All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 4, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
30:01
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.
You count on it.
You can believe it.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882 and the email address, lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Folks, I still have some audio sound bites remaining here on this ISIS business.
I've kind of divvied it up as we've discussed it today, but there's still some things that I'd like to share with you.
And I will get started here.
Charlie Rose, last night on PBS, Charlie Rose Show, he's 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.
what did i do with it i could have sworn i had a soundbite here from uh yes grab audio soundbite number six this This is so inspiring.
Mr. Snardly, you have to hear this is so inspiring.
This is on Capitol Hill today.
The Senate Armed Services Committee held a confirmation hearing for the Secretary of Defense nominee, Ashton Carter.
And during the Q ⁇ A, 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 going to do?
How do you see us fighting these guys?
The strategy connects ends and means, and our ends with respect to ISIL needs to be its lasting defeat.
I say lasting because it's important that when they get defeated, they stay defeated.
And that is why it's important that we have those on the ground there who will ensure that they stay defeated once defeated.
Isn't that inspiring?
33 seconds there of sheer excitement, sheer awe, inspiring confidence in our ability here and how we're going to defeat ISIS.
Now, McCain's question, what do you understand the strategy for combating ISIS to be?
And our Defense Secretary nominee said, well, the strategy connects ends and means.
Oh, right on, dude.
Right on.
And our ends with respect to ISIL needs to be its lasting defeat.
Now, obviously, the senators didn't know what that meant.
Lasting defeat.
So our nominee clarified.
I say lasting 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, Senator, we're going to beat them.
That's the strategy.
And when we beat them, they're going to stay beat.
That's what I mean.
Once they're defeated, they're defeated.
Going to defeat them, they're going to stay defeated.
Man, you've got to go to Harvard or Yale to know, be able to answer that, right?
Man, oh, man.
So now we move 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 former director of the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, 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 response to them.
So why not just call that there's a connection between them?
We connect them.
Good grief.
What did I just hear?
Charlie Rose just had an epiphany moment.
He said, aha, okay, I get it now.
Did you, 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 one of our arms behind our, but we don't even properly identify these people.
And then he says, why, if they're not Islamists, why do we give them a Quran at 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.
We have values, American values, Mike.
That's why.
That's why we give him a Koran, and that's why we give him.
And so this guy, 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, 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 in a way he could understand it.
And for him, I guarantee you, this is one of the happiest nights of his life.
The light went off.
And he 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, 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 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 Broca about Obama, they were reveling in how much they didn't know about the guy.
Like five days before telling everybody they should vote for him.
Anyway, there's one more soundbite to this.
And Mike Flynn, after the light goes on in Charlie Roses, I'm not meaning to be, I'm not making fun of Charlie.
I'm just, I think this is, 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.
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 this.
The White House doesn't like to call it the Islamic State, as you know.
Right.
Right.
I mean, they call it dashed.
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 get 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.
I mean, just, 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.
That's the thought process.
I just wanted you to hear that.
Skip number nine.
We move now to Senator McCain this morning on CNN's new day.
And a former Fox anchorette, Allison Camerata, 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.
I've just seen no change in the White House.
I have no doubt ISIS is winning.
We are neither degrading nor destroying ISIS.
Now, Allison works at CNN now, so she's got to push back on this one, which she did.
McCain just said, ISIS is winning.
We are not degrading.
We are not destroying ISIS.
And Allison 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 and 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 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 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 Pol 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 Plains, Florida.
Great that you waited, sir.
Thank you for your patience and hello.
Yes.
I have a question and an answer 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 U.S. troops on the ground to defeat them, 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: Russia, why can't the organization known as the quote United Nations step 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.
Well, then, what the hell are they there for?
If ever, if there was a time when we needed that, it's right now.
The purpose of the United States is 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 got to do so.
Somebody's got to step forward and form an international coalition of ground troops.
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 for Obama, legacy-building mode.
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.
It isn't mine.
The idea the United Nations are going to do anything about the United Nations exists for one reason.
Separating the United States from its money.
What is a 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 avowed purpose of the UN.
Where are the moderate Muslim armies who so oppose all this?
Well, we're told that moderate Muslims, hey, don't like any of this.
I guess you can say maybe the Iraqis.
I don't know.
Questions off the top of my head.
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 sincerely want to say it's my privilege and honor to speak with you.
I've been listening for almost since the beginning of time, it seems like.
Yeah, you know, sometimes it feels like we've been doing it that long.
I have.
But it's been our privilege to hear you doing it.
The reason for my call is just two quick points: is that your books that have come out, I've had the opportunity to purchase them for my grandchildren.
And in doing so, I decided that I was going to peruse them and do some reading.
And I have found myself completely engulfed in the books to the point where the kids are going to 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 them on the little phone.
But, you know, I've experienced some long-term, short-term memory loss, some brain damage.
And it's really kind of great to get back into educating myself and reading.
And, you know, I'm just really, as a grown man, getting a lot out of them.
And I can't thank you enough for that.
Well, this is phenomenal.
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 true.
I mean, you know, I've heard other callers say it, but when I got in there for myself and really started getting into the books, they were enjoyable, but they came across with so much information that, you know, you may tend to forget again across time.
It's been a long time since I've been in school.
And, you know, it's just, it's really been beneficial.
I really thank you.
I can't tell you, we've had quite a few adults over the 15 or 16 months since the first book came out that they said that they learned things that they were never taught in school about American history, which, you know, that makes me really gratified.
And it confirms one of the premises under which we wrote the books, and that is that the education system in America is focused on maybe not the things they should have in certain aspects of American history.
So this is, how old are your grandkids?
My oldest is 10.
Oh.
And right now I have my 17-year-old daughter and my 20-year-old son reading them.
And I'm just telling you, Rush, it's 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 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 per your producer.
I mean that from the bottom of my heart.
And I just thank God that you're out here doing it for us.
Don't know what to say.
I'm floored here.
That's just incredibly nice of you to say all that.
And I sincerely appreciate it.
I can't tell you how much.
Well, it's my pleasure.
And like I said, you know, I was able once to meet 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 because I consider you both great Americans.
You're turning me speechless here.
You're turning me speechless here.
Tell you what I want to do.
Tell you what I want to do.
You have a 10-year-old grandson.
So 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.
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 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 that way you can, 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, Wayne is hanging there, and Mr. Snurdy will be back and get your address, and we'll get that stuff.
The iPad will get out today.
Some of the other stuff is going to take a while to assemble it.
But hopefully this week we will get out the little Rush Revere and Liberty package that we put together for people, too.
I can't thank you enough.
It's over the top what you said.
And I appreciate every word of it more than you can possibly possibly know.
So, oh man, I don't know, speechless, folks.
That's, well, I never do take any of this for granted, but that's just don't know what to say 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.
Singleism and married privilege are the new kids on the PC correct block, politically correct block.
According to Bella DiPaulo 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 singleism 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 serious people?
I mean, they're nutcases, but they're sitting around and they've actually conjured this up, that singleism and married privilege are two new plagues on American culture.
Now, how does this happen?
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.
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.
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 their German shepherds and they make up this kind of stuff to validate their sad lives.
It's really 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 ended up going to be.
It's so bitter going into everything.
A serious piece at truthout.org that defines singleism, 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, singleism 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, folks, I'm telling you now, the best way to illustrate this: when this kind of crap came up 25 years ago, we laughed ourselves silly about it.
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 and 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 discriminated singleism.
My God, we just redefine marriage for crying out loud.
Does nothing make these people happy?
We just redefine marriage.
You know, we didn't get to this yesterday, but there was a big story about three parent families now using in vitro, using the genetic material of three people to design their babies with three different parents.
It was three different people's genetic material to create a baby.
And I remember, I remember warning about this snurdly 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 red-headed, freckle-faced, and tend to be overweight.
And the kids go, nope.
Parents can say, nope, don't want that kid and abort it.
And then we're going to, after that, we're going to be able to pick out the characteristics we want and get those.
And yeah, Margaret Sanger was trying to do that in the 1940s, Planned Parenthood.
And lo and behold, all these predictions.
I may as well be a science fiction writer.
Arthur C. Clarke, you know, he predicted the 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, three parent babies, that's not the result of an orgy.
I just didn't want any confusion out there about that.
Have a great, great rest of the day.
▲
Export Selection