All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 6, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:08
February 6, 2015, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It is the fastest three hours in media.
It is the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, the Rush Limbaugh program from the Limbaugh Institute for advanced conservative studies on Friday.
Let's keep rolling.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday.
Yes, sir, Open Line Friday special edition.
Callers are urged to make it up.
See how good you are at selling a lie.
Make it up.
Lie about it.
Don't care what.
If you want to.
If you want to try to have fun with this, in honor of NBC News today, just make it up.
800-282-2882 and the email address, lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
I don't want anybody to misunderstand on this illegal immigrants and the earned income tax credit.
Here's the correct way to explain this.
The IRS has decided that illegals can refile their past taxes in order to get earned income tax credit and child tax credit so that now illegals can get free money from the treasury, money they did not earn for the years when they were in this country working illegally.
It's a gift.
After they get amnesty, they're allowed to go back and retroactively, essentially, refile their past taxes where they can claim the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit and get credit for it.
And this is in the latest IRS tax code, the Obama budget and so forth.
I mean, folks, wherever you look in Obama news, it's just an all-out assault.
It's an all-out assault on this country.
It's an all-out assault on the traditions and the institutions that have made this country great.
It's an all-out assault on the people of this country who make it work.
It is, I mean, I don't have any doubt at all.
I've never really had any doubt about my estimation of who Obama is and what motivates him.
This guy has the biggest chip on his shoulder about this country, and it's bigger than anybody ever factored.
You know, I was reading it's fascinating reading.
I don't have it in front of me.
I went out because of a story in the Washington Post.
They're all upset, the Washington Post over Obama's foreign policy.
They're embarrassed.
And they've got an editorial that pretty much spells out why they're embarrassed.
The deal on the verge of being made with Iran that would allow Iran to nuke up this half-baked effort against ISIS and al-Qaeda-linked terrorism anyway.
The Washington Post, very concerned about it.
I went back and I got their endorsement editorial in 2008, and it is a joke.
The Washington Post editorial endorsing Obama talked about how competent he was in foreign policy and how we had never seen anybody with his qualifications before.
I'm not making it up.
We had never seen anybody with his qualifications before.
He had the perfect temperament to restore respect and admiration, love for the United States.
He was an intellectual, but was not off-putting.
He was in a stratosphere all by himself, but did not make people who weren't with him in that stratosphere feel uncomfortable.
It was the most god-awful, puke-inducing endorsement you would ever read.
And it was totally, it was totally made up.
They couldn't possibly have known all of this about Obama.
Nobody knew anything about him back then.
And they didn't get.
They just, he was a blank canvas, and they could make of him what they wanted him to be.
And they did.
And now they've got this editorial today that when you juxtapose the two, it's just hilarious.
If it weren't so damn serious, it would be hilarious.
Because here are these liberals in the editorial board, the Washington Post, smarter than everybody else and more caring, you know, all that rot gut stuff, this superiority complex they run around with, and they have all of these assumptions, like David Brooks thinking Obama is going to be great president because of the crease in his slacks.
I mean, it's silly, silly stuff.
The Superman characteristics that they attached to Obama.
I mean, it was clear that these people were groupies.
And they were groupies of a blank slate.
They were groupies of an empty suit.
And now they are worried.
I'm telling you, these high-falutin intellectuals who all believe themselves to be foreign policy experts, national security experts, they're scared to death.
They've got a guy who doesn't know what he's doing, or he doesn't care.
And a lot of it has to do with his prayer breakfast speech.
But even before that, as I said, a half-baked effort to tackle militant Islamic terrorism, to not even properly identify it, they are worried about it.
And I have to laugh also.
You know, when I hear the president worried, and even some of his buddies on the whip worried about Muslim backlash.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, we've got to be very careful after Charles Ebdu, you know, after some militant Islamists blow up the French magazine.
Got to be very careful that there's not a backlash against all Muslims when there never is.
There never is a backlash against, particularly in this country.
There never is.
But at the same time, it's obvious the president has no concern about Christian backlash.
And apparently, he's got no concern about Jewish backlash.
This is one angry president.
I know that he doesn't appear angry to you, casual observers, but it has to be the case.
Could be one of the many things that explains all of this.
But this guy is an angry man about many things and many people.
And it's why he bullies people.
His anger and intimidation, shtick, exhibit problems.
The idea of conflict resolution, as taught in the politically correct classrooms of American liberalism the last 30 years, the idea of conflict resolution actually conflicts with Obama's deep-seated need for payback.
And that's, you know, if I had to choose two words to describe Obama's presidency, it's payback.
It's payback for every grievance he believes this country was founded on.
And every grievance he believes this country's guilty of, like in being a superpower, and it's payback time.
It's time we learned what the rest of the world lives like.
It's time we gave back what we stole.
It's including Mexico, maybe.
It is time that we find out what it's like economically the way the rest of the people in the world live.
And so the people around the world, he believes that we have caused to live in poverty because we've stolen their resources and we've stolen their land or whatever else we did and they're poor because of us.
Well, here they come being welcomed into the country and every federal benefit that exists is being extended to them, including retroactive earned income and child tax credits.
You think any of you would be allowed to refile your taxes if you used to not qualify for the EITC and all of a sudden, do you think you'd be able to refile for all the years you weren't able to qualify for it?
No, of course not.
The illegals, well, yeah, Tim Geithner, he could do it, but the illegals are being allowed to do it.
I mean, what's driving this?
Clearly, payback.
This speech at the prayer breakfast.
Comparing what's going on today with the Crusades, it's absurd.
It's obscene.
And what the president was doing, he says, we've all used religion to justify murder.
There's nothing different here.
You Christians have done it.
You Jew people have done it.
And you Hindus have done it.
You've all done it.
So don't harp on the Islamists today.
They're no different than you've been.
Well, that's why I have these questions.
Who uses religion to justify the subjugation of women?
It's not Judaism.
It's not Christianity.
It's not Hinduism.
It's not Buddhism.
Who uses religion to justify the stoning of women?
Doesn't happen to Christianity.
Doesn't happen in Judaism.
Doesn't happen in Catholicism.
It does not happen in Buddhism that I'm aware of.
I don't even think it happens in Scientology.
Who uses religion to justify lashes as a form of punishment or beheading?
That's not part of Christianity.
That's not part of Judaism.
I don't think it's part of Scientology.
Who uses religion to justify killing homosexuals?
It isn't Christianity.
Although some would try to tell you differently, but it isn't, and it isn't Judaism.
And I don't think Scientology does yet.
Do they?
No.
And who uses religion to justify the mass extinction of Jews?
It isn't Christianity that did it.
And yet, yesterday at the National Prayer Breakfast, Christians were told, hey, hey, hey, you people have done the same thing that we're witnessing today.
This isn't all that new.
Well, this takes us to audio soundbites.
Let's start here with number five.
Bishop E.W. Jackson was on Fox and Friends this morning.
Elizabeth Hasselbeck interviewed him.
And Hasselbeck said, What place did Christianity and Christ have in that equation yesterday at the National Prayer Breakfast, Reverend?
With all due respect to him and to the office, Mr. President, if you don't want to give terrorists a recruitment tool instead of closing Guantanamo Bay, frankly, sir, you ought to close your mouth because you just gave them a gigantic propaganda tool.
They called us crusaders, and you've just confirmed it.
Mr. President, we're not on our high horse.
What we are is on high alert.
And the American people would like for once to know that you're willing to defend Christianity and defend America instead of defending Islam.
You don't hear too many people talking, not in public.
I mean, you hear people talking this way all the time.
The ballgame of the bowling alley at the grocery store.
You do not hear this kind of talk in public, do you?
This is the Reverend E.W. Jackson from the Called Church.
So next up, Elizabeth Hasselbeck said, well, you served in the Marine Corps for three years.
You are a veteran.
When you talk about propaganda, the only thing propaganda does right now is help recruit for ISIS and strengthen the enemy.
For our veterans right now, our military personnel, how much more danger did those words of the president's actually put our service members in?
He's given them a gigantic recruitment tool.
He's apologized for America.
He's conjured up the image of Crusaders.
And he's basically justified exactly what Osama bin Laden was saying.
I would remind the president that the Crusades began in 1096 as a response to Islamic aggression and the fact that they had conquered the Holy Land and they were oppressing Eastern Christians.
And there was a response to that.
So if the president is even going to cite that as an example, then he ought to get his history complete.
He doesn't care, Reverend, is the point.
He doesn't care.
He knows the drive-bys aren't going to refute him.
He knows the drive-bys aren't going to call him up on this.
He just wants to have it said so it's out there for consumption by the low-information crowd and others.
And, Reverend, if I might add, he probably enjoys the fact that people like you and me so upset about it.
That's, I think, part of his motivation for doing it.
One more bite.
Hasselbeck, you just did something the president won't do.
You used the word Islamic.
So let me ask you this.
Not only did the president not protect Christians, and in fact, really go after them, attacking them by invoking the name of Christ yesterday, some would say, but he continued on the path of not calling the enemy what it is, not saying radical Islam.
Don't you believe that in not saying that, he actually is protecting radical Islam by not calling it out?
I don't know how to explain this, but this president does everything he possibly can to defend Islam and does almost nothing to defend the honor of this country.
And yes, once again, he's giving them exactly what they want.
And you know, Elizabeth, they're laughing at us because all they see it as is a sign of weakness.
Pray for our president.
I think he's deeply misguided and confused.
I tell you, folks, I have always had, don't care who's held the office, I have had the highest reverence for the office.
And one of the things that, and maybe I'm foolish, one of the things I have always believed, no matter the political party of the president, I've always believed that the person sitting in that office has as his first objective the defense and protection of this country and the Constitution.
And I've assumed also that the person sitting in that office and in that chair loves this country.
Not to say it doesn't have problems with it, not to say that it's perfect, but when I hear soundbites like this, or when I listen to myself or hear other people talking about Barack Obama, it's really difficult for me to sometimes come to grips with the fact we're talking about the president.
It'd be one thing if it was just a senator out there saying these things and doing these things, but we're talking about the president as though it's perfectly normal and understandable that we would have a president who doesn't have a high regard for this country.
It's just part and par.
I just can't come to grips.
I just can't believe it people would have actually elected the guy knowing that they were electing somebody who didn't hold this country in high regard.
And it just seems like it's par for the course and very common that we've got a president elected who says and does things like Obama's, though that's nothing really unique or special.
And to me, it is.
I just, I, Did I hear Bishop Jackson here talking about the president does everything possibly he can to defend Islam and does nothing to defend the honor of this country?
I can't think of a president we would ever talk about where that would be asserted.
Now, I wasn't alive during Woodrow Wilson, so I mean, he's the last full-fledged wow, but he was a huge progressive.
I mean, don't misunderstand, Woodrow Wilson is a huge progressive, and even FDR for crying out loud.
Nobody would ever mistake FDR for somebody that thought this country had a price to pay for its very existence, like Obama apparently does.
Anyway, break time, see the clock, don't panic.
Back after this.
And here she is, ladies and gentlemen, nine-year-old Emily in La Crescent, Minnesota.
Emily, really appreciate that you waited so long, and I thank you very much for it.
Hi.
Hi.
So when I was looking through your books, I saw that in the third one, it doesn't have the Where Do We Go Next picture.
Yeah, I read that.
You're looking at, you read the first two books.
You're looking at the third book.
And in the first two books, you saw the last page, where do we go next?
And the current book does not have one of those.
Yeah.
And so you're wondering if they're going to go anywhere again, if there's going to be a fourth book?
Yeah.
What do you think?
Well, I think Jamestown would be fun.
Oh, you think we should go to Jamestown next?
Yeah.
Why?
What is it about Jamestown that interests you, Emily?
Well, it's the first English settlement.
And I bought the first in it.
A lot of firsts there, a lot of firsts in Jamestown.
Well, that's, and this is fascinating.
I love getting reader feedback on the Rush Revere series.
Well, you know, here's the thing.
We don't like to reveal marketing plans.
We just like to execute them.
And you're asking me, you want to know if there's going to be – I can tell you in good faith, I think, without getting in trouble with Revere and Liberty, because they kind of like their adventures to be held close to the vest until they're ready to go.
But I think you could feel confident there's going to be another one.
Now, whether it's going to be in Jamestown or not, even if I knew that, and I do, because I'm the author, I wouldn't announce it yet.
Yeah.
I'm fascinated, though, that you, you, this is, it's great, though, that you are fascinated enough by Jamestown to want us to feature it in an upcoming book.
And that'll happen at some point, Emily.
I'm not going to lie to you.
I'm not going to keep it.
That's going to happen at some point.
You can rest assured that Rush Revere and the gang will end up being Jamestown, whether they intend to or not.
Okay.
All right.
Now, Emily, so you have all three books, right?
Yeah.
You do.
Have you finished reading them all?
Not quite the third one, but.
So you jumped ahead.
You haven't finished the third book, but you jumped ahead to see if there was a page at the end that indicated where they were going next.
Yeah.
Very sly, very crafty of you.
Well, I'll tell you what, as we do with all of the young readers who call here, we want to send you a little package of presents and gifts, if you wouldn't mind.
So if you'll hang on here, I'll get an address so we can get some things out.
We'll send you maybe a signed book or two, maybe Ted T. Bear, and maybe the C Ds, the audio version, so that you can put them in and listen to them, not have to read them again if you want.
Any number of other things in there, Emily.
So thank you very much.
I'm gratified that you're there, and I'm thrilled by your interest.
And I'm excited to know that you are going to be pleasantly surprised as we head down the tracks in the future, the Rush Revere series.
Thanks for the call.
Don't hang up, Emily.
Mr. Snurden will be right with you.
How are you?
Rush Limbaugh, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Bucky in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
Great to have you with us on Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Buenos Deas, Padre.
It's been 11 months since my last confession.
We'll make it count.
Well, I'll try.
No way does Brian Williams survive this rush.
He has to go.
And your comparison, if you don't mind, I confess to want to challenge you on your metaphor with Tom Brady, who is basically an overgrown boy with deflated balls.
If you look at Brian Williams' situation, he is sitting at the NBC Evening News, a position which has, rightly or wrongly, been infused with trust based on his predecessors.
So to compare him to the NFL superstar quarterback, I think, is missing the point here.
Advertisers will run from this.
People will turn that off.
It'll be a laughing stock.
You know, that the minds of the American public are being controlled entirely every day with television sets that are in every corner and nook and cranny of every building that exists.
Let me just jump in here for a second, Bucky.
And I want to tell you one thing.
I hope to God you're right because it'll restore my faith in the fact that decency and just things as simple as manners and integrity and honesty still matter because I am beginning to think that many of those characteristics have fallen by the wayside.
Look at the people who become celebrities and stars today by doing the exact opposite of what we're talking about.
Look at the renegades.
Look at the liars, cheats, thieves, whatever, that become huge curiosity points.
They become huge stars, make big amounts of money.
There's no integrity whatsoever.
Or at least it's a dwindling amount.
Now, Dan Rather got canned, and look how long it took.
They did everything they could to save Dan Rather, but finally he got canned.
I hope you're right.
I hope I'm wrong in my assessment.
Well, what we're going to get here, Rush, is the right result, but for the wrong reason.
I'm afraid you're mistaken.
That type of integrity doesn't exist among these vermin.
And that's why they're going to be compelled to do this.
But the reasons are going to be the money, the same thing that makes the world go round.
And the advertisers and everybody else is going to run from this because nobody would have it on.
It'd be a laughing stock to have Williams on the television on the evening news.
He has to go.
Look at what happened to Blumenthal.
And here's the comparison.
You had Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut do the most despicable thing that a man can do.
And he got elected to the Senate.
And yes, now, keep this in mind.
But here's the difference.
Blumenthal lied about valor, claimed to be in the theater of war in Vietnam when he never left the comfortable confines of the state of Connecticut, formerly the nutbag state, now called the Nutball State, because it's all filled with nutballs.
And here's the difference.
God said he was protected.
Bucky, he got elected.
He is on powerful Senate committees.
He got elected with everybody knowing that he lied about being in the middle of the Vietnam War.
Yes, and he got elected through election frigging in Connecticut, which is a combination of election fraud and election rigging.
What?
You're missing my point.
You're claiming that the same thing happened to Blumenthal.
It didn't.
He triumphed over his lies.
Why can't we?
Well, here's the difference.
See, he's in the protected United States Senate.
He's a solon, you see.
But this guy, who's this news guy who reads the narrative?
And thank God for you to point out that these people do nothing more than read the news.
And he's the highest paid one in the business.
And they're going to bring a woman after him, too.
See, here's the other problem.
That there's a woman waiting in the wings to break that glass ceiling.
And for a number of reasons, he's a marked man.
And the difference is that Blumenthal is protected, but tell me his name again.
Who is this guy that is up for being fired or resigning?
Where?
Who's the man we're talking about here?
He's some pinhead.
Brian Williams.
Brian Williams, exactly.
See, he's not in the protected environment that Richard Blumenthal is in.
He's in a money-driven, greed-driven.
Wait, wait, just a second.
Blumenthal wasn't in a – I don't really want to focus on Blumenthal here, but we've got to maintain the analogy integrity here.
Blumenthal was not elected to the Senate.
It was in his campaign when it was discovered he'd lied about being in Vietnam, and he still got elected.
He had been attorney general of that state, and it came out during his campaign.
He wasn't protected by being in the Senate.
He wasn't there yet.
Yes, but once he's in, you see, he's protected.
That's why he can stay there.
He got elected through fraud and rigging.
Now, you understand that there has been no free and fair election in the state of Connecticut in the past 35 years.
That this state is so corrupt, it's called Corrupticut now, you know, Connecticut.
Right.
I know people live there.
I even go there once a year.
Well, sure.
And they vote 15 times each.
You know, they vote early and often in Connecticut.
And Blumenthal got there through rigging the same way that our present governor got here in the last two elections.
They abandoned the voting polls in my town of Bridgeport.
I told you I'm from Bridgeport, right?
Right.
I fly into Bridgeport when I go to Connecticut.
I've been there.
I envision Bridgeport when you're on the phone here.
Well, well, see, I hope your claim that they're going to have to dump him because of the money that the advertisers won't hang in.
That's another thing that I'm going to be watching very, very closely.
As I say, I hope you're right.
You claim if he is fired, it won't be for the right reasons, like lack of integrity, honesty, all that kind of thing.
It's going to be because NBC can't find a way to get paid with him on the air.
That's not an illegitimate reason, by the way.
As you see, money makes the world go around.
It's not an illegitimate reason.
It may not be your preferred reason, but it's not an illegitimate one.
But we shall see.
You know, there's a lot of pressure being exerted on the other side of this, that if he is let go, that is a pretty big hit to allow against the news, against journalism, against the liberal agenda.
And they're trying right now to circle the wagons around this guy to make sure that it doesn't count.
I got a couple soundbites.
I'll show you.
The drive-by media types are circling the wagons, trying to protect him, because they're also trying to protect themselves.
And the agenda and what the narrative is.
That's what's really got them worried.
It's not so much that Brian's dangling, it's that what he stands for has been damaged.
That's the liberal agenda.
Anyway, Bucky, I'm glad you called.
We'll see.
Hope you're right.
Not sure.
Back after this.
Okay, look, folks, I just got this.
I don't have near enough time to delve into it, but Susan Rice is out there making a speech today on foreign policy that's more inclusive.
And get this.
Get this.
It says this from foreign policy is the website White House to Unveil call for strategic patience.
Strategic patience in our foreign policy with Russia, Ukraine, Syria, Iran, the CHICOMs, and Asia.
I don't know what it means.
Strategic patience.
It means just let everything play out as it's going to, because what right do we have to try to influence it?
Strategic patience.
Here's F. Chuck Todd.
Yesterday on the Daily Caller contributor Matt Lewis's website at NBC.
Meet the press moderator.
Host says, so what do you make of this Brian Williams story, dude?
What do you make of it?
I'm uncomfortable talking about it simply because I haven't talked to Brian personally yet, and I kind of would rather talk to him first.
I know he's mortified by this, and even more mortified because veterans are.
So, I mean, the last group of people he wants to offend are veterans and that's, you know, stinging him the most.
No one's having a harder time dealing with it than Brian.
Well, what?
Who did something to him?
He did this to himself.
What do you mean?
He's having a hard time dealing with it.
It's not like he was sitting around and somebody started telling lies about him.
I don't understand this.
Yeah, he's really having a tough time, mortified by this, even more mortified because veterans are so important to him.
Mike well, I mean, he wasn't minding his own business and was under assault.
Brooke Baldwin on CNN yesterday, this is an exchange she had with the Stars AND Stripes reporter, Travis Tritton, and this is an attempt here why the new people in the media speak up sooner.
Huh huh.
This happened back in 2003.
I mean, the accurate story was initially told on NBC NEWS before the we'll call it just this, evolution of the story up until present day.
Why didn't any of these veterans who heard the story evolve over time come forward before now?
I think it may be a matter of nobody really listening.
They felt like this story had been mischaracterized for a long time, and this last report last week by NBC, where Brian Williams flatly claimed that he was on the the aircraft, I think was the kind of final straw for them right, final straw.
They look the other way, weren't listening, it's.
I know why they didn't honor integrity themselves.
Look, they're not.
They're not ratting people out.
That's not what they do.
The real question Is not, why didn't the military speak up sooner?
What about all the people that work at NBC who knew this was going on?
What about all the cameramen?
What about all the producers?
What about all the directors?
What about all the teleprompter writers?
I mean, do you realize the legion of people?
These narrative readers don't do their jobs alone.
They can't do their jobs without an army of 30 people, minimum.
There had to be 30 people who knew this wasn't true in the news media.
Before you even get to people on that helicopter, why didn't they speak up?
We just saw the story earlier today to Tom Brockaw.
He's known it for a while.
Competing stories.
The New York Post last night said Brokaw wants Williams fired.
Brokaw told a huffing and puffing post that he doesn't, that he never said that.
But Brian's really feeling bad about this.
So F. Chuck Todd says he's really feeling mortified by this.
Yeah, he didn't know he did it.
Somebody reminded him he did it and he'd forgotten about it and he's mortified.
How do you ever get mortified over something you do?
Get mortified when it gets discovered.
Well, that's it, folks.
We have just run out of busy broadcast time on Open Line Friday today.
Thank you all ever so much for being here.
And it's first weekend without any football for football fans.
It's a tough weekend for a lot of people, particularly if it's cold where you are.
Understand that I'll be thinking about you on a golf course.
▲
Export Selection