All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 4, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
February 4, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain, Rushlin Boa serving humanity.
That's right, my friends.
How does that happen?
I just show up.
A thrill and a delight to be with you.
The telephone numbers 800-282-2882, the email address.
Lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
Now about an hour ago when the program began, I noted yesterday the only thing the drive-byers wanted to talk about was vaccines.
Yes, and how the Republicans were the Neanderthals and the Republicans didn't care about the children.
And how the drive-bys in Obama were trying to create the next wedge issue, such as they did with the war on women and contraception.
Now it was vaccines.
And now lo and behold, you don't find a word about it in the drive-by media today.
No, instead today we've got ISIS.
But even so, even with ISIS.
Why did the drive-by's drop all the focus on vaccinations?
I will tell you why.
They moved off the measles story because of the unearthed quotes from Obama and Hillary that we dug up from 2008 that are worse than anything any Republican has ever said about it.
Back in 2008, Obama and Hillary were out there supporting this idea that vaccines cause autism.
Yeah, they were out there trying to get votes.
It was during a Democrat primary, and they rolled the dice.
They said, the American people think they believe this stuff about vaccines causing uh autism, and so they both said we need to research this, need to look into it, could be viable links.
Obama gets elected in 2010, miraculously there's a study.
Two years later, which debunks the whole thing, which allows Obama to say, well, yeah, I did it, but I didn't really mean it back then, and I did.
But the fact that we went, and a lot of people did, and dredged up what Obama and Hillary said about 2008 is why the drive-bys have dropped that story.
That's why this measles and vaccination thing, and another reason, so many people made the point that the only reason it's an issue now is Obama's immigration policy.
That we had conquered the disease.
The CDC had officially proclaimed measles to be a conquered disease in 2000, meaning there was no need for any more vaccines.
And yet there were their Obama and Hillary were in 2008.
Oh, yeah, well, we uh you know it could be a link there to autism, and that was dredged up, and then the uh the notion the idea that Obama and and his uh immigration policy is largely responsible for this, so they drop it, but still.
As far as the drive-bys are concerned, mission accomplished, because the drive-bys successfully made a link to Republicans and heartlessness again in the eyes of low information voters.
So that's the mission accomplished.
And in the in the minds of low information voters, is the Republicans once again who are the cold-hearted, mean-spirited, uncaring extremists.
And that's all they wanted out of the measles vaccination story anyway.
Now the New York Times ran a huge correction.
One of the biggest corrections I have ever seen in the New York Times, it's a correction to their article, tying Republicans to this anti-vaccination movement.
It's a 180-word correction to three factual errors in their story yesterday.
Here's the correction.
An earlier version of this article gave incomplete context for a quote by President Obama.
When he said of autism and other disorders among children, some people are suspicious that it's connected to vaccines, this person included, he was not referring to himself.
He was pointing to a member of the crowd.
An earlier version also misattributed a quote.
It was Dr. Thomas Friedan, director of the Centers for Disease Control, who said on the ABC News program this week that the science was clear and convincing.
Study after study has shown there are no negative long-term consequences.
And the more kids who are not vaccinated, the more they're at risk, and the more they put their neighbors' kids at risk.
Well, it was not Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who also appeared on the show.
They tried to tried to tie Scott Walker to that.
And they had to point out well, it was not Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin who also appeared on the show.
They just lied through their teeth, and they tried to link Scott Walker, because he's the Republican front runner in terms of some one poll in Iowa right now.
They tried to link him to all of this in the New York Times.
They got caught and had to run this correction.
And then they said also because of an editing error.
A previous version of the article misstated a TV show on which Mr. Obama was appearing when he urged parents to get your kids vaccinated.
It was the Today Show and not meet the press.
So, you know, mixing up a couple NBC shows is not a big deal.
But attributing a quote from a CDC official to Scott Walker.
It was the Thomas Friedan.
They've said that Scott Walker issued this quote that was actually issued by the CDC guy.
That that's that's not an editing error.
That is a purposeful, that's almost an outfront lie just to see if they can get away with this.
And in fact, they may look at it as though they did.
Whoever reads corrections.
So they attribute a story from Friedan, the director of the Centers for Disease Control, to Scott Walker.
And it was a quote that was embarrassing, by the way.
And then they turned Obama's trying to appear ambivalent about it into a full-blown skepticism of vaccines.
So they've had to run a correction, but mission accomplishment.
That's that's why the vaccine story and the measles are not in the news.
Because they just they were making it up yesterday.
It was the whole point of this whole story yesterday was to tie it somehow to Republicans, just like they did contraception Romney in 2012.
To paint them as mean-spirited extremists, cold-hearted, uh, not caring about kids and so forth.
Audio sound bites showing how this has been done.
In fact, let me find them now.
They're in the uh Yep, grab sound bites uh 13 and 14.
Now, this this is not about measles or any of this.
This is this is about uh the the House of Republicans passing an Obamacare repeal again, and how the Democrats resort to their same old playbook, which is Republicans hate children, they hate sick people, and they want everybody to die, and they're against their four dirty water, and they're for dirty air, and they're for poison and all this stuff.
So the first montage is uh some members of Congress talking about the vote to repeal Obamacare.
Today, for the 56th time, we will see a vote on the floor of the House to take away health care for millions of Americans.
More than eight million children will lose access to health insurance.
Republicans are choosing to take away health care coverage from millions of Americans.
Over 9.5 million Americans would be hurt and left behind.
If Republicans get their way, all these things will disappear.
Republicans want you to pay for Obamacare and not get it.
Republicans need to stop playing games with people's lives.
They come with a bulldozer, and they want to knock the house down and put everybody out in the street again.
Give the sick an opportunity to get well, allow children the opportunity to breathe.
What about the born, the aged, the disabled?
That was Charlie Wrangler.
Was it what about the born?
Since when did Democrats care about them?
The born, the aged, the disabled, so that's the Democrats reacting to a Republican vote yesterday to repeal Obamacare, and you see how they portray Republicans as heartless, cold uh mean-spirited and cold extremists and all that.
And I want to take you back 20 years ago just to show you how this is done and how their playbook doesn't change.
This is from our TV show in 1995.
It's a montage of a bunch of Democrats talking about the Republicans and The budget.
This is the monumental budget fight of 1995, a school lunch bill, and all of that.
Why do the Republicans want to take apples and milk away from six-year-olds?
Starving children is not the solution.
The Republicans are taking food out of the mouths of millions of needy children.
It's cruel to kids.
Stop declaring war on our kids.
War on their children.
War on their children.
I also would like to speak to a moment about the mean-spiritedness I'm hearing about on the floor today.
But how can they be so mean-spirited?
These cuts are mean-spirited.
The mean-spirited Republicans.
It is mean-spirited.
It is vicious.
These draconian, mean-spirited, and immoral cuts in funding.
We're seeing draconian cuts.
Once again, they're playing Robin Hood in reverse, taking from the poor to give to the rich.
We're going to let the kids go hungry again.
They're coming for our children.
They're coming for the poor.
They're coming for the sick, the elderly, and the disabled.
That was John Lewis from Some.
Uh thing.
So that was the budget.
That was the Republicans and their school lunch cuts in 1995.
And the previous bite was the Republicans their vote to repeal Obamacare.
And that's what the measles thing was about yesterday.
That's what they were trying to set up.
They were trying to set up a forthcoming montage of Republicans.
Didn't care about kids getting sick, didn't care about kids dying, didn't care about kids not getting vaccinated, didn't care about kids not being treated.
That's what they were trying to set up.
But then Hillary and Obama's quotes on vaccines were produced from 2008, and a bunch of lies told by the New York Times yesterday were exposed, and so ISIS is the big news today.
Not measles.
But don't worry, they'll come back to it.
They'll get back to it.
Now, one more thing before we go to the break.
King Abdullah of Jordan met with members of the House Armed Services Committee yesterday, not long after news broke that ISIS had burned to death.
A Jordanian pilot captured in the fight against the terrorist group.
In a private session with lawmakers, King Abdullah showed an extraordinary measure of anger.
Anger which he expressed by citing Clint Eastwood.
Representative Duncan Hunter, Jr., a Marine Corvette, two tours in Iraq, one in Afghanistan, was in a meeting with the king, said he said there's going to be retribution like ISIS has never seen.
He mentioned the movie Unforgiven.
He mentioned Clint Eastwood.
He actually quoted a part of the movie.
Now, Duncan Hunter would not say which part of Unforgiven, King Abdullah quoted, but noted it was where Eastwood's character describes how he's going to deliver his retribution.
There's a scene in the movie in which Eastwood's character, William Money, says, any man I see out there, I'm gonna kill him.
Any son of a B.I. itch takes a shot at me.
I'm not only gonna kill him, I'm gonna kill his wife and all his friends and burn his damn house down.
Duncan Hunter said of Abdullah, he is angry.
They're starting more sorties tomorrow than they've ever had.
They're starting.
You think Obama would ever quote Eastwood in describing America's well, not even, especially not since Romney had Eastwood at the Republican convention.
Isn't it fascinating?
American ally readily quotes Clint Eastwood to describe what he's gonna do in dealing with these guys, and our government will not even admit who these guys are.
And the United Arab Emirates have pulled out of the effort against ISIS because they don't think the United States is prepared to give them any aid or support if any of their pilots are captured.
King Abdullah has a normal.
No, I didn't, I didn't forget the All Sex's rape business.
Just sit tight.
It's all coming up.
Catherine McKinnon, noted feminist professor at Michigan back in the 90s, gained quite a lot of acclaim, not ridicule.
She was made a huge star.
She's out, she's teaching young women in her classroom.
Then the men too, those that foolishly signed up for the course.
Women's studies, they did just to get dates.
But man, why would you want a date with any woman that's gonna take a class like that?
I think it's the sense of triumph over long odds.
Okay, oh, students are a bunch of feminizes, and I'll go in there and I'll still try to woo them.
You know, a lot of guys think they can do that.
Catherine McKinnon taught her young female students that all sex was rape.
Even the sex in marriage.
This was mainstream feminist belief.
This was not extreme.
It was not kooky.
It was mainstream.
And it turns out that she may have been right here in certain places.
I'll have.
By the way, just to be accurate, Catherine McKinnon actually said all heterosexual intercourse is rape.
She didn't say all sexes.
She said homosexual sex is not rape.
Lesbian sex is not rape.
Chan transgender sex isn't rape.
It was it was just all heterosexual sex is rape.
She made that point now.
A preacher at a mosque in Berlin's Southern New Colin district has told worshippers that women should be confined to their homes and submit whenever their husbands demand sex.
Sheikh Abdelmoez Ali said a woman must turn her home into a flourishing garden for her husband so that he does not flee from her like a leper or a lion.
He told the congregation at the Al Nur Mosque, January 23rd.
It's only now come under broad public scrutiny after a video of the sermon surfaced on Sunday.
The Imam went on to say women should restrict themselves to taking care of their home, their children and husband, and that only an overtly lenient husband would allow his wife to work.
A woman is not allowed to make excuses or pretext.
She is not allowed to refuse to sleep with her husband, no matter what.
Well, seems to me that when Catherine McKinnon said that all heterosexual sex was rape, even in marriage, she might have been talking about these guys.
where aren't our precious feminazis when we need them I mean this is getting out there now are the feminazis you think they're going to stand up and object to this yeah Fat chance.
Okay, where are we head next on the phones?
Uh you want me to pick it?
Okay, we'll go to Peter.
Nope, yep, Peter, Port Washington, New York.
Hey, Peter, I'm glad you waited.
Great to have you on the show.
Nice to talk to you, Russ.
Um, now that it's um apparent more than ever that we need a global response in the war on terror, I'm wondering why um we don't use our international aid as leverage, meaning no country that gets one penny of international aid should not be involved actively in the war on terror.
You know, I uh for the longest time, that's a that's a that's a message close to my heart.
For the longest time, I have had a theory about foreign aid.
Now, it's not all that much money in the big scheme of things, and when you compare the amount of money we spend on foreign aid in the budget compared to the whole budget, it's a minuscule amount, taken by itself, depending on other things that can be seen as a lot of money.
But I've always thought, why in the world are we giving money to people that don't support us?
Why in the world we give money to people that end up ripping us and criticizing?
Why do we end up giving foreign aid to certain countries which actively work against us?
I have always thought that foreign aid should be merit-based.
Okay, if you want foreign aid from the United States, we're gonna have a list, and we're gonna have the good list and we're gonna have the excrement list.
And if you get on our excrement list, you're on it for a while.
It's gonna take you years to get off of it.
If we're gonna give you X number of dollars every year, you had better love us.
You had better respect us, you had better support us, you had better say good things about us, and you had better fall in when it comes to policy, defending and protecting freedom and the United States around the world.
And if you don't, you end up on the excrement list and you don't get any more money.
And you're on that list for years.
It's gonna take you two, three years of proper behavior before you get back on the good list and can once again receive American foreign aid.
So your question why don't we use it for leverage?
We never have.
We have never used it for leverage.
Well, that's probably not correct to say, uh in a in a blanket way.
But but clearly foreign aid has political connotations and reasons behind it, not just securing support for the uh for the United States as any number.
So much foreign aid to certain countries ends up just in the back pockets of the dictators that lead the countries that were assisting.
It's just like I'm sorry, I shouldn't laugh.
ISIS.
Look, they're not funny.
I I but I'm sorry.
When the UN is the victim, I can't help but laugh.
You know, the UN has this world food program, and they have these foodstuffs and these boxes of relief aid food and water, and and they ship it all over the country to the starving and the thirsty and the needy.
Well, ISIS stole a bunch of it.
And and they they stuck their own icons and logos on the boxes in Syria, and they've been distributing free food.
And it's the UN's, and the UN is ticked.
The world food program is living that ISIS would steal their food, and then ISIS would then distribute it to the poor and get the credit for being good guys.
Uh so the UN's getting a little taste of its own medicine in terms of how we in America sometimes feel when nations we extend lots of money to and donate money, give money to foreign aid, uh, end up not acting in an allied way or status.
Sit tight, my friends.
We got much more, as always, be right back.
I'm sitting here trying to think the only times that Obama has used foreign aid uh leverage uh as a weapon, you might say.
I can only think of two times, and there may be others that you remember, but he uh he threatened to withhold foreign aid from Uganda until they accepted homosexuality.
And even sent John Kerry, who by the way uh served in Vietnam, they sent John Kerry over there to engage in smart diplomacy.
And by the way, it was in the midst of an ISIS breakout.
Uh it may not have been ISIS, but there was a there was there was a breakout of huge hostilities, war going on somewhere, and carries in Uganda, threatening the president or the prime minister, whatever he's called for being a homophobe and were threatening to withhold foreign aid unless they got their minds right about it.
And of course the guy got his mind right and said he would retract what he thought about homosexuality because he wanted the money, to which Kerry said, This is how you do it.
This is how you engage in smart power diplomacy.
The other instance of Obama using our foreign aid to punish was the Egyptians for throwing out the Muslim Brotherhood.
He threatened to withhold.
Now we give them a lot of money, and he threatened to withhold all or part of the annual foreign aid budget that we spend on Egypt after they threw out the Muslim Brotherhood and put in the anti-brotherhood leader Al Sisi, which I just as soon pronounced C C so as not to convey incorrect thoughts about the guy.
Those are the only two times I can think that Obama has done it.
Here's uh here's Roger in Chicago.
Roger, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thanks, Rush.
You've got the greatest bumper music of anybody on the radio, and I got a question about bumper music.
Yeah.
I I I heard you sing the wrong one day to a tune.
He said way down in Memphis, and out of all the bumper music that you play, I have not been able to identify that song.
Yes, not way down in Memphis, if it's if it's the same one you're talking about.
It's way down in a hole.
And it's by Steve Earle, and it was the theme song to season five of The Wire on HBO.
They had they used the same song all five years with different artists each year performing it.
And the Steve Earle version is my favorite.
And that was for season five.
Pardon?
It's a great song.
It is.
It's uh uh it's in it's it's it really is, if it's especially when you when you watch that song used as the show open for the wire.
The wire opens with uh whatever malcontent activity that week's episode.
And then they get all hepped up and then they go to the credit role uh with highlights of what's happening in the episode with that song playing.
And it's just ideal.
It's a pr it's the best version of the song for all five seasons.
Thanks, Rush.
I agree.
I appreciate you keep up the great work.
Thank you.
Okay, let's move on to domestic politics.
There is building friction over the Scott Walker ascension in pre-presidential polling for the Republican Party.
The uh the appearance of a bunch of Republican wannabes in Iowa a couple of weekends ago, two Saturdays ago, Scott Walker came out of what most people thought was nowhere and delivered a stem winder.
And it was a stem winder that touched every conservative hot button.
And he did so with energy and fearlessness.
And it was it was a shock to a lot of Republicans who, for the life of me, I don't know how they've missed what he uh has done in Wisconsin.
But it it I I don't understand that this is my point.
I don't understand people being surprised.
I just can't understand.
Here's a guy who had to win three elections in four years.
The Democrats of the left threw everything they've got at him.
They threw mean-spiritedness, they threw extremists, they threw hates kids, wants to starve kids.
They threw everything at him in a blue state, and he beat them back three different times without becoming bitter.
And then after he beat them, he implemented his conservative agenda.
He cut unemployment, he cut taxes, he created a surplus in the state, which enabled him to cut taxes, gave people their money back while maintaining a budget surplus in a blue state.
I'm I'm actually running the risk of boring everybody in this audience talking about it because I had been for so long, but he came out of the blue in Iowa because so many people were shocked.
And one of the reactions that was um common after his speech in Iowa was where did this guy go to get a charisma transplant?
This is what some Republicans were saying.
Charisma transplant?
What is well that tells you what they thought of him before they heard him give the speech.
Now there are debates raging over why Scott he cleaned up in this poll after of Iowa Republican voters.
He cleaned up in the poll after this event, and the debate's raging.
Well, did he show up ready to clean clocks, or did he only show well in the poll because of the great speech?
And it's my contention, and and their Republican establishment types disagree deeply with me.
I think he arrived on conservatives radar in Iowa.
I think Tea Party types, the Republican base, I think they know all about Scott Walker.
I don't think he's a surprise.
I don't think he's a dark horse.
I don't think that he's somebody they thought needed a charisma transplant.
So I I I don't think it was just the speech he gave that caused him to win the poll, hands down, by the way.
But other Republicans think, oh, yeah, it was this.
He gave a great speech.
I mean, he knew his audience was, and he hit every note.
He just he just nailed it.
So whatever.
Uh he's now on the radar.
And so a lot of people are trying to either tout it or diminish it by saying things like, well, front runner, now big whoop.
Not gonna stay the front runner all of this time between now and the election and 2016.
That's right, by the way.
I don't know the last time.
It may not ever have happened that somebody that's a front runner coming out of this event in Iowa ended up getting a nomination.
I think somebody told me the last time it happened in 1980 would, which would, which would be Reagan, which I could believe.
But being frontrunner now, this is early.
I mean, not everybody that's gonna get in is in.
Not everybody that's gonna get in was in Iowa.
Not everybody has got their money men assembled.
Not everybody's got their campaign stamp, but he does.
See, this is another thing.
Walker's already out raising money.
He's so far ahead of where some of the establishment types think he should be.
He's got his money guys in place, and they're working.
They're raising money already.
And he's got his position, his policy people in place.
He's got his campaign apparatus up and running.
And he's done this all under the radar.
I mean, under the Republican establishment radar.
Okay, so that keep that as an isolated incident over there.
Scott Walker and what he's doing.
Wall Street Journal story today.
Reformicons put new twist on tax debate.
Now, wait a minute.
What is a reformicon?
Wait till you hear this.
A group of young conservatives dubbed reformicons are making inroads among Republican presidential candidates by arguing the party's traditional reliance on broad based tax cuts, which have been Republican Orthodoxy for a generation is not enough to cure the problems of the middle class.
No, no, no.
Instead, this young group of conservatives, dubbed the reformicons, they're calling for crafting subsidies and tax credits and other public policy tools based on conservative philosophies and tastes to help the unemployed and other struggling middle income households.
So what we are being told here in this Wall Street Journal story is that a group of young conservatives in the House actually believe in big government tactics to dole out government assistance here and government assistance there in order to elevate the economic status of people in the middle class,
as opposed to the traditional Republican stance that just cut everybody's taxes and get out of their way and let them have at it.
Now, at the root of this, folks is a belief that and these young conservatives that the Wall Street Journal says they are conservatives and they call them reformicons.
Um there is a belief, and you may know this, there is a philosophy now within certain elements, even of conservative media in Washington, who believe that the whole argument over smaller government and limited government has been lost.
Bill Crystal, the Weekly Standard was one of the first I remember to suggest that we had better get with it and understand the American people like their government.
And they want a big government.
They just want it administered better.
They just want it administered smarter.
But the idea that limited government, reduced government, smaller government, that is a campaign loser now.
This is the this is the evolving strategy or theory, with even some strains of conservative media.
It's basically a capitulation.
It is that they they believe that the American people have decided they want government in their lives, and they want a big government in their lives.
They just want the government to do things smarter, and they if they're gonna be benefits doled out by the government, forget giving benefits to people that don't work, give the benefits to people that do.
Do you agree with that?
I'm asking you do you agree that that is how the Republicans ought to approach voters, with the assumption that they have now grown accustomed to and accept the idea of a big government.
And they just want it, and an active, engaged executive, by the way, this is part of the theory too.
We need an active president, an engaged president who is smart and can really run a big bureaucracy in a very intelligent way.
And if there are going to be government benefits, tax credits rather than tax cuts, for example, that they need to be targeted to the right people.
In this case, people who work, not just people on welfare.
And the Wall Street Journal article here is touting this group of conservatives, reformicons who believe that.
Who believe that subsidies and public policy tools are the new conservatism?
Subsidies public policy tools are now the way to advance conservative ideas in government.
Much more, much more than simple across the board tax cuts for everybody.
While it is unlikely any would-be Republican nominee would turn his back on tax cuts, I'm reading now from the story.
Oh, I gotta take a break.
I just saw the clock.
Don't worry.
I'm not gonna lose my place.
We'll be right back and pick it up here.
Okay, now back to this Wall Street Journal story, reformicons put new twist on tax debate.
And this is about young conservatives in the House who now believe that big government is what people want.
The mass, the majority of the American people have it's it's just it's it's not they've actively chosen it, it's just evolved.
Big government's a part of everybody's life.
They just expect it.
That the sentiment for reduced government, limited government, smaller government is minority now.
Not a winning concept.
And so the theory now is to find a way to inculcate conservative philosophy into big government administration.
And the journal, by the way, all for that.
The Wall Street Journal would be it all for this concept, is now highlighting a bunch of new conservatives in the House who believe this.
So the journal, which part of the cabal that believes we can successfully meld conservative principles with big government administration, doing it smarter and better, is highlighting these guys.
Now, most of them I should point out.
Just give you an example.
The new crop of conservatives, numbering maybe 50, are said to be mostly in their 30s and are affiliated with the policy journal National Affairs, the American Enterprise Institute, and a new group called the YG Network, founded by an aide to Are You Waiting?
Eric Cantor.
An aide to Eric Cantor, who was just roundly defeated in a shocking upset.
He was going to be the next speaker.
One of his aides is responsible for the creation of this group.
From earlier in the article, it says Ramesh Penuru, a 40-year-old reformicon thinker who recently met with former Florida Governor Bush, said that kind of thinking prompts a classic retort.
Times change.
People need to change if they're going to remain relevant.
Relevant like Eric Cantor remained relevant politically.
I mean, he's on Wall Street now, but we're going to stay relevant like Eric Cantor did.
Ramesh Panuru is from National Review, by the way.
And he's still there.
Still writes there.
But did these guys miss the midterm elections?
I'm wondering.
Republicans won an historic landslide at every level of elected office, not with any of this on the ballot.
There are now more Republicans in public office than there have been in over a hundred years.
Now, in my mind, that makes them more relevant than they've been in a century.
But regardless, be on the be on a lookout for this, folks, because this is this is the latest effort here on the part of the uh establishment to peg new conservatives As believers in big government, but smarter big government, using big government with conservative principles.
To me, it sounds like buying votes.
I gotta take another break here.
Sit tight.
We'll be back.
Another hour comes to a screeching halt here on the EIB Network.
But there's another one to come.
There's always another hour in your future.
▲
Export Selection