All Episodes
Previous Next
March 26, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:53
March 26, 2015, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And here we are back at it, folks.
Once again, Rush Limbaugh behind the one and only golden EIB microphone at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Three hours of broadcast excellence, all yours and straight ahead.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program is 800-282-2882.
And the email address, LRushbaugh at EIBNet.com.
So the co-pilot of the German wings jet barricaded himself in the cockpit and intentionally set the plane full speed into a mountain in the French Alps, ignoring the pilots' frantic pounding on the door and the screams of terror from the passengers.
This, according to a prosecutor, it's amazing how fast they get prosecutors on the case over there.
You know, in Europe, the spokesmen are always the prosecutors, not the cops.
I mean, it's all law enforcement.
Well, it's amazing.
Co-pilot Andreas Lubitz intention was to destroy this plane, said the Marseille prosecutor, Bryce Robin, laying out the horrifying conclusions reached by French aviation investigators after listening to the last minutes of Flight 9525.
It was Airbus 320 on its way from Barcelona to Dusseldorf, began to descend from a cruising altitude of 38,000 feet after losing radio contact with air traffic controllers.
All 150 people on board died when the plane slammed into the mountain.
The prosecutor said, quote, the most plausible, the most probably, is that the co-pilot voluntarily refused to open the door of the cockpit for the captain and pressed the button for the descent.
He said the co-pilot's responses, initially courteous in the first part of the trip, became curt when the captain again began the mid-flight briefing on the planned landing.
Have you noticed that they're stretching, they don't want to call this terrorism.
They don't want to call this terrorism.
I guarantee you the people on that plane were terrorized.
In fact, it's being theorized that for, you know, it took eight minutes to descend and there was not a whole lot of radio contact.
And it didn't seem to be.
The theory is the passengers didn't know till the last minute what was happening.
And that's when the screams were heard.
Here is the prosecutor.
This is the section segment of the press conference that has set the world on fire just a bit here.
He voluntarily allowed the plane to descend and lose altitude.
About 1,000 meters per minute.
It's not normal.
Of course that's not normal.
But they don't want to call it terrorism yet here, folks.
They just don't know.
The co-pilot, 28-year-old German, has a home there.
A picture of him sitting by the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.
On Fox and Friends this morning, retired Air Force General Thomas McInerney was the guest.
And Anna Koiman said, look, 28 years old, a German national.
They don't know his religion or his ideology.
And it took them a long time to announce the pilots' names.
It took they, and they knew these names for a while.
It took them a while to make that news public.
But what type of background checks, General McInerney, do pilots have to go through in that part of the world and also here in the U.S.?
What kind of psychological examinations, things like that, before they're hired?
They're pretty extensive.
And the thing is, but they're very sensitive on religion.
And that's why, because I focus on radical Islam, is why I migrate to that, because there's a logic and a rationale that they become suicide bombers.
For other people, I would call a violent extremist for whatever his ideology is, you'd have to look into that.
But the airlines are pretty extensive on that.
And I think we're going to find as this peels back and we get the facts, the question is, what is the ideology behind the terrorism?
And that's what they're going to have to look at very extensively.
They're not going to want to tell us.
It's obvious they're not going to want to tell us.
They're trying to stretch this out or delay this as long as they can.
Now, the Facebook page recently deleted of the co-pilot appeared to show a smiling man in a dark brown jacket posing in front of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, and the page was wiped sometime in the past couple of days.
The co-pilot, Lufthans, has said that the co-pilot joined German Wings in September 2013 right out of flight screw.
He had flown 630 hours.
The captain had more than 6,000 hours of flying time.
Been a German Wings pilot since May of 2014, having previously flown for Lufthansa and Condor.
It says here, the circumstance of the crash likely to raise questions anew about background checks and this kind of thing.
Yeah, they're actually going to look into background checks a little bit more extensively here.
And they're saying, okay, well, maybe the pilot was depressed.
Maybe he just wanted to commit suicide.
No, folks, you don't commit suicide and take 150 people with you.
I mean, maybe you do.
I don't know.
I don't have the suicide mentality or gene or what have you.
Anyway, whatever they're trying to do here to avoid calling it terrorism or what have you, it doesn't change the fact that the people on board that plane were terrorized.
Has you ever wondered why plane crashes so captivate people and the attention span?
I mean, here we have 150 people died, and they died all at once.
And I'm not being critical of this.
I just examine this socially, sociological.
It's fascinating to me.
The number of people who die in the United States on the highways of this country, in automobile accidents, is roughly on average 50,000 people a year.
The number of people who perish in airplane crashes is way, way below that.
But even when there is a massive pile-up automobile accident and there are a significant number of deaths, it does not occupy the news cycle for hours and days like a plane crash does.
And I think there's more to it than just the number of people.
Have you ever thought about why this is?
Why is it that airplane crashes actually are rare compared to other accidents that claim people's lives?
I've always said if you really want to ban death, if you really want to cut down on the number of deaths, then ban the wheel.
The automobile is responsible, or automobiles are involved, in more deaths than smoking cigarettes, playing in the NFL, any number of things.
And yet there's never even the slightest consideration given to banning the wheel because it's entirely impractical.
And yet so many more people die as the result of wheels being used ever since they've been invented.
And it just, it's fascinating to me.
You know what I think part of it is?
I think part of it is rooted in the fact that even people who claim to not be afraid of flying still think it's a really unnatural thing to do.
And so a plane crash reminds them of how unnatural an act getting in a fuselage or a tube and heading up five miles in the air is.
Whereas getting in a car, you're already on the ground.
It's the old thing.
My father owned an airplane when my brother and I were young.
It was a single-engine Cessna 182.
And there was, we'll be honest about it, there was some fear, a little bit of fear of flying in certain sectors of the family.
And I remember one time somebody saying to my dad, well, what happens if the engine quits and you're up this plane max out at 10,000 feet?
It had no oxygen, so it's a small plane.
What happens if you're up there 5,000 or 6,000 feet and the engine quits?
He said, the engine doesn't quit.
Okay, dad.
The engine doesn't, but what if it does?
The difference is if the engine quits in the car, you just roll to a stop.
You get out and walk the rest of the way or hitchhike or do whatever.
But if the engine stops at 5,000 feet or 5 miles, you're kind of in trouble.
And it's a huge, it's a huge, I think it's rooted in the fact that an airplane crash reminds people that that's for the birds.
That's not, even though the safety factor, in terms of traveling, statistically, any way you want to look at it, there's no comparison in the safest way to travel.
It's flying, hands down.
But people still come back to, yeah, but if you happen to be aboard when there's an engine malfunction, that's it, if you're in the air.
And it's not the case if you're in a car.
If you're in an electric car and the battery dies, big whoop.
You know, you get a tow to the next electrical outlet and you're back on your way or what have you.
So I think that's part of the fascination.
There's probably much, much more to it than that.
It's also, you know, if it bleeds, it leads.
It's that kind of stuff.
It's made to order for television news.
And it allows all the experts in all the problems we face.
There's terrorism.
There's any number of things that will draw in the drive-bys to covering an airplane crash.
Okay, ladies and gentlemen, Gallup has a new poll out.
Concern about the environment is down.
The number of Americans worried about the environment, the number of Americans who list global warming as a primary problem is way, in fact, the last thing they worry about.
The Clinton campaign has issued a list of words and terms to the drive-by media in the form of a threatening email to a New York Times info babe telling them these are the words you cannot use to describe Mrs. Clinton.
One word that's not on the list is cankles.
I guess everybody in the media is free to use the word cankles.
But their list of words, well, it's not on the list.
I thought it would be on the list.
What is that sexist?
I thought it would be, but it's not in the list.
You can say cankels.
But I'll tell you what's on the look, there's more cockamamie off-the-wall news that to you and me is cockamimi off the wall.
To the left, it's mainstream, makes all the sense in the world.
So sit tight.
We're going to come back, get rolling on all the other stuff happening out there today right after this.
Don't go away.
No, no, no, I have never been afraid of flying.
I never have.
For some reason, I have literally no concerns.
I think one of the reasons why, my father did own that little airplane.
I sat next to him.
I flew it now and then.
I watched him take it off, landed enough times that back then, I thought if he had an emergency when he was flying us around, that I could land it.
I was confident I could do that.
I'd seen it enough.
It was single-engine.
It wasn't that complicated, especially.
I mean, they're talking years of sitting next to him, watching him land the airplane.
Now, jet, that's a whole different thing.
I don't have confidence I could land a jet.
I don't think I have confidence I could slow the thing down enough.
But for some reason, I don't have the fear.
I'm not worried about bad weather.
There's no circumstance.
I mean, I trust the pilots.
If the weather's bad, they'll tell me.
If we can make it, we'll go.
So I don't have, I'm fortunate, I guess, and I don't have any claustrophobia.
You know, that's what bothered John Madden.
It was not that he was afraid of flying.
It was that he couldn't get out of there.
He said he was in his narrow tube, and once it took off and left the ground, he's in there until somebody else lands it.
And that's what made him nervous.
It was mostly a claustrophobic thing.
But I just think that even people like me, although I'm going to exclude myself from this, but people like me who profess to have no fear, the reason why an airplane crash is fascinating, because everybody thinks that's what's going to.
How many times when you watch an airplane take off, are you still fascinated that it actually happens?
I am.
Something, especially if it's a jumbo, like a Boeing 747 Heavy or one of these Airbus A380s, I don't, even though I understand the aerodynamics of it intellectually, I understand lift or air pressure differential, whichever you want to call it.
I understand it.
It makes perfect sense in the laws of physics, but it still looks impossible.
And you still marvel at it every time it happens.
And we're on a golf course, the airplane flies over.
Everybody stops and looks at it.
Despite how many times have you seen an airplane fly by?
And if it's a military jet doing a flyby, say at the Super Bowl or a football game, and it's at 1,000 or 500 feet and it's on full afterburner, and the noise, I mean, that's the sound of freedom flying over.
And you stand up and you cheer and you thank God for flight.
And you thank God you're an American.
And like I did once at the Super Bowl of San Diego, I started shouting, how can anybody be a Democrat when that happens?
And there were a couple of Democrats from Washington sitting in front of me.
Redskins playing the Broncos.
They turned around and they started shooting me daggers with their eyes, but I didn't care.
Still, airplane goes over and people stop.
They watch it.
They don't, even though you know that it makes perfect sense, you still don't believe it.
So one falling out of the sky makes sense.
I think the fascination in watching one of these is rooted in giving thanks you're not on it because this is what everybody thinks is a very natural thing to happen.
That in other words, a successful airplane flight is cheating the odds in people's subconscious.
I don't think this is something that they ponder each and every day in their front lobes.
But there has to be, I could be all wet here, there has to be a reason why an airplane crash totally dominates a news cycle for days sometimes.
Now, even without the added potential aspect of terrorism, it still is something that captivates people.
I could be all wet in my theory.
But if I am, there's still something about it, psychologically, that draws people to it.
I want to take you back as we swerve now into the words that the Clinton campaign is warning drive-mind journalists not to use when covering Mrs. Clinton.
Before getting to that list, I want to remind you of something.
I want to remind you of something that I said way back, August 12th, 2013.
I've actually said this many times on the program.
We just threw a dart up on the wall and pick a random date.
And I've said this a number of times, but this instance happens to be from August 12th of 2013.
The Democrats have learned something here profound.
You've got the first black president.
He's immune from criticism.
You cannot criticize the guy.
Any criticism is racism.
We have a president of the United States who cannot be criticized.
His policies cannot be criticized, not credibly.
Anybody who tries is diminished and dismissed as a racist or a bigot.
And so Obama can get away with anything he wants.
And I think Democrats have seen this.
So imagine the first female president.
Same thing.
Any criticism, sexist.
Any criticism, unjust.
Any criticism, unwarranted.
Any criticism, not real.
Any criticism, not substantive.
It's all based in anti-woman.
It's all based on a Republican war on women.
It's not based on anything substantive.
The Democrats' modus operandi is to eliminate opposition, and this is one of the ways they do it.
And then after Hillary, they'll move for the first Hispanic president.
And the same thing will repeat.
No criticism of the first.
After that, they'll need to get the first gay president, and no criticism allowed there.
Then after that, the first transgendered president.
After that, the first, I don't know, from Mars, whatever.
But it's going to be a protracted policy, I think, that they're going to keep trying to implement.
And the fact that I was right about that is being borne out with Mrs. Clinton and her campaign and these list of words, this list of words that reporters are not to use because the words are said to be sexist.
And sexism will not be permitted.
This is making my point.
The Hillary campaign, before it's even officially a campaign, is getting in gear and attempting to implement the same guiding procedures that have protected Obama all these years.
You'll see what I'm talking about when I get to the list, which we will do shortly after this.
Now, I have to point something out, folks.
This rule of firsts that the Democrats have successfully implemented with Obama, it never works for Republicans.
It only works for Democrats.
The rule of first, the rule of no criticism of firsts, did not apply, for example, the first female Secretary of State, first black female.
That was Condoleezza Rice, and it was open season.
The fact that she was the first black female Secretary of State did not make her immune to criticism because she was Republican.
In fact, she was Sarah Palin.
They even did cartoon strips portraying her as an Aunt Jemima with the cartoon illustrations emphasizing the so-called African-American characteristics of appearance.
And they even portrayed her as getting the job and accused her of getting the job by performing, shall we say, various type of sex acts at the high officials in the Republican Party.
All of that was fair game.
They could go after Condoleezza Rice all they wanted and did.
And how about the first black male Secretary of State?
That would be Colonel Colin Powell.
People went after him, even though he was the first black male Secretary of State.
The rule of first did not apply to him, nor did it apply to the first Hispanic Attorney General.
George W. Bush broke the racial barrier on a number of positions, and it didn't matter.
Every one of his appointees was destroyed, or at least they tried.
But with Barack Obama, any criticism disallowed.
Any and all criticism was chalked up to racism.
And it worked.
The Republican establishment and many in the media just don't want to go anywhere near being called a racist, and so they just shut up.
And now Hillary is attempting to implement it for herself on the theory that she's going to be the first female president from the Daily Caller.
It's a confusing article, by the way, but here it is in a nutshell.
The New York Times, Amy Chozik, posted on Twitter yesterday that a Hillary group had emailed her with a list of words that she was not to use when describing Hillary.
Now, this group is called the HRC Super Volunteers, Hillary Rodham Clinton Super Volunteers.
They've been around since 2007, and they were active at the beginning of Hillary's 2008 campaign.
Their email to the New York Times Info Babe ended with a warning: quote, you are on notice that we will be watching, reading, listening, and protesting coded sexism, close quote.
Now, the Daily Caller got hold of the tweet and listed the words.
And here they are.
Here are the words that the Hillary Clinton campaign sent out to the New York Times reporter Amy Chozick, telling her she can't use polarizing.
You may not use the word polarizing to describe Mrs. Clinton.
You cannot use the word calculating to describe Mrs. Clinton.
You cannot use the word disingenuous when describing Mrs. Clinton.
You cannot use the word insincere when describing all of these words are said to be coded sexism.
Polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere.
These are coded sexist words.
And the Clinton campaign is going to be calling the media.
We're not through.
Ambitious.
Ambitious.
You cannot refer to Mrs. Clinton as ambitious.
That is coded sexism.
Women are supposed to be like Ann Romney, lazy and eating bonbons all day.
Or whatever you do with bonbons.
You do eat bonbons, don't you?
What are bonbons anyway?
I keep that's what I have, little chocolatey things in there, like petty fours or petite fours or whatever the heck those things are.
You sit around sipping cocktails and eating your bonbons.
That's what women are thought to do in elite circles, but no.
You're not to use the word inevitable.
Inevitable is also said to be sexist.
Entitled.
Entitled is a word not permitted.
Again, these words were sent to a reporter for the New York Times, warning her not to use these words in describing Mrs. Clinton because this group is going to be sitting out there watching, reading, and listening.
Overconfident is also a term not to be used in association with Mrs. Clinton.
Secretive.
Also, like as in these latest news stories about emails and servers.
Secretive.
That's said to be sexist.
We'll do anything to win.
Mrs. Clinton cannot be so described as willing to do anything to win because that is sexist.
Represents the past.
Can't use the term, or this group that's monitoring will be on you.
Out of touch.
You can't describe Mrs. Clinton as out of touch.
And according to the New York Times reporter, Amy Chozik, the email from the HRC super volunteers, went on to warn again, you are unnoticed.
That we will be watching, we will be reading, listening, and protesting coded sexism.
Well, how about the other terms?
You know, Obama said of Mrs. Nice Enough, Hillary nice enough.
I mean, that kind of sexist.
And how about cankels?
I would think cankels would be at the top five of these word lists that you can't use.
Wrinkles?
There could be another one in there.
Screechy?
Shrill?
Hysterical?
Sniper fire.
I mean, there's any number of words I would think that would also be on the how about bossy?
Why can't they?
They forgot.
Certainly, they don't intend for people to describe Mrs. Clinton as bossy.
And how about there's another one?
How about the B word that rhymes with which?
Why isn't that?
Brian, I didn't say it.
You don't have to go.
They're shaking their heads in there like, man, Rush gets so close to the line every day.
I didn't get close to the line.
I would say B-I-H.
Why isn't that word on the list?
So we've got cankles, nice enough, bossy, wrinkles, screechy, shrill, hysterical, wrinkly, needs to iron her face.
None of that stuff's on the list that you can't say.
Anyway, but make no mistake.
I mean, this is funny and it's lighthearted in a way, but this group is serious.
They are threatening this reporter at the New York Times.
And I would have to bet you that the reporter at the New York Times will obey.
I'll bet you that this Amy Chozik is going to be obedient.
Well, she's a fellow female, and I'm sure she's going to take this as educational.
I mean, this is one of the goddesses of modern era feminism.
That would be Mrs. Clinton.
She's an arbiter.
She knows what's proper and what is not proper.
And Mrs. Clinton is not only asking for this, demanding for this herself, but also to protect the sisterhood so as to maintain the dignity and respect of the collective of the collective group.
You remember, ladies and gentlemen, back when we lost Kit Carson, trusty aide-de-camp and chief of staff, one of the things that I pointed out in talking about him and informing you about him that created a lot of curiosity.
I even today am still getting an email or two about it, but at the time I got quite a few emails about it.
I said that he had become an expert in saying no.
And people kind of chuckled and, well, they weren't quite sure what that meant.
Was I being funny?
And I was.
I was being dead serious.
And I went on to describe how there's an art form.
It is an art form.
How to say no, when to say no, which is pretty much as far as I'm concerned all the time.
And how difficult it is to do.
Nobody is raised to say no.
We all raised to say yes.
To say no is to be a problem.
Uncooperative.
Unwilling.
Most every kid is raised to do the opposite of saying no.
And yet one of my job requirements for the chief of staff position is that's the first thing you've got to learn to do and you have to be unafraid to do it and that's say no.
And back then, there were a lot of people who didn't understand it, sent me emails, thought it sounded mean.
Why do you want to say no to everybody all the time?
And I thought, well, it's understandable.
Nobody knows the context of this and the circumstances in which it arises.
This is all to set up a fascinating article that I found at a website called Medium.com by a guy named Kevin Ashton.
And the headline of the piece, Creative People Say No.
And it begins this way.
A Hungarian psychology professor once wrote to famous creators asking them to be interviewed for a book he was writing.
And one of the most interesting things about his project was how many people said no.
Management writer Peter Drucker, quote, one of the secrets of productivity is to have a very big wastebasket to take care of all invitations such as yours, he wrote.
Productivity, in my experience, consists of not doing anything that helps the work of other people, but to spend all one's time on the work the good Lord has fitted you to do and to do well.
So what Drucker is saying, if somebody invited me to be on this or that or do this or that that was going to help them, I said, no, if it's not going to help me, I'm not going to do it.
I got more.
It's a waste of time.
Secretary to the novelist Saul Bellow replied to the request by saying, Mr. Bellow informed me that he remains creative in the second half of his life, at least in part, because he does not allow himself to be a part of other people's studies.
This is, again, this is a psychology professor in Hungary was trying to discover the traits of creative, successful people.
And he asked them to participate in the survey.
And Saul Bellow was saying, one of the things I've learned here is that to remain creative, I don't participate in other people's studies.
I do my own.
Here's secretary to a music composer, Ligetti.
He's creative and because of this, totally overworked.
Therefore, the very reason you wish to study his creative process is also the reason why he doesn't have time to help you.
He would also like to add that he cannot answer your letter personally because he's trying desperately to finish a violin concerto, which will be premiered in the fall.
So unfortunately, he must say no to your request.
In all, the professor contacted 275 creative people.
A third of them told him no.
They were not going to help him.
Their reason was lack of time.
A third of the group did not respond.
And he assumed that the reason for not even saying no was they didn't have time and were not interested.
Now, he goes on to write here that time is the raw material of creation.
You wipe away the magic and myth of creating, and all that remains is the work.
The work of becoming expert through study and practice, the work of finding solutions to problems and problems with those solutions, and the work of trial and error, the work of thinking and perfecting, the work of creating.
Creating consumes.
It's all day, every day.
It knows neither weekends nor vacations.
It's not when we feel like it.
It is habit, it's compulsion, it's obsession, it's vocation.
Remember, this is a research project he's doing on creativity.
The common thread that links creators, the good ones, is how they spend their time.
And no matter what you read, no matter what they claim, nearly all creators spend nearly all of their time on the work of creation.
There are few overnight successes and many up all night successes.
And they all say no, almost all the time.
Well, there you go.
There you go.
Need to grab a quick phone call here, folks.
We'll start in Valencia, California.
This is Patty.
Patty, thank you for calling.
It's great to have you with us.
Hello.
Thank you so much, Rush.
I have tried for 20 years to get through and never did.
And finally, Snerdley had to peel me off the ceiling.
I was so upset when I called.
This is in regards to your comment.
I'm sure just cute and flippant, but it kind of sent me reeling about women are supposed to be like Ann Romney sitting around eating bonbons.
She doesn't sit around and she doesn't eat bonbons.
And I know that personally.
And I know there are a lot of women doing a lot of wonderful things, women who run for office, women who support their husbands as they run for office.
I'm sorry for the confusion.
was not I. If I said it in a way that made it sound like those are my words, I was repeating to you.
Well, not quoting because it's a paraphrase of what some people in this article are talking about.
They use, you know, Ann Romney is a common punching bag of people on the left.
So in this story about Mrs. Clinton and the words you can't use, they describe Mrs. Clinton as this active go-getter, self-control, and they make reference to lazy, elite Republican women like Ann Romney.
She's not.
I threw in the eating bonbons.
They didn't say that, but I didn't accuse Ann Romney of doing it.
It's the story that makes the reference.
And I'm so sorry.
It went by so quickly, and I was listening, but I just thought I have to clarify.
None of them work harder than Ann in serving her family and serving her community and giving.
She is only a giver.
She's never, never had the kind of help that they can afford more than anybody.
I mean, they can afford to have every single breath taken for them.
And she is constantly a worker, serving in her community, her family, her church, has been her entire life.
Although they had the money to take care of everything.
And I guess.
Here's the thing, Patty.
Patty, here's the thing about this.
You're absolutely right.
This is one of the great problems that we've, it was Hillary Rosen, by the way, who is a Hillary acolyte, but an Obama acolyte as well, a big Democrat.
It was Hillary Rosen back during the Romney campaign, which, or who talked about Ann Romney as not being a great example for, she never had a job.
She's never had to work.
I'm sure you remember that.
This is just Ann Romney was just the stand-in for the latest potential Republican first lady.
The specifics of Ann Romney's life and her great work and her great doesn't matter to these people.
They're going to lie about it and they're going to smear and impugn, just like they did her husband.
And they continue to do so.
And I know it's very frustrating for people like you who know her and know her personally and know that all of this stuff is made up.
It's frustrating for all of us.
But I just, I'm glad you instinctively knew that it wasn't me that was uttering those mean words.
I was just repeating them because they were in the story.
Yeah, I still have this story from yesterday.
It's kind of long.
I'm going to have to synthesize this, edit it.
College professors now more worried about liberal PC students than they are conservative students because they can deal with the conservatives too.
They can intimidate them.
The liberal PC students now frighten them.
▲
Export Selection