what's going on in New York.
Yeah, that's right.
But it's not that they don't want to see it.
They see it.
Do not doubt for a moment they see it.
They don't want you seeing it that way.
That's why Obama's not going to call it terrorism.
It's why he's not going to refer to militant Islam as terrorism or jihad or any of that.
And it's why the New York Times is writing, oh my God, the worst thing to do, you know what, really?
Oh, no.
Oh, no.
Worried about people turning to right-wing governments in the aftermath of this.
That's their big dangerous moment for, right here it is.
It's a New York Times headline.
Dangerous moment for Europe as fear and resentment grow.
And so, that's why it's the magazine's fault, folks.
That's why so many leftists in the media, even the initial, the knee-jerk reaction, even though it was journalists who were attacked and killed, the knee-jerk reaction was to blame them In solidarity with the attackers,
to the extent that the great fear that leftists, be they in politics or the media or wherever, have here and in Europe is the election of conservative governments.
That's a bigger fear than Islam is to them.
They'll find a way in their minds.
Now we're talking in their minds, they'll find a way to deal with Islam.
They'll find a way to deal with it.
However, but you know, public opinion shifting to supporting right-wing governments, and what's that going to mean if they're worried about public opinion shifting, dangerous moment for Europe as fear and resentment grows.
They realize that people don't want to be defenseless.
And they realize that people, average citizens, do not want to be powerless.
And this is the real thing, folks.
Leftists live in constant fear that people will discover they are horrible stewards of the public peace and then be thrown out.
Remember, all of liberalism is a lie.
And they must sell this lie or these series of liberal lies to as many people as often as they can.
The big lie, of course, is that the answer to every cultural and societal problem resides smart people in government making the decisions.
And they constantly live in a state of anxiety or fear that they're going to be exposed as unable to do what they say.
And when you have an attack like this, with the cops and no guns and showing up on bicycles, they are patently worried that their policies, that their beliefs will be exposed as worthless when it comes to protecting people, public safety, security, and all that.
After all, these are the people, the leftists, who have convinced people to trade away some of their liberty for security.
They have convinced them to give away some of their freedom for safety.
And if the left can't keep people safe, well, they've got a problem.
So when something like this happens, gets downplayed.
No, no, no, no, no, it's a one-off.
No, no, no, not militant.
No, no, this is not.
The big problem here is backlash against these poor mothers.
The big problem here is the rise of right-wing governments.
Don't believe what you see.
The big problem you people face in France is not further attacks by money.
No, no, no, no, no.
The biggest problem is you might elect a conservative government.
That's their belief.
And they know they're living these lies.
And they are hell-bent on making sure you never discover it.
So an attack like this, there's no greater expose of a liberal government's incompetence than something like this.
Or a school shooting or any other act, mass murder, or grand jury decisions that don't go their way.
Remember, they have convinced people to give up a little freedom here, a little security for security, for safety.
The government will take care of it for you.
Government will do it for you.
Government didn't do a thing for anybody and didn't have the weapons, the means, or the ability to do anything yesterday.
And the left is terribly worried.
People are going to figure this out.
Major Russian television network says U.S. intelligence carried out the Charlhebdu attack.
Life News, a mainstream Russian TV news channel, aired a segment today in which a regular guest, an expert political analyst, stated that the Charlhebdu terror attack in Paris had in fact been carried out by the CIA.
The guest was Alex Martinov, and he suggested that U.S. intelligence launched the attack in order to sabotage the global effort against Islamist terrorism, which he argued Russia is leading.
Now, can I, this guy, Alexei, actually it's Alexey, probably Arkady, probably Sergei, probably Boris, whatever, Maritinov, suggested that U.S. intelligence, the CIA, had launched the Charlhebdu attack in order to sabotage the global effort against Islamist terrorism,
which he argued Russia is leading.
So we had to make it look like our efforts to get hold of and corral Islamic terrorism is failing.
CIA wanted to prolong it.
Now, how many, you know, we're sitting here laughing, but in American newsrooms, you think Brian Ross is trying to track this down?
How many American journalists do you think are now looking into the possibility that the CIA might have been behind this?
Do not be surprised if you find out that some are.
But speaking of intelligence agencies, how much reorganization has there been in this country since 9-11?
We arguably have the Department of Homeland Security.
We got CIA, we got the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Folks, there are so many intelligence, NSA, we have so many intelligence agencies on top of each other, you wouldn't believe the number.
And they are separate, in any case, autonomous, but they do interact now and then.
There's been the FBI in there too.
And we never, we never get any.
We didn't get any intel before the Sarnoff brothers blew up Boston.
We didn't get any intel on this.
And look at how much money we're spending and how many people are in it.
And no intel.
Was there no chatter about this?
I'm just saying, I'm not criticizing anything here.
Again, once again, just reacting to all of this.
Anyway, back to the phone.
This is Joey in Austin.
Joey, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
An honor to speak to you and Dittos from Austin, Texas, the Black Helicopters crowd of the universe.
Thank you, sir.
Yes, I get it.
I know how you feel about a history, especially the founding of our nation.
And I'll apologize.
My daughter just got the first book for Christmas, and we're starting to work through it.
But I'd like to give a little bit of history from the founding of our nation that has very closely to do with the situation in France right now.
But I'm not sure if it's any of any of the later books because we haven't gotten that far yet.
No, we haven't gotten.
No, you're talking about Thomas Jefferson, the Barbary Pirates.
We haven't gotten there.
We haven't gotten the Barbary Pirates.
We haven't gotten there yet.
But I guarantee you, if we do, we're not going to run from it.
You've just, he just said, your daughter just finished reading Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims, right?
That's the first one.
She just got it for Christmas, and we're starting to work through it now.
She's six years old, and so we're trying to read it together.
Oh, wow.
Good.
Excellent.
Well, thank you.
Thank you very much for that.
I appreciate that.
You're welcome, and thank you for the great book.
I'll try to do a paraphrase version of the best job that I can.
It's hard to tell these stories on the radio, as I understand, but people should know that in 1800 or 1801, the year Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as president, 20% of our federal income went towards paying bribes and extortion to the Barbary states, which were the Muslim states of Tripoli and others.
And that he felt this was appalling.
It all started 15 years earlier in 1785 when Algerian pirates captured a bunch of our merchant ships, which were no longer being protected by the British for obvious reasons.
We had separated, and then asked for $60,000.
And Jefferson argued in Congress this was a bad idea, but Congress decided that they would pay the ransom.
And we continued paying a ransom to the four Muslim states for years.
In fact, in 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli's ambassador to Great Britain and asked why they felt they could enslave American citizens and why the Muslims held such hostilities towards America.
And Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Abja, which was the ambassador, responded with a quote: Islam was founded on the laws of their prophet.
That was written in the Quran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authorities were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.
And every Muslim man, Muslim, who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise.
Now, let me step in.
Hold on, let me step in here for just a second, Joey.
For those of you who think that a kook has found his way onto the EIB network, disparage yourself at the thought because everything Joey is saying here is true, and there's more even.
I mean, you could make the case that after a while, Jefferson wanted nothing to do with any of this.
He didn't want to challenge them.
His advice was to leave them alone and just ignore them.
Didn't want to take them on.
He wrote very critically of them, but he was shocked when he found out who they were, what they were, the Barbary pirate Islam.
I mean, he's been very clear about it.
He was very clear about it.
It's something that's never taught in American history.
It's never been.
He was quite torn, as I understand, because he was quite a proponent of the freedom of religion at the founding of the country.
But he was always perplexed about how far that should go once he had his first real interactions with Muslims, unfortunately.
Well, his first interaction was with the Barbary pirates, which were a bunch of murderous kidnappers.
Yeah, and as he was named the minister of France, you know, and that was the same year and bowl.
Everybody knows that is not wine.
The same year that the Congress sought to appease the Muslims.
But when he was sworn in as president, the Pasha of Tripoli demanded an immediate payment of $225,000 plus $25,000 a year every year forthcoming.
And Jefferson was the first president that let the Pasha know that was not going to happen anymore.
And they then tore down the flagpole at the American consulate and declared war on the United States.
Right.
Yep, this is pretty much accurate.
Yeah, Jefferson said in the Marines, we sought a four-year war, which results in the shores of Tripoli being in the Marine Hem, and because of the collars they wore over the back of their neck to keep those large arch-shaped swords from slicing their heads off, as Muslims tend to do.
They wore leather collars, which is why Marines are called leathernecks.
Now, now, now, you're getting dangerously close to what the New York Times is worried about here.
And that backlash against.
I don't want to affect your accuracy rating, so I recant that last story as possibly.
Yeah, that's fine.
I'm saying that people.
But no, for the most part, folks, it is actually, for me, it was.
Because none of this, all of my formal education, which admittedly was just through a semester of college, and basically I didn't even go to that.
None of this was ever taught.
Very little of it.
And so I learned all this much, much later in life.
And it was fascinating to learn it.
If you Google Jefferson Barbary Pirates, that'll probably get you everything you need to know.
Maybe not everything, but that would be a good starter if you are interested in exploring this further.
Joey, I appreciate the call.
I really do.
And I hope your six-year-old is made to love the book.
In fact, Joey, hang on a minute.
We need to send her a Ted T. Bear.
And you know what we'll do?
I'm going to send you some audio CDs of me reading the book to give you a break so that you won't have to read the whole thing to her over and over.
So if you'll hang on so we get your address, we'll get that stuff out to you as quickly as we can.
Hang in there, folks.
Don't go away.
In Atlanta, the African-American Atlanta fire chief has been fired by the African-American Atlanta mayor because of his views on homosexuality.
A fire chief in Atlanta has officially been fired.
It happened on Tuesday by Atlanta Mayor Cassim Reed for self-publishing a book.
The fire chief self-published a book in which he argued that homosexuality is immoral.
And he was fired.
The initial review period, which began at the end of Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran's November suspension, is now over.
Cochran's termination finally came in on Tuesday.
Gay advocacy groups moved quickly to reiterate their support of the mayor and their condemnation of Cochran, Fire Chief.
Georgia Equality Executive Director Jeff Graham, who called for Cochran's firing in November, said, certainly we agree with Mayor Reed's position on this and his rationale for it.
This is not about religious views.
It's about his ability to lead a diverse workforce.
I feel the mayor has done the right thing to ensure all employees are treated fairly, except the chief, of course.
Now, back in November, the mayor, Cassim Reed, placed Kelvin Cochran on suspension without pay and forced him into sensitivity training after it was discovered that Kelvin Cochran had argued that homosexuality is immoral.
Cochran self-published a book in 2013, a title of which was, Who Told You You Were Naked?
It's currently available at Amazon.
In the book, he classified homosexuality as an affront to purity, uncleanness, whatever is opposite of purity, including sodomy, homosexuality, lesbianism, pederasty, bestiality, all other forms of sexual perversion.
That's quote unquote from his book.
And the mayor said, you know what?
My hands and other body parts are tied here.
I have to get rid of the guy.
Because this guy can in no way lead a diverse force.
It's not about freedom of speech, not about religious beliefs.
Nope, nope, nope, because the Constitution doesn't apply here.
What do his private thoughts have to do because his private thoughts offended some people said he couldn't be fair in a diverse workforce?
Kind of like Clinton's playing around with monarch.
It was just sex.
It didn't affect the way he did his job.
That's why he told us, but it would affect the chief in Atlanta.
Didn't affect Clinton.
We were told it's just sex, and it's not going to change a thing about the way Clinton governs.
Screws people every day.
Nothing's going to change.
To that extent, they were true.
They were right.
But the mayor said, I can't have this guy running my fire department.
If it becomes known that this is what he thinks, we've got gay fire people out there.
So they got rid of him.
Kelvin Cochran officially gone.
Justin, Jacksonville, North Carolina.
Great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Rush Mega Dittos.
This is absolutely incredible.
I've been listening for about 15 years, and it's the first time I'm able to get through, so thanks for taking my call.
You bet, sir.
I just want to say you actually are on my bucket list before I get to my point.
At some point before I die, I feel I need to have a cigar with you.
Oh, that would be fun.
That would be fun.
I love cigars.
Cigars have brought more people together than, well, not sex, but it's close.
Yeah, I actually had my first cigar when I was in Afghanistan and just got hooked and really love them.
Anyway, so yesterday I was looking at the Drudge Report and I was looking at that security camera footage showing the police officer on the ground getting approached by those terrorists.
And I'll tell you what, I got to be honest, the very first thing that came to my head was, hands up, don't shoot.
And I thought it was pretty appropriate considering all the stuff that's been going on.
You've got all these riots over a false narrative.
And here we have photo evidence of a crime being committed, a murder by these terrorists.
And the New York Times wants us to put a little love in our hearts.
They want us to be understanding.
Well, they're very worried there's going to be a backlash.
But I get your point.
I mean, I'm sure that he, I'm interpreting this, that he's not joking.
He looked at that picture and the first thing is, here's a real hands-up, don't shoot.
This is a real hands-up, don't shoot.
It really happened.
It didn't matter.
He got shot and he died after arriving on his bicycle.
Cop did.
Anyway, Justin, thanks much for the call.
I appreciate it.
We're up against the time again here in the official programming format.
We have to take a brief time out, but it won't be long.
We'll be right back.
Fastest three hours in meeting you, two of them in the can on the way over to the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum, a virtual museum at rushlimbaugh.com.
You have to see it if you have not previously visited.
And when we get back in the next hour, we'll get into some of the other stuff that is out there.
▲
Export Selection