All Episodes
Previous Next
March 23, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:26
March 23, 2015, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day, Rush Limboy here at the Limbo Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
As always, my friends, half my brain tied behind my back just to make things fair.
Great to have you.
Telephone number 800 282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, if you want to send an email, we check them constantly here.
It is uh don't read them verbatim sometimes, because um really just get to the nit and nip and tuck up of the nitty-gritty, but still read them.
Lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Listen to this real quick.
This is Wolfblitzer.
This is CNN.
This is uh after Ted Cruz's announcement he's running for president.
And he's speaking with the uh national political correspondent for CNN, Peter Hamby about Ted Cruz announcing his candidacy, and and they discover here that there's no real birther question, but they're gonna talk about it anyway.
He was actually born in Canada, his mother is American.
Uh, there's no questions of birtherism or anything like that.
He's a U.S., a natural-born U.S. citizen, even though he was born in Canada, that nobody's raising that issue as they did obviously with President Obama.
No, even though he was born in Hawaii, he wasn't born in Kenya.
Right.
And, you know, some on the left tried to raise questions about that, saying, aha, there's a double standard here with the Tea Party.
You know, he might not be a U.S. citizen because he was born in Calgary.
He renounced the Canadian element of his citizenship, I believe last year.
So they start out by saying there's nothing to see here.
And they spend 32 seconds talking about it.
And this is exactly how they do it, folks, as once again the left is now they're gonna be very worried.
They are very worried about Ted Cruz for a host of reasons.
I don't think right now, and I must be totally honest, I don't think anybody in the drive-by media thinks Ted Cruz has a ghost of a chance of being elected president.
But they're not gonna take any chances.
They do believe he's a second-tier candidate.
They do believe that everybody sees him the way they seem, that he's just a malcontent flamethrower who shut down the government and that everybody is gonna be driven to hate just as they drove everybody to hate Sarah Palin.
I make that statement with a fair amount of confidence, but I know for a fact that they don't think he is a real contender for the presidency.
But because he articulates conservatism irrefutably, because he does it without a teleprompter, because he does it so well, in other words, they are going to try to destroy him.
If they ever do, if some if things change in their perception, and if the drive-by's along with the Democrat Party ever think, if they come around to the idea that he may actually get the nomination, you're going to see all the stops pulled out.
It's going to be palpable fear.
And they will do everything they can to convince as many people as possible that he is not qualified, that he is stupid, that he is dangerous.
You've seen the drill run.
And that's I say the interesting thing to me right now is what will the rest of the Republican field do in response.
It is, it is entirely possible, and by the way, I say this with some firsthand experience of things like this.
It is quite possible, I'm not predicting it, and I don't know for sure it's gonna happen, but it's quite possible that Cruz was so effective today in articulating conservatism, and then coupling that with what his conservative agenda would be, and then coupling that with what his vision for America is, and his recitation of what is wrong with the current president, the current leadership, the current Democrat Party.
It may be that other Republicans decide there's no way they can get to the right of Ted Cruz, and there's no there may not be any way they can actually compete with him on that stage.
It's quite possible.
I don't know if it's gonna happen.
I'm just throwing out possibilities here.
We'll have to watch and see.
But it's possible that a number of Republican candidates might say, you know what?
He owns it.
Ted Cruz is the conservative in this, so I'm gonna have to stake out unique territory.
I've seen this happen in none other than the media.
So it could well be, and I doubt very seriously that you're gonna have a lot of Republicans abandon the right because Cruz was so good at it today, but it's possible.
I don't expect it to happen.
But if it does, I won't be surprised.
But they're gonna have to differentiate themselves from him somehow.
And the only way the tough question is going to be okay, how do I do conservatism better than Ted Cruz does it?
Can I do conservatism as well as Ted Cruz and win because I have a more likable personality?
Because I have a better looking family.
Do I look better on TV?
Do I sound more confident?
Or can I be as conservative as Cruz and are ticking it same stuff, and do I have a leg up because I've actually done something?
I've actually implemented an agenda.
These guys are going to be asking themselves all these questions.
And I think this is great.
You contrast what exists on the Republican side with the vanilla that's on the Democrat side.
I don't care who you pick.
Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, take your pick of any of them over there.
And all you've got is Chairman Mao Jr.
I mean, you don't have any diversity on the left whatsoever.
You've got far left, extreme left, and nothing else.
Mrs. Clinton cannot come anywhere near Cruz in likability, presentation, energy, articulation, any of that.
She can't get anywhere near.
Elizabeth Warren can only out anger people.
Joe Biden, it's a walking joke.
A walking gaff.
So in that sense, the Democrat bench, I think is somewhat thin, but there certainly isn't any diversity.
The Democrat base is so ridiculously radically genuinely insane.
You know, it's talking in the last hour about all of these people who have been voting Democrat for all of these years, believing that's the ticket, and they're angrier than ever.
And they're more unhappy than they've ever been.
It's understandable.
Everything they've been voting for and all the promises cannot possibly be kept.
The prosperity and all the other things that are promised cannot possibly be delivered.
Even after $18 trillion of spending money, this nation does not and has not had $18 trillion.
We ought to have 10 utopias for that.
And we're not even close to one.
So the rage and anger that's that's on the left in one sense is understandable.
It's exacerbated and even inflamed with additional rhetoric by politicians on the left.
That base has to be accounted for.
You have to deliver hate-filled, extreme, radical leftism in order to have the barest chance at winning a Democrat nomination, which does not bode well for diversity on the Democrat side
versus, again, all of the different personalities and concepts and themes and variations that do exist on the Republican side.
Here's what I worry about on the Republican side.
And I'm going to be – I told this to Ted Cruz.
He asked, don't sweat it, I don't I wasn't volunteering things.
He asked.
One of the things I've noticed over the 25 plus years of doing this program, every Republican primary.
Doesn't matter.
Every Republican presidential primary, there's a series of candidates.
Some are conservative, some are okay, some are bad, but they're conservatives.
Some have been really good.
And we take them out one by one because they're not perfect.
I'll give you an example.
One of the first days, well, recent first days, one of the recent days in which I was touting Scott Walker within the context of, hey, here's a guy we all talk about, somebody needs to stand up to the left and is not afraid to do it.
He's done it.
He's beat him three out of four elections.
They've thrown everything at him, they throw it all of us, and he has beat them.
He's over it.
So I've talked about Scott Walker as a blueprint.
Not just a blueprint building the building, but he actually built the building.
He's implemented his agenda.
He's shown that conservatism works in a blue state.
Okay, I've been through all that.
I started getting emails from names you would know that I'm not going to tell you.
Rush, be very careful.
He's not right on immigration.
I looked at him, I said, don't tell me.
Don't.
It was, it was these are people who wanted me to walk back what I was saying about Scott Walker, because he just wasn't saying the exact thing they wanted to hear on amnesty or whatever it was.
But that's just one example.
With Cruz, it's going to be something else.
Somebody, some conservative blog or some conservative host, some conservative media type somewhere is going to find one thing that candidate X, conservative candidate X falls short on and disqualifies, and they're going to say disqualifies it.
And this happens.
And what's happened, this is one of the reasons why the Republican Party ends up with the McCain's and the Romneys as the nominee, because this quest for conservative perfection ends up doing great damage to individual conservatives in the race.
And I think you have to go into this, understanding that there isn't a perfect candidate.
There is not a candidate, not a single candidate who's going to be a hundred percent right on everything.
And I've always thought single issue politics is our death knell.
Or it's a it's a huge problem.
And it has been, it's it's proven out.
So I'm just going to be watching all of that with great interest too.
Because as I say, I mean, I've already been the uh I've already been the recipient of people trying to talk me out of.
And I hadn't endorsed Scott Walker.
I haven't endorsed anybody.
They were just warning me, and then the way they did it was, hey, Rush, be very careful.
You may not know.
But Scott Walker is not blah, blah, blah, on immigration.
I wouldn't want you to embarrass yourself.
And what they were really trying to do was to get me to walk it back, to talk back, take back some of the enthusiasm for whatever reasons they had.
They chose somebody else, so they really thought Walker wasn't as good as the conventional wisdom, what have you.
All my my point is this quest for perfection, which sometimes descends into nothing more than single-issueism, can be damaging and even destructive.
Quick time out.
I got some more sound bites I want to get to.
There's actually loaded with great ones today.
And I wanted just a little bit more on this story, our smartphones making our children mentally ill.
I think it dovetails with the monologue I had in the previous hour over all of this anger and over all this rage and the unhappiness that exists out there.
But we'll get to it in due course, right after this.
Okay, here we go again.
Classic example again.
Police in Charlottesville, Virginia, just have it first comes, in fact, it's still going on, to announce the police announced that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the rape story about what was going on at UVA in Rolling Stone magazine.
Absolutely no evidence.
Now what has happened?
Rolling Stone publishes a story about rape all over the campus at the University of Virginia.
This begets a liberal ground swell, a feminist groundswell of news stories, claiming that there is a culture of rape all over America.
University after university after university.
Then it finds out, we find out that there's absolutely no evidence that the story at the University of Virginia was made up.
A total fabrication, somewhat similar to the Duke Lacrosse case.
When this Is discovered, what does the media then do?
The media circles the wagons and says, well, maybe the details are not quite true at the University of Virginia, but that doesn't matter, they say, because the story nevertheless was true, because the story does represent the reality of the rape culture on campus.
Meanwhile, it was totally bogus.
So totally bogus, totally false, becomes nevertheless real, even though the particular story involved had no truth to it, it still served to properly raise everybody's consciousness level of it.
Okay.
So you are a young, impressionable woman.
And this is just the latest in a bizarre series of episodes designed for the last 30 to 40 years, designed to make you suspicious of men.
Just because they exist.
That men are natural born predators, and that they are really out there, scouting young women and really, really doing it on campus.
And then we got fake made-up numbers about the number of rapes and the percentage of rapes on campus.
None of it's true.
But that doesn't matter, you see.
Because the feminists have an agenda they need advanced, and Rolling Stone played along, published a totally made-up fake story that was later acknowledged to be fake, but then claimed to be a great story because it raised consciousness.
So a number of women who read Rolling Stone, watch the media aftermath, despite a fake story, end up believing that they are at great crisis, and they are in grave danger on American campus.
What would that do to you?
You run around believing this kind of made-up falsehood stuff.
It's bound to affect you.
It certainly isn't going to make you happy.
It isn't going to make you content.
It isn't going to relax you.
It's going to do all of the opposites.
It's going to make you mad.
It's going to make you fearful.
It's going to make you distrustful.
It's going to make you all kinds of negative things.
It's going to have a double triple whammy of negativism on your entire psyche.
And all of this is by design.
To advance some cock-eyed screwball leftist agenda.
The purposes of which is to simply gain control over more and more people.
And of course it's more complicated that, which takes us right back to our smartphones making our children mentally ill.
No.
The tech, the access to the internet, which is what this is about.
The access to news, the access to information.
No, not by itself.
It's not making people mentally ill.
What's making them mentally ill is BS journalism, fake news.
The leftist agenda that they're taught from kindergarten on.
They're taught to be fill of rage.
They're taught to be filled with fear.
They're taught to be scared.
They're taught to not trust people.
Other than government.
They have no time for any of the positives in life.
See, it'd be really hard.
You have a bunch of unstable, so-called mentally ill kids.
It'd be really tough to blame that on single parent families.
You can't do that because single parent families, why, why those are the chosen families, the American left, because they need the most government help.
Government, Washington must work for single-parent families.
So we can't blame it on that.
We can't blame it on being poor because the Democrats are taking care of that.
We can't blame it on liberalism or political correctness.
We can't blame it on education in school because that would mean we have to blame it on liberals, and We can't blame anything on liberals because they are the savior for everybody and everything.
We can't blame children being mentally ill for look at the barrage of sexualization and gender confusion on television now as a matter of course.
You want to blame this on smartphones?
You want to blame people not knowing who they are?
You want you want to blame people being confused and angry and upset and unhappy on the smartphone rather than on their environment and the trash that they're exposed to and the liberal education they're exposed to, the indoctrination and propaganda they get.
Look at look at what kids are being fed at school lunch today because of Michelle Obama.
They're throwing it out.
They don't want any part of it.
But we can't blame that because that would be to blame Michelle Obama.
So blaming the real culprits can't do that because the real culprits, liberalism and the Democrat Party.
That'd be too hard.
That might make the case for the necessity of real reform.
We can't do that.
So let's blame the Internet.
Government wants to take over the Internet anyway, so let's blame that.
This would be a good reason to blame the Internet because Obama wants to nationalize it anyway, and Obama is the font of compassion, right?
Obama, the Democrats, they care more than anybody.
So the internet poisoning our kids, fine and dandy.
Let's let the government take over the internet next, and they'll fix it, right?
Exactly right.
Blame the internet, blame the phone, blame everything but the real culprit.
Back after this.
Here's another great example of what I'm talking about.
We had uh news not long ago that the comedian Chris Rock said he was no longer going to play college dates.
College students don't laugh anymore.
College students said it's so politically correct that nothing's funny to them anymore.
They can't laugh at themselves, they can't laugh at other people, they can't laugh at other situations.
They're too busy wringing their hands on things.
Why do you think that is?
I mean, PC is what it is, but if you don't see the humor in anything, if you can't see humor in life, then you've got to be constantly enraged, angry, on edge, what have you.
Who's doing this?
I get I'm I'm telling you that this does not lead to anything productive.
These young college kids are being made to feel at risk or uh worried they're going to offend people, or whatever it is.
They are going to be perfectly positioned to support the idea that a command and control central authority should be handing out punishment.
And that would be who?
The government.
And that would be their definition of Washington working.
And now Jay Leno has discovered much the same thing.
He was on late night with Seth Myers Friday night on NBC.
Seth Meyer said, you know, you're playing a lot of college campaign now.
Have colleges changed any Jay?
College kids now are so politically correct.
I mean, to the point where I'll give you an example.
We had interns at the show.
College interns.
Like the last year of the show when the interns come in and say, Mr. Leno, I'm getting lunch, what do you want?
I said, I don't know where you going.
He said, We're getting Mexican.
I said, I don't really like Mexican.
He goes, whoa, that's kind of racist.
Well, being anti-guacamole is not racist, okay?
That's no idea what racism is.
That's not racist, you idiot.
Hey, Jay.
Uh, welcome to the club, man.
I don't I don't know how much you're responsible for this.
Um, probably shouldn't say that, but all these people that that have that have bought into this politically correct culture of ours are culpable here.
And I think I I can totally see this.
Here's Leno in his office.
He got some intern in there, and uh he's not I don't like Mexican.
And this intern seriously says, whoa, that's kind of racist.
To say you don't like Mexican food.
Now, if you think that's racist, then you're obviously gonna fall in for the idea that whoever says something like that needs to be called out on it and maybe even punished.
What does it lead to?
Then it leads to people not saying what they really think about things, going along with things, and they end up being miserable and unhappy because of that.
So much fear.
And it's being played on so well.
Back to the phones, Jim and Montgomery, Ohio.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Hello.
Rush, great honor to talk to you.
Listen to him many years.
You're a great guy, a great American, and like I love Ted Cruz.
I think he's one of the best we have.
I'm passionate about him.
When I heard his speech, hair stood up on my neck.
But I'm really troubled because as much as I love Ted, I love the Constitution first.
What I've studied and learned in the last several years about the true meaning of natural born citizen.
I as far as I can tell, if Ted's dad was not a citizen at the moment of Ted's birth, and Ted was not born of two American citizen parents, and that means he is ineligible.
And it really troubles me because I love this guy.
Really?
But this would exclude Ted.
It's a double-edged sword.
It cuts both ways.
If we would adhere to our Constitution, it would exclude the best we have, Ted Cruz, and that really troubles me.
But you know what?
That would have excluded Barack, Hussein Obama.
Because Barack, Hussein Obama's daddy, was never an American citizen.
Right.
Didn't matter, did it.
When you go back into the study, this it says you must be a natural-born citizen.
Right, right.
Okay, look, I'll tell you what, I'm very happy you I'm gonna call Ted.
I have his number now because I'm a powerful, influential member of the media.
And I'm gonna call him and I'm gonna tell him you wasted your time, bud.
You're not qualified.
You can't run for president.
I had a caller today tell me so.
And he's gonna say, really?
Okay.
Well then I'll just keep making speeches, but I'm I won't run.
Well, what is this?
I mean, even Wolf Blitzer announced that there's no birther issue here, even though they talked about it for 45 seconds.
This is exactly what I was talking about just moments ago, folks, when I said we we we run the risk of taking out our own people with nitpicky perfection type things.
Uh anyway, here's who's next.
This is uh Daniel in San Antonio, Texas.
Great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hi from Texas.
Um the reason why I called in, I'm really excited about Ted Cruz running um being from Texas.
I elect I voted for him in the primary, I voted for him when he was running in the general election.
Um it gets me about a a better outlook on the future.
Um I have a 11-month-old baby at home, and I'm excited that he won't like get more opportunity if Ted Cruz would be elected opposed to like Jet Bush, Hillary Clinton, or any of that.
I think I I understand that.
I think probably what excites you and a lot of other people is the realization that there is a Ted Cruz.
That there it there is at least somebody out there who can do this, that there's somebody out there willing to do this.
They finally have somebody that's willing to articulate conservatism proudly, happily, cheerfully, with no excuses whatsoever.
In fact, just the opposite of that.
I can see how that would be inspiring and and uh and reassuring.
So have at it.
I think it's totally justified.
Um let's see, what what's it shris Borland, grab audio sound by number 23?
We talked about this last week, too, and uh it's interesting that the the football writers And all the blogs, websites.
There's concern over Chris Borland, as I knew there would be, announcing his resignation from the game after one year.
By the way, here we are back to the same thing.
Chris Borland said he's not going to play the game anymore.
He's read that it could shorten his life by 15 to 20 years.
And he's going to quit before the game has a chance to cause that kind of damage.
And just last week, the neurosurgeon from University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, who happens to be the Steelers neurosurgeon, Joseph Maroon, went on the NFL network.
Oh, by the way, this guy is being crucified.
He went on, we had the soundbite last week.
He went on the NFL network, and he said that all of this concern over CTE.
The uh the brain injury that is supposedly directly responsible, or is is is the direct result of playing football.
High contact sports.
But it's only diagnosable in an autopsy.
There's no way of determining how many people have the disease while they are alive.
Now, how convenient is that for the people who want to poke holes in football.
They can now talk about a dreaded brain disease that nobody can verify while someone's alive.
They have some cases they've been able to determine scarring on the brain, is what this is.
Lesions and other things that they've discovered in autopsies.
But there's no way of knowing how widespread it is until after the fact, and you'd have to do an autopsy on every player to get anywhere near accurate percentages.
And there hasn't been an autopsy on nearly every player, far, far from it.
And yet it has become settled science, if you will, that CTE is a realistic result of playing football.
When nobody knows that.
But it's become accepted.
Because the conventional wisdom wanted it to be.
So this maroon guy, the neurosurgeon, goes in the NFL network last week and says, This has been so overdone, it's been so exaggerated.
We don't know.
There is no science behind this yet.
He said you have a greater risk of suffering brain injury riding a bike or playing soccer.
Well, you would have thought somebody nuked a football stadium.
The sports writer community went absolutely bonkers over that.
How can that possibly be?
More brain injury for riding a bicycle or playing soccer?
That's absurd.
So the doctor, a recognized neurosurgeon, was immediately categorized as a doofus idiot.
In favor of relying on a belief that cannot possibly be documented.
This has led a young man to retire from the game.
You can't blame him.
He's a product of his environment, and he has read and heard for the last two to three years how the game shortens the life expectancy of players by 15 to 20 years.
He's heard the entire sports writer community sign on to the theory.
He's heard people after people believe it, express belief in it, what have you.
He has seen people who refute this, made fun of and mocked.
So what choice does he have?
He doesn't want to live 15 or 20 years less than his life expectancy, so he announces he's going to quit the game.
I maintain that...
You know, it's in its own universe.
Chris Borland's actions are completely understandable, given what he's been exposed to, given the people he's chosen to believe.
And now that they've actually had somebody make a career choice based on all of this panic journalism, now there's, oh my God, is this going to lead to dilution of the power and the playing pool, the talent pool in the NFL?
This is going to cause a lot of guys to retire.
Oh no, is this going to Well, isn't that what you've wanted?
I mean, has it?
I mean, if isn't that the net result of what you've been reporting?
I mean, if you're going to tell everybody playing the game, shortens their life 15-20 years, who in their right mind would keep playing it.
Well, and now there are stories of all the players that envy Chris Borland for being able to retire.
They can't because they need the money.
They and their families need the money, so they need to continue risking their lives to play the game, whereas Chris Borland, for some reason, was able to quit.
That's all the stories today of all the players that envy him.
Not named.
Players were not named.
That was not the point to name them.
It was just reporting at all kinds of players.
What so the guy quits because he believes what he's been told.
And the sports writers go, oh no.
Oh no.
Well, what do you expect to happen?
When you tell the people playing the game that they're killing themselves.
What do you expect to happen when you tell a parents of people playing the game that their kids are killing themselves?
What do you expect to happen when you tell the parents of young kids playing a game that you, the parents, are killing your kids by letting them play the game?
What do you expect to happen?
And then the doctor comes, hey, we're overreacting here.
You doofus, they call him.
Chris Borland cemented that there were some people who didn't believe it.
He's not really gonna quit.
He's gonna come back after a year.
He's gonna really miss it.
So he went on slay the nation.
On Sunday, Bob Schiefer said, You're giving up millions of dollars, probably, and you're happy.
You're satisfied with your decision.
Uh any buyer's remorse is it were.
Absolutely not.
And uh to play one year is it's not a cash grab if I've as I've been accused of.
I'm paying back three-fourths of my signing bonus and taking the money I've earned.
Um this to me is just about health and nothing else.
I never played the game for money or attention.
So he's gonna give back about 435,000.
He's got a four-year signing bonus.
He's played one of the four years, so he's gonna give back that much.
He's being applauded.
He really means it.
I that's cool.
I I think that's responsible thing to do.
Anyway, I gotta take a break here.
I'm on long again, folks.
I'm sorry about this.
Sadly, my friends, we are out of busy broadcast time today, but don't worry, we'll pick up tomorrow where we left off today, which is what we do every day.
Because nothing ever really ends on the EIB network.
Because it's a continuum here.
Thanks so much for being with us today, and uh right back here tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection