All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 18, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:39
February 18, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, but it's gonna be back to seventy-five on Saturday, so I mean, deal with it.
I got people down here complaining it's gonna get it's gonna get down to well on the on the beach, it's probably gonna get 40 tomorrow night, and inland uh may get down to 35.
They may record overnight lows for the date.
So what?
I mean, it's gonna be back 75 on Saturday, big whoop.
Seen the temperatures in Chicago, seen the wind chills in Chicago like minus 25 minus 30 in the loop and so forth.
It's incredible in Chicago and in the northern plains in the Northeast.
It's brutal, and it's climate change.
Bill Nye, the science guy on MSNBC, no matter when you talk about the weather, that's what he told the anchors there.
No matter when you talk about the weather, climate change in every other sentence.
Climate change, climate change, no matter what the weather is, talk climate change.
We've got to get people to understand that 97% of scientists agree.
I don't want to recover that.
Greetings, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
Great to have you folks.
800-282-2882, the email address, L Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
I really was shocked.
The Atlantic is not what you would consider a uh even a mainstream publication.
It leans left and proudly so.
And with exceptions, there is a piece in the latest issue written by a man named Graham Wood.
And according to this guy, the Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths.
It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs.
And among those beliefs, it considers itself a key agent of the coming apocalypse.
The most articulate spokesman for that position are the Islamic State's officials and supporters themselves.
I've been reading various quotes from the article.
They referred derisively to moderns.
In conversation, they insist that they will not, they cannot waver from governing precepts that were embedded in Islam by the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers.
They often speak in codes and allusions.
Allusions, ALL, not illusions, allusions that sound odd or old-fashioned to non-Muslims, but in fact refer to specific traditions and texts of early Islam.
Here's an example cited from the story.
In September, Sheikh Abu Muhammad Al-Adnani, the Islamic State's chief spokesman.
Did you know they had a chief spokesman?
He's got a job.
The chief spokesman for the Islamic State actually just like Marie Harf's job.
He's a spokesman for the Islamic State for ISIS.
His name is Sheikh Abu Muhammad Al-Adnani.
And in September, he called on Muslims in Western countries like France and Canada to find an infidel and quote, smash his head with a rock, poison him, run him over with a car, or destroy his crops.
To Western ears, the biblical sounding punishments, the stoning and the crop destruction, juxtaposed strangely with his more modern sounding call to vehicular homicide.
But Sheikh Adnani was not merely talking trash.
His speech was laced with theological and legal discussion, and his exhortation to attack crops directly echoed orders from Muhammad to leave well water and crops alone unless the armies of Islam were in a defensive position in which case Muslims in the lands of kuffer or infidels should be unmerciful and poison away.
And then this.
Try this, Marie Harf.
Try this, Obama.
In the Atlantic, no less.
The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic.
Very Islamic.
Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe.
But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned or learned interpretations of Islam.
Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls in its press and pronouncements and on its billboards and license plates of stationary and coins the prophetic methodology, which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad in punctilious detail.
It goes on.
It is an in-depth piece.
We will link to this piece at uh at Rushlinbaugh.com.
They are who they are.
They do not need American jobs.
They are not who they are because of any economic circumstance.
They cannot be silenced, they cannot be made peaceful with the introduction of Western values because they abhor them.
That is why they are who they are.
They abhor Western culture and Western values and the infidels who populate it.
There is no way that we can bring about a peaceful end to the existence of ISIS by exporting Western culture.
We can't even do it by exporting liberalism.
The best bet we might have is to try to corrupt this bunch by exporting liberalism.
Can you imagine if we were able to succeed in getting the women of Islam protesting about their mistreatment?
Like happens in America.
Can you imagine the corrupting influences that we would just export?
Can you imagine if a certain segment of ISIS began to complain and whine about the environmental destruction that the group is making happen with their efforts of killing and attacking and beheading?
Look at the waste.
I have always thought, I have always believed, I've always preached, I have always suggested that one of the best weapons the United States has in defeating our enemies is to export liberalism to them.
Liberalism is the fastest way to shut down an enterprise I know of, short of bombing it.
The damage is forever until you kick the liberals out.
Can you imagine environmentalist extremists as part of ISIS?
Can you imagine feminist ISIS members?
Can you imagine anything that you associate with liberalism, having it be part of ISIS and have protest groups spring up?
It's brought the United States to its knees, and it all happens, of course, under the First Amendment's freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and all that.
Something that I think we need to consider.
Now, this Texas judge, I want to move back to the Texas judge because the things are a little different today than what I believed to be the case yesterday.
I will admit, I will remember and acknowledge that I remember saying yesterday that it might have been possible that the Fifth Circuit Court would appeal a rule on the appeal against the Texas judge by the regime by the end of the day yesterday, and that did not happen.
And a lot of people were surprised.
And I um I did make a big deal of saying that the judge's ruling against Obama's executive amnesty was not so much about substance.
And in a strict sense, that was right.
However, Reuters has a story today, and they are clearly not happy.
The headline to the story is Texas judges' immigration rebuke may be hard to challenge.
This judge wrote a hundred and twenty-eight-page opinion in rebuking Obama's executive amnesty, and some of it is brilliant.
Some of it is just ice cold, cold blue steel brilliant.
In tying the regime's hands, here's how Reuters describes this.
President Obama's administration faces a difficult impossibly lengthy legal battle to overturn a Texas court ruling that blocked his landmark immigration overhaul since the judge based his decision on an obscure and unsettled area of administrative law.
In his ruling on Monday that upended plans to shield millions of people from deportation, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hannon avoided diving into the sweeping constitutional questions or tackling presidential powers head on.
Instead, he faulted Obama for not giving public notice of his plans.
The failure to do so, the judge wrote, was a violation of the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act, an act that requires notice in a publication called the Federal Register, as well as an opportunity for people to submit views in writing.
What happened here?
What the judge is actually saying is that the president acted legislatively and he does not have that power.
And then he went on to point out that the president did not publish notice of his intention and give the public time to comment.
The ruling, however narrow, marked an initial victory for 26 states that brought the case, alleging Obama had exceeded his powers with executive orders that would uh let up to 4.7 million illegal immigrants stay without threat of deportation.
Michael Kagan, law professor, University of Nevada, Los Vegas, said it's a very procedural point that Obama did this too quickly.
Analysts are now saying this judge is craftier and smarter than people originally thought because people began to analyze it really before they read all 128 pages of opinion.
And this is this appears to be an obscure.
What do you mean he didn't publish this?
He didn't give public notice.
Well, they got Al Capone on tax evasion, not murder.
Are you saying that Obama's like Al Capone?
Yes, but I didn't intend to.
Don't get mad at me, just little comedy here, folks, as I seek another award.
Hannon's ruling left in disarray.
U.S. policy toward the roughly 11 million people in the country illegally.
Obama said on Tuesday he disagreed with the ruling and expected his regime to prevail in the courts.
But others have looked at it.
The Attorney General of Texas has looked at it, and he's saying, I don't see how the regime wins this.
I mean, it the the based on Obama's own words, I don't see how they win this.
Obama said on 22 previous occasions he doesn't have the authority to do what he's trying to do here.
So he's saying this whole case could be sunk by Obama's own words, by Obama's own acknowledgement on previous occasions.
That he does not have this power.
Justice Department preparing an appeal of Hannon's temporary injunction to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
The court could consider an emergency request to block Hannon's ruling, potentially within days, although most of the 23 judges on the court were appointed by Republican presidents.
So you know what's happening?
They are court shopping.
The regime now is trying to get this shifted from the Fifth Circuit, say to the D.C. circuit or some more friendly liberal circuit.
They are doing that.
You knew it would happen.
They are doing it.
Now, there's also something somewhat humorous about this.
This this uh the the Walter Cronkite, I'm told here of Hispanic News, Jorge Remos says here, this what is this uh this is uh Breitbart News, Jorge Remos, arguably the most prominent pro-amnesty advocate in today's media landscape,
believes that a federal judge's injunction against Obama's executive amnesty defines who is against immigrants in the U.S. And he suggested yesterday, Jorge Remos, that Latino voters in particular would take their anger out at Republicans in 2016.
Ramos said that Texas decision clearly defines who was against immigrants in the U.S. Latino voters will remember 2016's not that far away.
He also declared that Judge Andrew Hannon, who issued the injunction, will not have the final word on the matter.
So it's almost like a threat.
From a Walter Cronkite of Hispanic News.
Jorge Remos warns Latino voters will remember.
Yes.
Latino voters will not forget this slight.
This judge's ruling.
They will remember all the way to 2016.
A brief timeout, my friends, as we roll right on the EIB network back with more of your phone calls.
And I haven't even well.
Did start in the audio sound bites.
You got a couple of Marie Hart's, and I gotta get you got to hear Richard Stengel, the former head honcho at Time Magazine agreeing with her that we need to find them jobs.
Back after this.
Another example.
Another example of exporting liberalism as a weapon against our enemies, a way to distract them, to divide them, to create strife amongst themselves.
We could export militant feminism.
We could export militant environmentalism.
A bunch of environmentalist wackos among the ISIS membership, for example, blaming the ISIS leadership for environmental destruction, demanding that they do clean war, demanding that they don't pollute as they march across the Middle East.
I know ISIS would kill them in short order, but it would still be a distraction.
How about, can you see if we were able, this and this is a purpose CIA, if you ask me, can you imagine if we were able to infiltrate ISIS and start demanding that ISIS leadership accept gay marriage?
Can you imagine the destruction or the distraction that would be within ISIS?
I know the ISIS leadership wouldn't take kindly to being protested against by their own members, demanding a change, but they do it against the Catholic Church all the time.
So why can't we do it against these guys?
Catholic Church, Christianity's protested all the time, is restrictive, it's got to get modern, it's got to get with the times.
Well, let's hit the CIA, infiltrate ISIS, and have a bunch of liberalism pop up out of the blue in the form of militant environmentalists demanding that ISIS reform itself, gay marriage advocates demanding that ISIS expand its definition of marriage, uh, and any other aspect of liberalism.
If it worked, it would paralyze them with internal strife and debate, and it would highlight how unfair and discriminatory ISIS is.
In ways the American people can understand it.
If the administration will not honestly portray ISIS for what they are, murderous, religious extremist zealots, well then let's infiltrate them and show them what a bunch of discriminatory elitists they are.
As we know, the American low-information voter has been made to believe the Republicans are conducting a war on women.
If they can be made to believe that about Republicans, do you think maybe they can be made to believe that about ISIS?
It's a golden opportunity if you ask me.
And it's exactly what the CIA's purpose is.
Human intel on the ground, infiltrate the group, and then start demanding human rights and civil rights changes, and a demand to stopping all the abuses that the ISIS leadership is sponsoring.
I frankly would love to see it.
Here's Richard Stengel.
Richard Stengel used to run Time magazine.
He was on Aaron Burnett Out Front last night.
And they were talking about the battle against ISIS.
This after Marie Harf had opened up on the whole thing on Monday.
Aaron Burnett said to Richard Stengel, so what are you doing to fight this?
Uh Right.
He's at the State Department, but wait, he's not at time.
Stengel is now at the State Department, undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs.
The more violent messaging, the more violent social media is actually pitched towards us in the West, and of course, to these foreign fighters or the potential foreign fighters that you're talking about.
Part of the problem there is that's a very, very tiny audience, and they are attracted to some of this for because they are disaffected, they're unemployed, they're unhappy, they have grievances, and so the ISIL videos and social media is pointed towards those people who they want to come to Syria.
There you have it.
This is a guy in the State Department.
Used to be Time Magazine.
What's that tell you?
He leaves time and goes to the Obama State Department and now says that the terrorists in ISIS are attracted to this because they're disaffected.
They're unemployed and they're unhappy.
And they have grievances.
There it is.
The grievance industry.
It's as present there as it is here.
There's all kinds of legitimate grievances against the U.S., right?
We have an entire grievance industry here called liberalism.
And now he says that the same thing exists in ISIS.
They're disaffected, they're unemployed, they're unhappy, they have grievances.
See, my plan is actually already underway, and this guy didn't even know it.
This guy's already beginning.
He's in the first phases of exporting liberalism because he is projecting his own worldview onto them.
Now, in the real world, that would be dangerous because they are not us and we're not them.
But this this clown is projecting what happens in America to what's happening in ISIS and thinks there's a route to the solution there.
Oh, folks, I think we're at great danger.
I think the country is in great danger.
We're great country at risk in a dangerous world, and we're in even greater peril because this administration refuses to acknowledge the enemy.
And I don't I don't think they're just lip service.
I I honestly do not think they're just saying it's not Islam.
These people are not Muslims.
I don't think they're just saying that to try to calm fears or for whatever reason.
I think they really, I don't think they get it.
They're leftists.
Look at this.
I mean, it's it's it's hard to follow some of this.
You have Marie Harf saying, they we can't kill them anymore.
We we got to get them jobs.
The the the you've got Richard Stengel here saying, well, you know, part of the problem is they're attracted to some of this because they're disinfected, they're unemployed, they're unhappy, they have grievances.
This is exactly the way they look at the United States for crying out loud.
They look at every minority group is having a legitimate grievance.
They're unemployed, they're unhappy, and so they're seeking outlets for their energy and so forth.
It's not Islam, and it's not Muslim and so forth.
And this guy Stengel, former head hauncher Time magazine, not the State Department, is projecting his own values and his own views onto these people.
And in the process, giving them a status and a civility that they don't deserve.
They haven't earned it.
Here's one more Stengel bite.
Uh Aaron Burnett said, is the United States in denial about all of this?
Uh and I I don't think it may be denial, depending on how you want to define it.
I just don't think these people in the Obama State Department, in anywhere in the administration.
It folks, it's it all comes under the umbrella.
They think the United States is the problem in the world.
And what all of this really means when Marie Harf says it or Richard Stengel says, Yeah, well, they're, you know, they have grievances and they're unemployed.
It's because of us.
We support Israel.
We went to Iraq.
We did a war on terror.
We've destroyed their economies.
We've destroyed their countries, we've bombed them, we've done this.
It's our fault.
We almost owe them.
That's what I hear this State Department people saying.
It's sick.
But it's rooted in something they really believe, and that is that the United States is not the solution to the world's problems.
The United States is the problem.
So Aaron Burnett says, is the U.S. in denial?
Get this answer.
I actually don't think it's that hard to understand.
The actions of these people are by definition not religious.
There is no religion on the face of the earth or in human history that condones the kind of reprehensible criminal actions that ISIL commits.
Do these men say they are doing it in the name of Islam?
Yes.
Is it a completely distorted and narrow and ancient view of Islam?
Yes, but I would not say it is Islamic.
This guy needs to read the Atlantic piece.
And it boils down.
If you're not going to even admit who your enemy is, what your enemy is, what their objectives are.
You don't have a prayer of defeating them.
But I don't think this administration even looks at ISIS as something to be defeated.
And Marie Harf, even though she is what she is, I don't believe she's an original thinker.
I think she's parroting what she hears throughout the State Department and throughout the administration.
They all think this.
They get in their little chat rooms and they talk about this stuff every day, just like the professors do in the faculty lounge at Harvard or Yale or wherever, and they get in their little bubble and they talk in their own worldview.
Nothing from outside gets in or permeates, and they end up believing this tripe.
The actions of these people are by definition not religious.
They are.
Whether it's a minority, whether it's perverted, whether it's not real Islam, it's the actions of people who in their own minds are uber religious.
They don't want to admit this.
The reasons for that you'd need a psychoanalyst in here, although I think I I pretty much know.
It's because they think do not doubt me on this.
They think that all of these groups, ISIS, you name it, I don't care who they are.
The Cubans, they think that they have legitimate grief uh grievances and gripes with the U.S. I had a call yesterday who asked me, it was it was actually beside himself.
He said, I don't understand these liberals.
Why in the world?
He was talking about immigration, but why in the world do they actually for they get kids, they've got their own kids.
Why do they support things that are weakening this country and ruining opportunity for their own kids?
And I told him in an abbreviated four-minute answer what it is.
And it is, they do not see this country the way you do, sir.
They see this country as illegitimate.
They see this country as unjust and immoral from its first days, from the days of its founding.
And all that's going on now is simply reparations and reciprocity and making up to everybody we have misbehaved against.
Everybody we've oppressed, everybody we have imperialized, everybody we've colonized, everybody whose land we've stolen, everybody whose resources we've stolen.
That's what's happening.
And as such, all of these groups, I don't, whatever they're doing in Richard Stengel's mind.
I don't know how big a part of his mind, but it's in there that there is some legitimacy to this group.
Because after all, look what we've done to them.
They hate us.
Why did they hate us?
What have we done to make them a State Department Bush State Department of seminar on that?
Here's um here's Tim in Traver City, Michigan.
Hey, Tim, I'm glad you waited.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Yeah, thanks, Rosh.
Uh, Lutheran Christian Republican ditto from Traverse Heat.
Thank you, sir.
Great to have you here.
Yeah, great.
Thanks for everything you do.
Um I was just listening to this uh the stuff from the from the Liberal press, and I was thinking back um to the Gulf War or the you know, 2003, 2004 when there was just a swell of of enlistment from our young men and young women.
And then they tended to put up with it for a while.
And then I remember the explanation was there was no jobs.
That these young people had nothing better to do, and they had to have opportunity, so off they went.
And uh I don't it's not surprising uh that it's the same thing now that because they can't understand that people would be passionately uh fighting, you know, for something.
So I I just saw a similarity there.
You know something, ladies and gentlemen, this man from Traverse City, Michigan, this Tim, he is dead on right.
He is exact, he's a thousand percent right, and it's a great illustration.
This country's Democrat Party and the liberal establishment in the Iraq war, Gulf War, Gulf War I, you name it.
John Forbes Carey, who served in Vietnam.
They all, at one point or another, insult volunteers.
The United States military, and how do they do it?
They claim the country's run out of opportunity.
There's no way these poor kids from the South, by the way.
These Hicks from the South and from Texas, this country, and it's always happens during Republican administrations and during Republican deployments.
The liberals always come around and say, Well, there aren't any jobs out there, there's no choice, these people they've got to go join the military.
They don't have happen chance of getting an education and have a chance of getting a job.
They wouldn't join the military if it weren't for that, because the Republican economy stinks.
And then John Kerry was somewhere out in Pasadena, California, talking to a bunch of students about education and intelligence, and said, Yeah, you're either smart or you end up in a rock.
These people, Tim is exactly right, they've spare no occasion to insult uniformed military personnel.
I I've always marveled at that, too.
You can hate the military, but why do you want to impugn the people who are signing up and offering their lives and sacrifices the country?
What is the point of impugning them?
Why attack them?
I mean, even if your made-up reason is BS, and of course, the idea that the only way these people get an education is joining the military.
BS.
The only way they have a chance of having any kind of an income is join the military because the Republican economy is so bad.
He's exactly right.
So here's more transference or projection.
It's the same thing.
These poor ISIS guys, you heard Stengel say it, you heard Harf say it.
We need to get them jobs.
They got nothing else to do.
Their economy's in such bad shape.
There's no opportunity.
We need to find them jobs.
And that would to give them something to do, and they wouldn't care about becoming terrorists.
They have the same look at the look at the values.
Look at the opinions, look at the the world view that they have, and how it is a blanket worldview.
They associate everything in the world with their view of the injustice and the unfairness and the immorality, or whatever you want to call it of this country.
Tim, I appreciate the call.
I got to take a brief time out here, folks, but we've got more, as we always do.
Islamic State militants burn to death.
Forty-five in Iraq.
I This story is actually from uh from yesterday.
Do you notice how little attention this story about burning people to death has gotten in the drive-by media?
The BBC report I have here, and it's it's almost the only one uh about the story.
Is it is it is it because of lack of confirmation they're trying to protect Obama?
Obama's out there saying, hey, this is just a bunch of random folk street crime.
So as ISIS continues its rampage, and drive by media kind of hides what they're doing.
Is that to protect Obama?
ISIS arrests woman, overexposed eyes.
The Islamic state established morality police, reportedly attacked a woman in eastern Syria because her eyes were exposed.
The ISIS morality gangs in Syria found a woman wearing a full face veil that they deemed to have left her eyes too exposed.
The police also arrested the two men who attempted to shield her and protect her from the ISIS morality police.
Have you heard that the regime is going to expand open immigration?
Syrian refugees.
Cybercast News.
United States has a long tradition of welcoming refugees and expects to welcome thousands more of them from Syria this year and next.
Despite concerns about foreign fighters, the State Department said, they're going to quadruple the number of Syrian refugees allowed in the country the next two years.
Now, would somebody explain to me the common sense behind this?
One of the ISIS primary battlegrounds is Syria.
Why in the world would you do this?
Is it to show that we won't discriminate?
Is it to show how politically correct we can be?
Is it to show how we are not judgmental?
Even when it comes to terrorists, we will not discriminate.
What could be easier than for a bunch of ISIS fighters to disguise themselves as refugees and get into the U.S. under that pretense.
That's unbelievable.
And while this is going on, we're having a three-day summit to try to explain and understand all of this violent extremism out there.
But it's not focused on trying to understand ISIS.
It's uh focusing on understanding the violent extremism you might find at uh say Ruby Ridge or uh Twitter or places in this country.
The backlash against all of this, don't you know?
Here's uh another Tim, this one Winston, Salem, North Carolina.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Megan Diddle is Mr. Limbaugh, a pleasure to speak with you.
Great to have you here, sir.
Thank you.
Um, I was just thinking uh, you know, since the Vietnam War, Gulf War, you know, the wars on terrorism, whatever.
You always hear the left, you know, echo the statement, what business of it is ours to intervene in these countries, you know, to go in and remove regimes from power.
We're not an exceptional nation, we're not an exceptional group of people.
You know, we have no right to to intervene and change our lives.
It's you know, none of our business.
And um, you know.
Using that logic in response to Maria Harf, I'd say, what business is ours to find these people jobs and suggest economic policy?
And um, well, that's you know, it's uh I made that point earlier in the program.
The irony here is that these people cannot find jobs for Americans, and yet that's what they think the solution to the problem with ISIS is.
But they see, she's actually talking about something that they actively oppose, and that's nation building.
They got all over Bush for nation building in Iraq.
It's not our job.
We have no right to impose our way of life on these.
That's what you're saying.
And you're right.
For as long as I've been doing this radio show, I have been hearing liberal democrats say we have no right to impose our views on the rest of the world.
I've even heard them say sometimes we have no right to impose freedom on them.
Because some we're not the world's policemen, or it's it's not our right.
We don't have that kind of power.
There is no American exceptionalism, nothing special about us.
But yet here comes ISIS, and well, uh, we do want to stop them because we're liberals and we oppose killing, and we oppose the death people, but um we must understand why it's happening in this case, and it's because they don't have employment in jobs, and so uh we're just trying to save lives.
And That's how they would rationalize this in their valley girl way of speaking and enunciating.
But look, your your point is well taken.
We could spend all day here pointing out the hypocrisy of these people.
And the irony, that's one of their favorite words.
What I have found, and it is persuasive with certain audiences, low information people.
I've found pointing out hypocrisy doesn't do much as far as they're concerned.
The reason for that is that far be it for me to understand it, but the left is allowed to get away with screwing everything up because they have good intentions.
They have big hearts.
They at least are trying to do something.
Whereas the Republicans, well, they just don't care, except about the rich and Wall Street.
But the Democrats, they have big hearts.
They may screw it up.
Yeah, we know, but they're trying.
They want to help.
They want to improve things for people.
And they they're able to skate on this and escape a lot of scrutiny as a result.
Look at this.
Look at this.
Census Bureau says that one out of every three millennials is still living at home with their parents.
One out of three.
Look what you've got to look forward to, Brian.
Holy smokes, one out of three?
▲
Export Selection