All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 3, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:02
February 3, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day, Rush Limbaugh talent on loan from God.
He often imitated, frequently envied Rush Limbaugh and the EIB network, but never duplicated.
Here we are at 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, lrushbaugh at EIBnet.com.
So it was just yesterday, just yesterday, that I endeavored to explain to McDonald's and all interested parties why their sales are down and why they had to let go their CEO.
And if you were here yesterday, I'm sure that it was something you'd never considered, the politics of it.
You'd be like, eh, McDonald's isn't popular anymore as it used to be.
It just happens, you know, people like things and they get tired of it and move on.
McDonald's was attacked by militant vegans, militant vegetarians.
And as I stated yesterday, the problem for people like McDonald's is they don't believe it's even possible that vegans or vegetarians are militant.
I think there's a huge lack of understanding among otherwise smart people of just who they're up against politically when it comes to leftists and Marxists.
And some might say there's a difference in a liberal and a Marxist, but it's the Marxists that are trying to shut everybody down.
I think it's a fine line of differentiation.
I'm not sure it's all that big.
But McDonald's was sued.
They were sued and they knew what they were up against.
But they caved.
They caved on the beef tallow.
And when they caved on beef tallow, it was over in their french fries.
The vegans said, that stuff kills people.
Vegetable and animal fan, you got to get it out of there.
It's what made McDonald's french fries, McDonald's french fries, and they tried to curry favor and tried to curry favor with the protesters.
And it's never about currying faith.
The vegans are never going to shop at McDonald's.
They're never going to eat there, and they don't want to.
And a happy meal, an apple slice, a set of french fries, seal the fate.
So anyway, the CEO is let go.
The earnings are down.
The stock price is down.
And I endeavored to explain why yesterday.
And it's all rooted in the fact these companies need to learn to fight back.
They need to fight back against the 10 to 12 people that are out there making themselves look like they are hundreds of thousands of people.
And that's how it works.
Believe me, these massive email campaigns, massive Twitter campaigns, don't go to McDonald's disc, don't go to Chick-fil-A here.
It's 10 or 12 people running these programs.
And they have found ways to create spam and algorithm programs that amplify the number of people actually sending messages.
We found, you know, people, you know, our local advertisers, say on an EIB affiliate, say, in Oshkosh, will get inundated with complaint emails and tweets from people.
You're never going to shop at your store again unless you stop advertising.
We found out that it's 10 people, maybe 12, 12 people all over the country that make themselves look like it's 500,000 or more.
And we found out that in nine out of 10 cases, the complaint email doesn't even come from somebody in the same state.
Cannot possibly be from a legitimate customer.
And I guarantee the same thing happened to McDonald's.
That's just who these people are.
The militant leftists are not content for you to live your life the way you want.
If it's not the way they want you to, they're going to shut you down, especially if you're a capitalist business.
Well, anyway, on the heel of that, on the heel of that, right here in the Washington Post today, the Washington Post has a manners, like an Emily Post column.
And the Washington Post manners columnist has once again insisted that anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender businesses be blacklisted by all caring liberals.
In today's case, you know, who the target is again?
Chick-fil-A.
The Washington Post manners columnist who happens to be gay is suggesting that everybody avoid Chick-fil-A because they're not sympathetic to LGBT people and issues.
So now it's Chick-fil-A being hit again.
Now, Chick-fil-A, the last time they were hit, they fought back and their customer base responded and they responded with enthusiasm, massive amounts of support.
That's how you have these people have to be stood up to.
The American people, which is a majority, disapprove of these kinds of tactics.
Okay, somebody might not like McDonald's, but they have no business with McDonald's being in business because they know some people do like it.
Just what kind of person is it?
What kind of people are they who, A, don't like McDonald's and then think McDonald's ought not be in business, ought not exist, and then engage in fake, phony, fraudulent, anti-fair business tactics to shut them down?
Why in the world would you want to pander to that kind of person?
Unfortunately, that's the route most people take because they think it's the path of least resistance.
And they try to appease them.
But there is no appeasing them.
You give them an inch, and if you do one thing that responds to their demands, they're just going to say, we got them, and they're going to keep coming at you until they shut you down.
And make no mistake, they're not going to stop on McDonald's until one of two things happen, until McDonald's stands up and tells them to go pound sand or until they succeed in shutting McDonald's down.
And now they're ramping up against Chick-fil-A here.
Now, what kind of people are these?
Do they have nothing better to do than run around and identify enemies that are legitimate American businesses and then try to shut them down?
Who the hell are these people and why does everybody afraid of them?
Especially now that we know that it's only 10 or 12 of them in most cases that are making themselves look like hundreds of thousands or in some cases millions.
Well, anyway, my theory as to why Scott Walker is running away with all of the Republican preferential polls right now is precisely because he fought back.
This same bunch of people tried to destroy Scott Walker.
Not just his career.
They tried to destroy his life.
They tried and targeted his family for the same purpose.
They used illegal tactics.
They incorporated a Democrat legislature in Wisconsin and the judiciary, and they attempted to rig the game against him.
Three elections in four years, Scott Walker won.
They tried to recall him twice under bogus premises.
And he beat them back.
And he beat them back with substance issues, conservatism, you name it.
He beat them back.
And he has reformed that state.
He has reformed the education system.
He has diminished the power of a minority bunch of union people.
And he's grown that state.
They have a budget, tax cuts.
have unemployment which is going down.
Literally, Scott Walker, in my mind, has shown the blueprint for the rest of the Republican Party how to do this.
Okay, so the politico today has picked up on this.
We're going to move to Soundbite 8, Mike, instead of 20 and 21.
We'll come back to those.
In the Politico, Rush Limbaugh rallies behind Scott Walker.
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh says that Scott Walker is what's been missing from the Republican Party, a fighter.
Scott Walker's doing it, and he's running away, and these clowns on our side don't even understand it yet, Limbaugh said yesterday in his radio program.
Limbaugh said that Walker might not be right on all the issues, but the base is going to support him because he's fighting back.
That is what has been missing.
And I do believe that the initial wave of support is simply applause and recognition for Scott Walker being gutsy and standing up to these people, which our base voters have not seen anywhere near enough of.
And when the Republican Party doesn't stand up to these people, the Republican Party is not even defending its own voters who are also attacked and assaulted and lumped into all these defamatory allegations of racism, sexism, bigotry, war on women, and all of this rotgut dribble.
And there's one guy who stood up to it.
Ted Cruz stands up to it.
Note that he's pretty popular too.
And Marco Rubio's had his moment standing up to it.
Note he's pretty, you take a look at the bottom of the Republican poll and find out who's not as popular right now.
And you'll also find they're the ones that talk about working with these people.
They're the ones that talk about compromising with them.
The people on the tail end of these polls with the least support right now are the ones who are talking about, well, you know, we were not sent to be confrontational.
We got to work with them.
We've got to make Washington work.
Washington working, as defined by being run by Democrats, is the problem in this country.
And that's what our voters want stopped.
And they have expressed it in two straight midterm elections.
It can't be any clearer.
So to me, it makes perfect sense that Scott Walker right now is being supported, vastly supported, over any of the other candidates right now, simply because he's fighting back.
See, I told you, I'd say it's one Romney fundraiser, bulk donor, and so forth that I ran into in a golf course not long ago, who I was convinced if Romney ran again would be right in there raising money and bundling and all that.
And I figured this guy would know whether indeed, now this is 26 weeks ago now, and I figured this guy would know if Romney is really going to run or not.
So I walked up and said, look, I know you're being peppered here with this question.
Tell me, you think Romney's going to go?
He said, I don't know, but I hope not.
And I was taken aback.
This guy's only raised millions here to guy.
I'm tired.
We need a fighter, Rush.
We need a fighter.
You know who I like, and he named Rick Perry.
Now, the point of this is that here was just somebody had gone all in with Mitt Romney.
It loved him, great guy, so forth.
But even he reckoned, we need somebody fighter.
And that's what Scott Walker has written the blueprint on that.
And not just written the blueprint, he's built the house from the blueprint.
Okay, so we got the political story.
So this led to, they picked up on this at Fox News that day.
Carl Rove was on Fox, and Bill Hemmer was talking to him, and Hemmer said, wait a minute now.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Hemmer is quoting, let's see, but it's well now wait a minute here.
Oh, I take it back.
That's number nine.
Okay, the first one is O'Reilly last night.
And O'Reilly says to Carl Rove.
He said, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin leads the poll 15%.
I don't think that tells us very much.
Jeb Bush is not going to run in Iowa.
I don't even know if he's going to compete there.
He's a moderate, and that's a conservative caucus.
Am I wrong?
The interesting thing in this poll is not exactly where everybody is, but that there was so much movement between October and today for Scott Walker.
And you have to chart it to one fact.
He went and made a fantastic speech at the Iowa Freedom Forum, which got played on radio.
That's why there was a lot of movement on behalf of Walker because he made a good speech and it got the buzz.
But there's going to be a lot of campaigning between now and next February, 12 months away.
Now, as everybody knows, I like Karl Rove.
Karl Rove is a friend of mine, and I don't.
Carl Rove's not an enemy to me.
He is to a lot of people, but he's not me.
I have a good relationship with him and so forth.
But I think he's dead wrong here.
Scott Walker is not where he is because we played sound bites of his speech in Iowa on the radio.
That's what Carl meant there.
Well, he went, he made a fantastic speech of the Iowa Freedom thing, and it had to get played on the radio, and that's why there was movement and buzz for Scott Walker long before he got to Iowa.
The reason Iowa shocked them, because they didn't, they're not on, this is what amazes me.
I would think that everybody in the Republican establishment would at least know what Walker's done.
They have to.
And I would think that they would be able to understand how big it is, what he's accomplished in that state of Blue State.
But he showed up in Iowa already vigorously supported.
But they're trying to say that he showed up a nobody.
And he made a great speech, which just shocked everybody because they all thought he was dryball and dull.
You know, that's all the talk about where'd he go to get his charisma transplant.
And that's what they think of him.
I mean, he gives a great speech.
That supposedly shocked him.
And then it got played on the radio, and that explains the 50%.
And I just think that's dead wrong.
And I think they're fooling themselves that that's what they think explains Scott Walker's standing in these early polls.
Anyway, so the hemmer bite now, that was last night this morning.
Bill Hemmer cites all this.
He's got Rove in there.
And this is how that conversation went.
Rush Limbaugh is making the case that Walker, people like him because he fights back.
How do you see that?
We need to take this news with a little bit of caution.
We shouldn't get a case of premature surveyitis.
At this same point in 2007, the frontrunner in the polls was John McCain with 21%.
He came in fourth.
At this point in 2011, Huck could be led.
He didn't even run.
We'll see a lot of movement, and the leader now is not likely, it rarely is the leader later.
Now, I understand this because clearly Walker is not Carl's choice.
Obviously, Carl is a Jeb Bush man, and I mean, that's common sense and understandable.
So no beef there.
But I don't think if Bush had come out on top of this poll, I don't think Carl would be rejecting the poll as handily as he's rejecting this one.
They'd be attaching meaning to it.
I am not attaching a long-term meaning to this.
I'm not endorsing Walker.
I have no idea what's going to happen in this campaign now.
I'm just telling you that I think I know why he is scoring around 50% or higher in all of these polls right now.
I know the Republican base.
You do too, folks.
You are it.
We are it.
You know how frustrated people are.
Here's a guy who's been being repetitive.
Everything we think we are up against, he has beaten.
And we don't see anybody else even trying.
We don't see any, maybe, you know, Ted Cruz is, but he's in the Senate.
But Walker, in terms of actual governors, elected office holders, he's the only guy that's tried to beat them back.
And he's done it three times in four years.
Here's Albert Hunt, noted liberal, married to Judy Woodruff.
Last night on Bloomberg TV with all due respect.
And that's the John Heileman Mark Halperin show.
Let's see the big headline in the poll.
Scott Walker at 16% ahead of everybody else, whether Romney's in the field or not.
He's in the lead.
What explains this?
Albert, he's come from nowhere to the front of the pack.
Albert, what does this mean?
I was at a lunch on Saturday with a bunch of really, I mean, huge heavy hitters in money and politics and some pretty sharp political minds.
They were talking to the Republican field.
No one mentioned Scott Walker.
This poll was a shock, I think, to a lot of people.
He made a terrific impression at that conservative forum.
Look, this guy has proven that he's a player.
This is not a flash in the pan.
I think Scott Walker is really in that top tier now, for real.
See that?
He's talking to these big money people.
That's what this means.
And they never even heard of the guy.
He comes out of the blue.
It has to be because he made a speech and it got broadcast on the radio, right?
Can't be anything else.
Do you remember just last week, two weeks ago, three weeks ago, all kinds of experts saying that there's no way oil would ever, ever get back to $100.
And it was stuck now at whatever it was, $50, $40.
OPEC leader, oil could shoot back to $200.
Wonder how many people believe that story last week or whatever it was, two weeks, that oil was going to be stuck forever now at $40 to $50.
When it's artificially there in the first place, thanks to our friends this audience, it's always going to be there.
Here comes some OPEC.
Oh, yeah, it's going to be back up at 200 before you know it.
Probably right, too.
And you're a guiding light.
Totally reliable.
Totally resourceful.
Rushlin Boy on the EIB network.
This is Mary in Lancaster County, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
Hi.
Hi, I am so excited to talk to you, and I only have a few minutes.
You are dead on about the militants.
And they hate Scott Walker.
Oh, they do.
Oh, they despise Scott Walker before he humiliated them by beating him.
Now it's, but they hate everybody, Mary.
Yes.
I mean, it's irrational.
It is irrational.
I've never understood.
I'm going to be out front here.
I've never understood something.
Okay, so you've got, take the XYZ widget company.
And the XYZ widget company wants to sell this to that group of people, whatever it is.
And it happens to be a majority of people like what the XYZ widget company makes.
And then all of a sudden, here comes some complaint emails or letters from some group or actually from an individual.
And then tens of thousands of them come in.
And the XYZ widget company gets panicked.
Oh, my God, we've got to change.
And you explain to the XYZ widget company, no, no, no, it's not tens of thousands of people.
It's 10 or 12 people that are fake generating all of these tweets and emails.
They don't even live in town where your business is.
And they're just doing this because they want to harm you.
They don't like your product or they don't like your politics.
They don't like who you support or whatever.
Why would you even care about trying to appease?
You've got your customer base over here, which is doing great guns and your business doing great guns.
And all of a sudden, you're going to be afraid of a bunch of frauds.
But they are.
McDonald's demonstrates how this works.
McDonald's fell prey to the notion that these 10 or 12 people actually were 500,000 people.
And why else would you get rid of the beef tallow in your French fries?
A bunch of health Nazis come along, tell you they're never going to shop at McDonald's, and they're never going to eat there anymore because you're poisoning kids and you're poisoning the planet, destroying the planet, beef teller, comes from beef, cattle farts, methane, whatever, destroying the planet.
I understand businesses don't want any complaint.
Sometimes they'll try to appease.
It's a natural human behavior emotion.
But when you can demonstrate to them that it's a fraudulent campaign, which can now be demonstrated, why the appeasement goes on is beyond me.
But it does work.
And no matter, I mean, it's plain as day that these militants are trying to harm the business, not help it.
Now, the beef tallow thing with McDonald's.
And I don't mean to harp on McDonald's, but it's just a recent example because the CEO just ended up being let go because the stock prices plummeted.
And I know why.
They tried to appease a bunch of people that aren't customers to begin with.
People that made them think that they'd start eating McDonald's if they took the beef tallow out of the fries.
They were never going to eat there because they're vegans.
And the way to answer to that is don't put vegan menu items on the menu.
That isn't going to work.
So this is how this process all works.
But the point of it is, is that these so-called complaints coming from so-called customers are really no more than efforts on the part of several leftists or anti-capitalists that are trying to destroy these businesses that they target.
Be they big corporations or small businesses, it doesn't matter.
They're actually trying to destroy them.
For one reason or another, maybe the business raises money for Republicans.
Maybe the business donates to Republicans.
And these militants don't like the fact that the Citizens United case made it possible.
So they go out and they intimidate them.
So they don't donate to Republicans anymore.
It's everything is politics.
And yet these complaints are looked at as legitimate complaints from legitimate customers.
They're not.
They're totally fraudulent made up.
Fake generated by a bunch of people who have figured out the process.
And they hide.
They will not make themselves known.
They will not make themselves public.
They hide behind fake names, fake algorithms, and all kinds of other things.
And you can have the data that proves this, and you can take it to people and show it.
And sometimes it's just impossible to convince them.
So powerful is the complaint message.
But that's who they are.
And that's how they operate.
And that's what their modus operandi is.
And that's what their purpose is.
And it's right out in the open.
I mean, the left, the Democrat Party, look at its enemies list.
Look who they hate.
Look who they're always ragging on.
Big oil, big pharmaceutical, big retail, big whatever.
And if you synthesize it down and boil it down even further, they're just anti-capitalist.
It's pure and simple.
And they just need to be stood up to.
Standing up to them, and they'll go away.
Maybe not at first, and they'll ratchet it up and try to really frighten you.
They may even engage in faux vandalism and this kind of thing.
I mean, it's brutal.
There's no question that it's brutal.
But the point is, none of it's legitimate.
Sure, there are going to be complaints coming in every day.
Everybody's going to get a complaint letter here, a complaint letter there.
But these organized campaigns of tens of thousands, or even just plain old thousands, they're orchestrated.
They're not legitimate.
Anyway, I mentioned earlier that Josh Ernest said that Obama had done change his mind on vaccinations.
See, this is another great example for this vaccination thing.
This is totally fraudulent.
A manufactured issue, just like contraception was a manufactured issue, which led to the war on women.
We have a vaccination problem for one reason, Barack Hussein-O and his open borders immigration policy, which opened the southern borders to children, sick, healthy, you name it, poor, ill-educated.
Just tens of thousands of kids flooded the southern border all of last year.
They were never examined before they got here.
They were never examined after they got here and quarantined if they had a disease.
They were just sent out across the country.
Many of them had measles.
A disease the United States officially announced as having been eradicated in 2000.
We now have an outbreak of it, all because of our immigration policy.
And in all this talk about vaccinations and who's opposed to them and who's in favor of them and who's stopping them, not one story talks about why we're even dealing with it.
If it weren't for the Democrat Party and its beliefs about immigration, we wouldn't have an outbreak of measles in the United States of America.
That simple.
That's why it's not mentioned, because the Democrat Party is not going to be impugned.
The whole point of this is to embarrass, intimidate the Republican Party, and get them scared and frightened and do anything to avoid being called mean-spirited or extremist or anti-whatever on this vaccination policy.
But the truth of the matter is that if you go back 2008, Obama and Hillary running for president both expressed grave suspicions of vaccinations.
Grave suspicion.
You know why?
Well, because somebody had started a rumor back then that all these vaccinations were the reason for autism.
Yes, never anybody proved it.
Never one shred of proof, scientific or otherwise.
Never one link from vaccinations to autism.
Yet everybody, not everybody, vast majority of people believed it.
Successful rumor planted and grown.
It populated.
People believed it to this day.
Back then, Mrs. Clinton, Barack Hussein-O, they were not in favor of mass vaccination because of that very reason.
And this has been made public today.
People have gone back, found the hypocritical words of Obama and Hillary in 2008, compared them to today.
And so the White House Press Secretary of Tech asked about this.
Josh Ernest, a CNN reporter, Michelle Kaczynski, said to Josh Ernest, on vaccines, it was 2008.
The president said that the science was inconclusive.
So the difference now, does he believe something has changed in the research that would make that not the case?
Time that the president was speaking, there was a study that has since been debunked that indicated that there might be some connection between autism, increasing rates of autism, and vaccines.
But like I said, since that time, I believe this is in 2010, that study was retracted because it was completely undermined based on additional scientific data that had been presented.
So, in the mind of the president, this is an issue that science has settled and that it is clearly the responsibility of parents all across the country to get their kids vaccinated for the measles.
Yeah, so see, when it was convenient for Obama to oppose massive vaccines, there was this mythical, non-existent link to autism that he and Hillary both cited.
But now, after he got elected two years later, guess what?
The link has been debunked.
Yes, there was never anything to it.
Yeah, it was always wrong.
And so, Obama has evolved just as he has evolved on gay marriage.
And now, Obama's right, and the Republicans are wrong.
See how this works?
Just like gay marriage, Obama's evolved.
A fake premise in 2008 has now been debunked.
The fake premise was that vaccines cause autism.
Again, nobody's ever proved it.
You might believe it.
I'm not trying to talk you out.
I'm just trying to give you facts.
You can think of it whatever you wish.
But I'm telling you, there's no scientific link to vaccines causing autism.
You might believe it till the day you die.
God bless you.
But Obama used it so that he could stand with voters who were opposed to massive government vaccination orders.
He wanted your votes then.
Now he wants to control it.
He doesn't care about your votes anymore.
So guess what?
The fake assumption has been debunked by a fake study, allowing Obama and Hillary to change their minds.
Reporters said, back on vaccines, Al Jazeera reporter, back on vaccines, Josh baby.
It's been reported people have gone through the budget and they found this so-called 317 program on immunizations has been cut.
This is what we told you about earlier that Obama's even cutting $50 million from the vaccine program.
If the president believes that everybody should get vaccinated, why would he cut the program, Josh old buddy old pal?
The reason is that we can take away funding for that program because of the Affordable Care Act.
The Affordable Care Act actually guarantees that every citizen in this country has access to free vaccines.
Stop the tape.
Why didn't I think of that?
I didn't even have to play the soundbite.
Yes, we can cut funding for the vaccination program because Obamacare has taken care of it.
They think of everything at the regime, don't they?
And I've mentioned over the course of many years of the broadcast that there are people who the problem they have with me is that I'm too sure of myself.
And that makes them uncomfortable.
They don't think anybody's that sure of themselves, and they certainly aren't.
And I come along and I'm dead certain of everything, and that makes them nervous.
I just got an email from me.
You just sound like you know that.
I do.
And I'm going to tell you how, folks, it's real simple.
What is the phrase where they always resort to?
And it's global warming.
A consensus of scientists.
That means it's not debatable.
It is inarguable.
So whenever you see the phrase a consensus of scientists agrees, you're being lied to, folks, because there's no such thing as a consensus in science.
If science is up for a vote, it isn't science.
Another term is settled science.
You just heard Josh Earnest Settled Science 2010 debunked this theory that there's no autism linked to vaccines.
Oh, it's settled science, is it?
Yeah, and that means you can't argue with them anymore.
It means you're wrong.
All it means is they're lying to you.
You just have to learn to recognize the tells.
It's really easy.
Liberalism mostly is a lie.
But that's how.
And that wraps it up for another excursion into broadcast excellence.
Not only, look, when you hear consensus of scientists or settled science, it's not just that they're lying, which they are.
It also means that's how they shut down debate.
They don't want to argue.
There's no debate.
They just want to shut you up.
Never forget that.
That's how you spot them, folks.
Plain as day.
▲
Export Selection