All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 4, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
29:57
February 4, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program are still documented to be almost always right, 99.7% of the time you can trust it.
Count on it.
You can believe it.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882 and the email address.com.
Folks, I still have some audio sound bites remaining here on this ISIS business.
I've kind of divided it up as we've discussed it today.
But there's still some things that uh I'd like to share with you.
And I will get started here.
Charlie Rose last night on uh PBS, uh Charlie Rose show.
He's uh interviewing the oh wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, just a second.
There's one before.
I get there.
Where is it?
Don't tell me I uh what did I do with it?
I could have sworn I had a soundbite here from uh yes, grab audio soundbite number six.
This is so inspiring.
Mr. Snardley, you have to hear this is so inspiring.
This is um on Capitol Hill today.
The Senate Armed Services Committee held a confirmation hearing for the Secretary of Defense nominee, Ashton Carter.
And during the QA, Senator McCain of Arizona said, What do you understand the strategy for combating ISIS to be?
Okay, so simple, straightforward question.
This is Secretary of Defense nominee, Ashton Carter.
McCain wants to know, so what are we gonna do?
How do you see us fighting these guys?
The um uh uh strategy connects ends and means, and our ends with respect to uh ISIL needs to be its lasting defeat.
Uh I say lasting because it's important that when they get defeated, they stay defeated.
Uh and uh that is why it's important that uh we have uh uh uh those on the ground there who will ensure that they stay defeated once defeated.
Isn't that inspiring?
The thirty-three seconds there of sheer excitement, sheer awe inspiring confidence in uh in in our ability here and how we're gonna defeat ISIS.
Now, McCain's question, what do you understand the strategy for combating ISIS to be?
And our uh defense secretary nominee said, well, uh the uh strategy connects ends and means.
Ho ho!
Ho!
Right on, dude, right on and our ends with uh respect to uh excuse me, Senator.
Um needs to be its lasting defeat.
Now, obviously the senators didn't know what that meant.
Lasting defeat, so our nominee clarified.
Uh I say lasting.
Uh, because it's important that when they get defeated, they stay defeated.
Man, folks, are we lucky?
Where do we find these people?
Where in the world do we go?
How far down do we have to go?
How high up do we have to go to find such amazing and qualified people?
Well, uh, Senator um uh beat them.
That's the strategy.
And uh we beat them, they're gonna stay beat.
Uh that's what I mean.
Once they're defeated, they're defeated.
Stay defeated.
Man.
You gotta go to Harvard or Yale to know be able to answer that, right?
Man, oh man.
I I So now we move on from that to Charlie Rose, who no doubt will be interviewing this guy after he becomes Secretary of Defense.
And that'll be fun.
Anyway, Charlie's talking to the uh former director of the DIA, the defense intelligence agencies, Lieutenant General Mike Flynn.
And Charlie Rose says, did we get a treasure trove of stuff from bin Laden when they killed him?
A lot of things in terms of what he thought, what he was trying to do, do we really clean up by doing that?
We really do have to come to grips with defining it.
We just have to.
And it doesn't mean that we're any less respectful of the Islamic religion.
Why do we, for example, when we detain somebody, Gitmo, why do we give them a Quran, a prayer rug, you know, and make sure that they have all the time in the world to practice their religion?
Because we have a value that says you respect freedom of religion.
So why don't we recognize the fact that these guys are in fact Islamic extremists?
Why did we bury bin Laden wrapped in a white sheet in a somewhat respectful way?
What I'm saying is that we already recognize that this is an Islamic problem.
By the fact that we show respect to them and give them a Quran.
So why not just call him?
We connect them.
Good grief.
What did I just hear?
Charlie Rose just he just had an epiphany moment.
He said, aha!
Okay, I get it now.
Did you I I have to parse this.
I'm sorry.
So this guy, Mike Flynn, is obviously frustrated that we're handcuffing ourselves.
That we're tying it, one of our arms behind her, but we'll even properly identify these people.
And then he says, why, if they're not Islamists, why do we give them a Quran?
Ed Gitmo.
Why do we give them a prayer rug?
And make sure they have all the time in the world to practice their religion.
And Charlie, like a good liberal says, Because we have a value that says we respect freedom of religion.
Well, yeah, for citizens, Charlie.
For citizens, yeah.
Isn't it convenient how the Constitution is infallible on certain things?
Like freedom of religion for our enemies.
But you talk about the second amendment or other things for American citizens.
We've got to change it.
Freedom of religion.
Yeah, we have values.
American values, Mike.
That's why.
That's why we give them a Quran, and that's why we give them.
And so this guy can't speak.
He says Charlie still doesn't get it.
He says, okay, so why don't we recognize the fact that these guys are in fact Islamist extremists?
Why do we bury bin Laden wrapped in a white sheet in a respectful way?
What I'm saying, Charlie, we already recognize it is an Islamic problem.
And Charlie.
Ah.
By the fact that we show respect, yeah, take to them and give them a Quran.
We're recognizing there's a connection between them.
And Flynn goes, that's right.
We connect them, Charlie.
You see, we buried bin Laden with full Islamic regalia, and we give them Qurans and prayer rugs at Gitmo, and then we're told that they're not Islamists.
And Charlie finally had it explained to him and away can understand it.
And for him, I guarantee you, this is one of the happiest nights of his life.
A light went off.
And he uh couldn't figure this out on his own.
Or didn't.
Maybe it's not that he couldn't, it's just that he didn't.
So uh, well, will he remember it?
Yeah, that's not the question.
It's not a question, will he remember it?
Will he now utilize what he knows in f it in whatever interviews he conducts?
Or will he revert back to, well, why do we know they're Islamists?
What gives us that indication?
Are we really correct in assuming?
Remember when he talked to Broco about Obama, they were reveling in how much they didn't know about the guy.
Five days before telling everybody they should vote for him.
Anyway, there's one more sound bite to this.
And uh the Mike Flynn, after the light goes on in Charlie Rose's head, I'm not meaning to be, I'm not making fun of Charlie.
I'm just I think this isn't folks, I think it's fascinating.
The way liberals learn things.
Things that you and me connect instantly that are just common sense.
It took a former DIA head to explain to Charlie, well, you know what?
We give them a Quran.
Yeah, because we believe in freedom of religion.
No, we give a Quran because they're Islamists.
Oh, yeah.
And we buried bin Laden with full Muslim ceremony.
Oh, yeah, that's right.
Why, we wouldn't do that if he wasn't Muslim, right?
That's what Charlie's thinking.
So he had it explained to him, and they continued the conversation continued.
We have various assessments that call them like they are.
And in fact, even in the Arab world, the Arab leaders, they will call it like it is.
So why is it that the United States has such a difficult problem?
I mean, do you think the president has a difficult problem?
I do.
I think he does.
I think he's got a challenge with calling it like the Israelites.
The white has doesn't like to call it the Islamic State, as you know.
Right.
I mean, they call it Dash.
Right, right, right.
I mean, I just think that, you know, call it like it is.
Let's get off the dime and just call it like it is.
Listen, I guess that Charlie still argued with the guy even after the light went off.
Well, you know, Obama says it's not Islamic, so it must not be.
I don't care what you said to me, Mike.
Yeah, it makes it perfect.
Obama says it isn't.
They call it Dash or something.
Right, right, right.
Let me just say I think, you know, call it like it is.
Let's go off the dime.
Let's call it like it is.
Well, the president says it isn't.
Charlie, I just explained to you, and you just got it.
Why they are Islamists.
Yeah, I know, but the president doesn't call them that.
So can we?
I mean, Charlie didn't say that.
It's the thought process.
I just wanted you to uh hear that.
Skip number nine.
We moved out of Senator McCain this morning on CNN's new day.
And a former Fox anchorette, Alison Camarata, is interviewing McCain.
She said, Do you feel that now because of the depravity of this particular act, the burning of a Jordanian pilot?
Do you think there's going to be more of an appetite in Congress to take on ISIS in terms of more boots on the ground?
There's already significant appetite in Congress.
Have no doubt ISIS is winning.
We are neither degrading nor destroying ISIS.
Now Alison works at CNN now, so she's got a pushback on this one, which she did.
McCain just said ISIS is winning.
We are not degrading.
We are not destroying ISIS.
And Alison Camarada said, well, I just want to stop you for a second.
Because our military analysts have said the U.S. coalition is pushing back ISIS, that they are losing some of the ground in the territory they've taken, and that we have killed some of their leaders.
You disagree with that, Senator?
Of course.
No, we are not winning, and that is the opinion of outside military experts.
Literally every one of them, I know.
And if there have been some gains, they've been minuscule.
Obviously, McCain's right on this.
The UAE, don't forget United Arab Emirates just pulled out because of any attempt to join us in defeating ISIS or even fighting them because they don't feel we have uh a full-fledged commitment to it.
I mean, you get right down to it, that's why the UAE, now I don't know how much help they were providing, but they were an ally, but no more.
They pulled out.
So this morning on the Senate floor, Senator Dick Durbin takes to the Senate floor to denounce ISIS.
Or wait, does he?
Yesterday, we were informed of another barbaric act by ISIS, literally burning a Jordanian pilot to death in a cage.
It's an indication of the threat, not just to the Middle East, but to the world of terrorism in its extreme, as ISIS demonstrates on a regular basis.
The same day we learned this, I visited the Department of Homeland Security and met with the Secretary, Jay Johnson, and talked about the political strategy of the Republicans when it comes to funding the Department of Homeland Security.
Wait a minute, he didn't denounce ISIS, he shows up to denounce Republicans.
That's what he should that's what he did.
I thought for a moment where he was going to go with this, just like we did at Guantanamo Bay.
Because remember, Dick Durbin is famous for comparing our tactics in Guantanamo Bay to the gulags of the Soviet Union and Paul Pot and all that.
So here he is, denounces what ISIS did, and then ends up by ripping the Republicans for whatever funding they do or don't want to extend to the Department of Homeland Security.
Here is Lawrence, Pembroke Pines, uh, Florida.
Great you waited, sir.
Thank you for your patience and hello.
Yes.
Uh I have a question and an answer uh regarding this ISIS crisis, and I'd like your take on it.
Right.
Okay.
Now, as we know, our so called leader has already said that he would not put US troops on the ground to defeat that, right?
And since this crisis involves so many different countries, I think that a great solution to this would be an international coalition of ground troops.
Wouldn't you agree?
I don't know that there is one.
Who are you thinking about?
Right, but there isn't one because nobody has stepped forward to do it.
Now, my question is this: Why can't the organization known as the "United Nations"?
Stepped in, done anything, said anything about this.
Oh, come on.
Are you serious out there, Lawrence?
You know the answer.
They're a bunch of wusses.
Oh, you know, well then what the hell are they there for?
If ever there was a time when we needed that it's right then the purpose of the United States is uh the United Nations is to separate the United States from its money.
That's about it.
You're right.
So what can we do?
We gotta do so somebody's gonna step forward and form a international coalition of ground troops.
Uh I just I don't I mean, I this is not something I see Obama doing.
I mean, remember now we are in legacy mode.
Well, for Obama, legacy building mode.
Um I I think study Obama's foreign policy, and it boils down to what right do we have to tell ISIS they can't do anything?
I mean, we went all over the world killing people.
We went all over the world conquering territory, we built nuclear weapons and nobody told us we couldn't.
Who are we to tell them they can't?
It's Syria's problem.
It's Iraq's problem.
It's Bush's problem.
He didn't mind.
United Nations exists for one reason.
Separate United States from its money.
What is the secondary reason?
Turn the United States into a socialist.
Western European type nation to fleece us and then turn us into an average ordinary run of the mill place.
That's the that's that's a avowed purpose of the UN.
You know where are the moderate Muslim armies who so oppose all this.
Well, we're told that moderate Muslims they don't like any of this.
We're we're I guess you can say maybe the Iraqis, I don't know.
Questions off the top of my head.
Here's um here's Wayne in Lexington, South Carolina.
Is that right?
Hi, Wayne, great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Thank you very much, Rush.
I uh sincerely want to say it's uh my privilege and honor to speak with you.
Um I've been listening for almost since the beginning of time, it seems like.
And uh Yeah, you know, sometimes it feels like we've been doing it that long.
Uh but it's been our privilege to uh to hear you doing it.
Uh the reason for my call is uh just two quick points is that um your books that have come out, I've I've had the opportunity to purchase them for my grandchildren, and in doing so I decided that I was gonna peruse them and uh do some reading, and I have found myself completely engulfed in the books to the point where the kids are gonna wait until I'm done reading before I send them down.
So now my wife says, you know, download them, read them on your phone or whatever, and I try to explain that I'm too blind to see him on the little phone, but uh, you know, I I've uh experienced some long term, short term memory, some brain damage, and it's really kind of great to get back into educating myself and and reading and you know,
I'm just really mu as a grown man getting a lot out of them, and I can't thank you enough for the this is for you know it takes I think it takes courage for an adult like you to admit that you're learning something from a children's book.
It's uh it's true.
I mean uh you know I I've heard other callers say it, but when I got in there for myself and really started getting into the book, they were enjoyable, but they yet came across with so much information that you know you may tend to forget again uh uh uh across time that you know it's been a long time since I've been in school and um You know it's just it's really been beneficial.
I I I I really thank you.
I can't tell you, we've had quite a few adults over the uh uh well, fifteen or sixteen months since the first book came out that they they said that they learned things that they were never taught in in school about American history, which you know I'm that makes me really uh gratified, and it it confirms one of the premises under which we wrote the books, and that is that the education system in America's focused on uh maybe not the things they should have in certain aspects of American history.
So this is uh how old are your grandkids?
Uh my oldest is ten.
Oh, yeah.
And um right now I have my seventeen year old daughter and my twenty-year-old son reading them.
And uh I'm just telling you, Rush, it's yeah, I I'm sure you hear it quite a bit, but when I say from the bottom of my heart that your show, your books, just listening to you, looking at you as a role model myself, and my kids having that same opportunity.
And again, through the books, you've really changed my family's lives.
You've you've helped educate my children better than any school could.
And you know what?
I'm eternally grateful for everything that you've done for us.
And I really mean that.
I'm just not somebody calling up for your producer.
Uh I mean that from the bottom of my heart, and uh I just thank God that uh you're out here going for it.
Don't know what to say.
I I you I'm I'm floored here.
This is that's uh that's that's just incredibly nice of you to say all that.
I I and I sincerely appreciate it.
I can't tell you how much.
Well, it's it's my pleasure, and like I said, you know, I was able once to meet uh President Reagan.
I spoke with him just for a minute, and I feel myself just as honored speaking with you today as I did that same day.
Um I can give you both great Americans and turning me speechless here.
You're turning me speechless here.
Tell what I want to do.
Say what I want to do.
Um you have a ten-year-old grandson, so uh uh uh if if I want to give I want you to give us your FedEx address, and I want to send some stuff in a little gift package for the 10-year-old.
Okay, and I want to send you I want to send you a new iPad air so that you can read the books.
Rush, you don't have to do that.
Oh no, no, I want to.
That's what I've got them here for.
I got a stack of them in there, and I dole them out whenever I feel like I want to.
And the and the new iPad Air, you'll be able to get any e-book you want.
These look fabulous on it, and that'll be big enough for you to read them.
And uh that way you can it it serves my purpose because get the books out of your hands and put them in the hands of your kids.
Because right now you are hoarding them.
And so I send you the iPad, you can read them on the iPad like your wife suggested, and give the books to the kids.
But look, uh Wayne, just hang in there, and Mr. Snurdy will be back and get your address, and we'll get that stuff uh well the iPad will get out today.
Some of the other stuff is gonna take a while to assemble it, but hopefully this week we will uh we'll get out the little rush revere and liberty package that uh that we put together for people too.
I can't thank you enough.
It's it's it's over the top what you said, and I appreciate every word of it.
Uh more than you can possibly possibly know.
So man.
I don't know, speechless folks.
That's uh well, never do take any of this for granted, but but that's just don't know what to say.
Other than other than thank you.
Racism, white privilege.
These are terms that we've been hearing a lot lately in our Culture, racism and racism for a while, racism everywhere, racism's to blame for this, racism to blame for that, racism describes the inherent nature of America.
And now we're hearing about white privilege and how universities are teaching white students how to recognize white privilege and what it says negatively about them and how they are to deal with it and understand they should feel guilty about it and so forth.
Well, it turns out I have a story here from National Review Online.
The PC police, the politically correct police, are now not just upset about terms like racism and white privilege.
They have now created something else to wring their hands over.
Singlesm and married privilege are the new kids on the PC correct block, politically correct block.
According to Bella DePolo and Rachel Budeberg, the singles activists and authors who wrote a truthout.org piece titled, Do You Married Person Take These Unearned Privileges for Better or Better?
They believe that there is discrimination against single people in America.
And the discrimination against single people is such a huge problem that it is ruining our culture.
It is jarring our culture.
And it is also jarring that our culture doesn't talk about it the way it talks about racism and sexism.
And this piece that they've written at TruthOut.org defines singles as stereotyping, stigmatizing, and discrimination against people who are not married.
They describe marital privilege as the unearned advantage that benefit those who are married, such as certain economic and tax benefits, and emotional privilege, where other people express happiness for people who marry, but pity for those who stay single.
Now I think how does this stuff seriously now, folks, these are these are serious people.
I mean, they're nutcases, but they're sitting around and they've actually conjured this up that singles and married privilege are two new plagues on American culture.
Now, how does this happen?
So this kind of stuff fascinates me.
It really does.
Who are these people and where do they come up with this?
And then why does the drive-by media glom onto it and then start reporting on this stuff?
I predict you're going to be hearing about it.
Well, the answer to that is it's an attack on the majority, and anything that attacks the majority is politically correct.
This is, I think this is what happens when you have a bunch of miserably unhappy girls sitting around anywhere on a college campus or you name it, who are trying to figure out why they're so miserable and why they're so unhappy, looking for reasons, looking for excuses, and they think about it and they think about it, and they finally come up with the idea.
Yeah, yeah, you know, we're single and we're discriminated against.
We're not complete.
And look at people who are married, look at all the benefits they get.
We single people, we pay the higher tax rate, we don't get the benefits when we go to the movies and all this good, and they seriously are now mad about it.
So they sit around with their German shepherds, mostly German shepherds that they have.
I've seen it in the airport in Humboldt County.
I know what I'm talking about.
They sit around with our German shepherds and they make up this kind of stuff to validate their sad lives.
It's really kind, kind of unfortunate.
And all of this, I guarantee this comes from the classroom, it comes from feminism, it comes from all of these women's studies programs, and it just ruins any possible male-female relationship that these women are end up going to be so bitter going into everything.
A serious piece at truthout.org that defines singles, like racism, stereotyping, stigmatizing, discriminating against people who are not married, as though it's some massive cultural problem that must receive immediate attention.
Some of the points in this piece are laughable.
There's a claim in this piece, for example, that it's so terrible, singlism and married privilege, so terrible that universities have women's studies, black studies, and queer studies programs.
But there aren't any singles studies programs in any university anywhere.
And I'm not making that up.
These women feel discriminated against because they can go to any class on women's studies, black studies, queer studies.
That's her word, not mine.
We'll call it gay studies.
But there aren't any classes on single studies.
And there aren't any classes on married privileged studies.
And they are demanding them.
And you might see folks, I'm telling you now, best way to illustrate this.
When this kind of crap came up 25 years ago, we laughed ourselves silly about it.
And we made, and then 25 years later, all that stuff has become part of the mainstream of liberal culture.
Yeah, and you wonder why they can't get jobs when they get out of college.
You wonder why they can't find employment.
You wonder why they can't find anything other than part-time.
They're running around.
Feeling put upon discriminating.
Singleism.
My God, we just we just redefine marriage for crying out loud.
Does nothing make these people happy?
We just redefined marriage.
You know, we didn't get to this yesterday, but there's a there was a big story about three.
What was it?
Three.
Three parent families now using in vitro, using using the genetic material of three people.
To design your babies with three different parents.
It was, it was three different people's genetic material to create a baby.
And I remember, I remember warning about this snerdily.
You know, 25 years ago.
It was in the middle of the abortion debate, and I said, you know what's going to happen here?
We're going to end up someday being able to tell parents your kid's going to be redheaded, freckle-faced, and tend to be overweight, and the kids can say, nope, parents can say nope, don't want that kid in aborted.
And then we're gonna, after that, we're gonna be able to pick out the characteristics we want and get those.
And uh, yeah, Margaret Sanger was trying to do that in the 1940s, uh, now Planned Parenthood.
And lo and behold, all these predictions.
I may as well be a science fiction writer, Arthur C. Clark.
You know, he predicted a cell phone long ago, and he almost got it dead right in terms of everything.
And I was right about this without any qualification whatsoever.
By the way, for those of you in Rio Linda, uh, three parent babies, that's not the result of an orgy.
I just didn't want any confusion out there about that.
▲
Export Selection