All Episodes
Previous Next
April 6, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:31
April 6, 2015, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Looks like the University of Virginia fraternity, Phi Campus Psy, is going to try to Alpha Cow Omuga, Rolling Stone.
They're going to sue him.
They're going to sue him for this rape story, which everybody involved has admitted, was totally made up.
And yet the Columbia University Journalism School attempted to justify it partially.
Anyway, it's a whole bunch of teachable moments in this story, and I'm going to get to it as the program unfolds.
There are just some other things I want to close up or tie up that we've talked about already.
And I'll get to that, and then we'll get back to your phone calls and uh and so forth.
But we just had a call from a guy in Noblesville, Indiana, who thinks that what happened in Indiana is a tipping point, that it's finally going to alert a bunch of average Americans who don't pay much attention to politics.
Just exactly what the modern day left is, how mean, how extremist, how violent and potentially dangerous they are.
And I hope so.
There have been a number of things I thought would be tipping points that haven't been.
But this could be.
If it is, it hasn't yet made itself obvious.
It could be effervescend underneath the surface and will uh boil over and make itself uh known, say in another election or in any number of possible ways.
However, as an interesting story from Dave Weigel, he's a leftist analyst and columnist, Dave Weigel, big leftist.
He had a piece in uh Bloomberg, and it was it was headlined, Democrats turn against religious freedom laws, voters do not agree with them.
By the way, I just saw there was a clip on CNN of the Pope yesterday on Easter, speaking from the papal balcony, urging Christians to stand up, urging everybody to stand up and be vigilant against the wanton mass murder of Christians that's happening all over the world.
Now the left loves this Pope, except when he says things like that.
That takes him off path.
Off course.
So this is this is one of the most interesting popes we've had in a while.
The left alternate days loves him and hates him.
But they desperately want the Pope to be one of them.
They so desperately want the vicar of Christ, even though they hate religion, even though they're frightened of it, even though they're scared to death of it, which is the real truth of it all.
They so desperately want the Pope to be one of them.
It's one of the most amazing psychological things, I think.
Uh modern leftists, particularly modern, really extreme leftists.
I mean, most of the the culture war that is occurring in this country and has been going on for 30 years, if the truth be known, at the root of it is a fear and hatred of Christianity and religion in general, Christianity specifically, but religion in general.
That is what people on the left just have the biggest struggle with.
It's a giant enemy.
It's a powerful enemy, an enemy they have no control over, an enemy they will never be able to dominate, an enemy they'll never be able to obliterate, and they know it, but they nevertheless try.
And so when the vicar of Christ now and then come out to utter some economic policy that makes them think he's one of them, they celebrate.
I think it's fast.
They desperately want the Pope to be one of them.
They want to be.
They want to think the Pope's one of their guys.
And then the Pope will come out and say something the next day that makes it clear he's not one of their guys.
And they go back and forth.
Love, hate, uh, anger, resentment, appreciation.
It's a fascinating case study to me.
Now, anyway, back to uh Dave Weigel, if it has not skipped scroll.
Here it is.
This is from his article.
And again, the headline Democrats turn against religious freedom laws.
Voters don't agree with them.
Keep in mind the first religious freedom restoration act of Bill Clinton and Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein, they Democrats all loved it.
It was about Peyote and Native Americans.
But they loved it.
They thanked God.
They praised the existence of God.
They put themselves in God's company by signing it and passing it.
Today they want you to forget that.
But here's a little excerpt from Weigel's piece.
It's now expected for Democrats to denounce religious freedom restoration acts, just as large corporations are denouncing them.
In doing so, all of the critics are on the wrong side of public polling.
According to a March edition of the Merist poll, 54% of Americans agreed with allowing First Amendment religious liberty protection or exemptions for faith-based organizations and individuals, even when it conflicts with government laws.
That's not what the Democrats want to see.
That's not what the militant left wants to say.
They don't want to see 54% of the American people agreeing with that premise.
And they want you to believe that only 4% of the American people agree with that.
They want you to believe that 80% of the country agrees with them on all of this.
And so when the mayor's poll comes out and shows a majority of Americans oppose the leftist position on this, Weigel is writing a column here trying to warn them to be very careful of what they're doing here.
By a two-point margin, 47 to 45, even a plurality of Democrat voters agree with the notion that allowing First Amendment religious liberty protections or exemptions for faith-based organizations and individuals, even when it conflicts with government laws.
That's just this is scary stuff to them.
The margins were even larger in opposition to laws that proposed penalties or fines for people who refuse to provide wedding-related services to same-sex couples, even if their refusal is based on their religious beliefs.
In other words, whatever happened in Indiana, it's not the majority position in this country.
It's the minority position.
The polling indicates it.
Weigel's trying to point it out to them.
Hey, look, you don't own this issue.
Most people agree with the pizzeria owner in Walkerton.
Most people do not agree with us walking in there trying to shut them down.
According to Marist, Americans oppose penalties on businesses like Memory's Pizza by a 65 to 31 margin.
The margin among Democrats is 62-34 against.
Democrats are endorsing something more radical than voters are comfortable with.
That's Dave Weigel, and he's got a piece here.
He's not going to appreciate me quoting him, but I'm quoting him exactly.
And he's simply pointing out here that the mainstream media, gay activists, civil rights activists, you name it, try to make it look like the vast majority of Americans agree that Indiana is a backward, racist, bigot, homophobic state, and they want them penalized.
And Mara says it's not even close to being true.
It's the exact opposite.
And that's why I bring this up in the context here of the call from a guy who thought it might be a tipping point.
You never know.
One thing I've always said about tipping points, you're not going to know them when they happen.
Another thing I've always said about tipping points is that they may not be these massive, big captivating events.
Could be something tiny that comes along.
Now, what happened in Indiana is bigger than tiny.
But the point is that anything at any time can cause a tipping point.
But for there to be a tipping point in this circumstance, there already has to be a foundation of majority thinking on this.
And the tipping point is simply people rising up and showing themselves rather than remaining docile, like they have for so long on our side.
Now, uh this Colorblind society, this is an important thing.
Jay Neudlinger wrote about this again today at National Review Online on their corner blog, and it it's a it's a valid point.
I grew up, this is this is very key.
I grew up, just like our caller, by the way.
He said that he really had not become aware of all the different types and kinds of people and personalities and populations and so forth until he left home and joined the Army.
Now it wasn't quite that radical for me.
The point for me is that my entire childhood, growing up, in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I remember it was Democrats that opposed it.
I was only 13, but I had a great father who was devoted to this stuff.
So I started learning and absorbing all of this very early.
And I watched, I was at home that day, watched Martin Luther King's speech.
I watched it.
And 13, 14, I, from that point on, maybe it took me a little more time, a couple more years to mature.
But the point is, when I became approached adulthood, I believed, because I had been told this by so many people, and I thought this is what society was oriented toward, that a colorblind society was our objective.
Coming off the heels of Martin Luther King, in which the pull quote is the line about hoping his children will be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.
That's colorblind society in a nutshell.
Colorblind society, you don't notice people's race.
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't trigger things.
There is no automatic bias or prejudice.
That was the objective.
Now, when stated that way, it's obviously an impossibility for that to happen with everybody, but it could happen for a majority of people.
And I thought that's what the objective was.
The bottom line for me is, and Snerdley will tell you, I have always been that.
And because I have always believed in a colorblind society and have treated people accordingly.
It's one of the reasons why I was so shocked and stunned when all of a sudden I get this radio show and I have become a racist.
Before I've even said a word, just the fact that I'm a conservative, I'm automatically a racist.
In fact, I have been devoted to this whole premise of colorblind society.
You treat everybody the same.
That if you're going to start looking for differences in people, go way deeper than their skin color, because skin color doesn't get you there.
I always believed that.
Well, it turns out it was in vogue for a while, but it turns out now that belief in a colorblind society is actually now called the new racism.
It's a it's an indication of bigotry and racism in and of itself.
Now you might say, come on, how can that be?
It's very simple when you stop and think about it.
A colorblind society means no positives or negatives based on somebody's skin color.
But the modern era leftist cannot possibly be colorblind.
And therefore, colorblind society is passe.
If you are an advocate of a colorblind society, or if you practice it, it means you are not sensitive to the plight of minorities in America, that you are not down for the struggle, that you do not believe that there is wanton racism and wanton discrimination.
You do not believe that there has been overwhelming progress in these areas because the truth is they want you to believe there hasn't been any progress.
We may as well Still be in 1864 or 1964.
And George Wallace and Lester Maddox may as well still be alive.
They just have different names and they're in different political parties, but it's still the same.
And of course, that's that's caca.
But the left needs for that to be the case.
The left needs you to be persuadable that murderous white cops are killing innocent black kids every day when they're not.
Colorblind society means that you're not sufficiently aware that you are not sensitive to the plight of minorities.
So this whole and I thought a colorblind society was a great objective.
I grew up thinking that was the goal.
As articulated by Dr. King.
I thought it was the goal.
And right along with it comes the concept of integration.
But guess what?
Segregation's the name of the day now, not integration.
And a colorblind society is a fool's errand.
A colorblind society belief system is one that is ignorant and has no awareness of the sad plight of minorities at the hands of the evil.
White and corporate majorities in America.
And I think it's a stunning turnaround, and it's a great illustration of exactly what the problem.
How can you have something more I mean colorblind society may be so good it's too idealistic.
But I'm telling you, you know as well as I do that it is liberals, the supposedly tolerant among us, and the supposedly more open-minded among us.
And those uh among us who never, never, ever judge.
No, no, no, no.
They are the first people to size everybody up based on external factors.
Gender, skin color.
They are the liberals, the left, they are totally absorbed and devoted to that.
And that's all they need to know about someone in order to form personality and value and political judgments about them.
And a colorblind society, of course, would make that impossible.
A colorblind society, but you wouldn't the first thing you would notice would not be someone's race or someone's gender or someone's sexual orientation.
Now, human nature being what it is, Mr. Snerdley's walking proof that the day a man walks down the street and doesn't notice a woman is never gonna happen.
Now I know this.
I'm I'm not trying to be a realistic or idealistic here, but it is nevertheless.
I grew up thinking it was an attainable goal.
It was worthy of achievement, and I tried to pull it off, and to this day I still am, but it doesn't play.
Because it means you're not down for the struggle today.
And we go back to the phones, and j just I know some people are chomping at the bit for the details, uh, even though you know them, but you want my take on the on the Rolling Stoned uh fake UVA rapes.
It's coming up in the next segment after our break here at the uh bottom of the hour.
This is uh this is Kirsten in Carney, Nebraska.
It's great to have you.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome.
Thank you.
Have at it.
Okay, well, um, as I told Mr. Snurdley, um about two months ago, it'll be two months tomorrow.
We uh my husband and I had a baby boy son, and um for quite a while the pregnancy, I was always pushing to name him Rush, and thought that would just be the best name for him, named after you.
And um, but we compromised, and his name is Hudson.
You're kidding.
You named you named your son Hudson.
Yes.
My middle name for those of you.
Well, I can't tell you how flattered I am.
Usually people name their dog after me.
No, we named our little boy, and he wears it well.
Well, that is that is uh I can't say that's that's so that that's just very cool.
Thank you.
I don't know what to say.
That's that's uh I really appreciate it.
Well, of course, and we were really excited.
Uh my daughters are home from school today because of Easter Monday, and and uh my oldest daughter kept calling in and finally got through, and I've called in for years but never been through, but she's excited, got through to you, and so we wanted to let you know.
Well, that's just how old is your daughter?
Um we have two.
She's almost twelve, and we have another one who's eight.
Wow.
And now so your son is your third crumb cruncher.
He is.
He was our third.
Um and uh yeah, quite a bit of uh time between the last time we had children, so a lot of fun.
Yeah, that's odd.
Well, do you do your kids have your kids read the Rush Revere books?
Your two daughters.
Um we have the first one.
We have done have the first one in the audiobook of the first one.
So we have that one, but not the others.
No.
Well, let's let me send you the other two, and let me send you the audio versions of all three.
If you'll hang on here, I would love to do this.
Uh, because if you've uh if you've got the if you've got the first one, the foundation is built for the other two.
So but uh don't hang up when we finish it, says Mr. Snerdley get your address.
But I need to ask how old is Hudson now, you say two months.
You say Hudson's two months old.
Did she hang up already or is she gone?
He was two months.
I'm just gonna ask if he was a good boy.
I just want to know if my I mean you can tell.
You can tell.
Can't you?
If you've got a hellion or if you have an obedient young kid.
And I wouldn't have any.
By what is this Easter Monday?
When did that start?
That's another Monday holiday that everybody's keeping from me.
I never knew about that.
Talent on lawn from God.
You have to say God.
Talent on loan from God doesn't quite the majesty.
Rush Limbaugh in Florida on the EIB network at 800-282-2882.
Okay, the Rolling Stone story.
Um, we've known for a while that the whole story was made up.
We've known that it was fake.
We've known why.
We've we know that the left wants to create an image of rape that is constant, frightening, never-ending, and omnipresent on American campuses.
So they created out of whole cloth a story of imaginary rape at the University of Virginia involving a fraternity.
FICAP aside.
The thing is that it didn't happen.
The woman who claimed to be the victim, Jackie, had made it all up.
When this was exposed as true months, weeks ago now, the reaction from the left, they circle the wagons around Rolling Stone, they circle the wagons around the owner and the publisher, Jan Winner.
They circle the wagons around the infobabe reporter.
And they made the point doesn't matter if it was wrong, because we know it happens.
And even if it didn't happen in this case, we know it does happen, and therefore our story is very worthwhile because we are raising consciousness levels, which is very important.
Women going to college in America need to be aware they could be raped at any moment by a frat boy if they go to a mixer, if they go to any kind of a frat house party, they should be aware.
So we've done good work here.
But it wasn't true.
It didn't happen.
This story encapsulates two very important beliefs that the left has to justify everything they do.
And to justify their failures.
And we see it time and time and time and time again.
The first principle or premise is that the nature of the evidence is irrelevant in any allegation.
Instead, what is important is the seriousness of the charge.
This was the justification for pursuing Clarence Thomas.
When Anita Hill blurted out that uh he had sexually harassed her.
There was no evidence.
It had supposedly happened long ago.
But there was never any evidence.
But the left said that doesn't matter.
The seriousness of the charge warrants that we look into this.
The first time that it was used in a prominent way that I recall, and it may have happened before this.
A guy who's still a professor is an Iran expert at Columbia University.
His name is Gary Sick.
And he wrote a book some years after the Iranian hostage crisis, which was in 1979.
And he alleged that there was a deal between the Reagan administration and the Iranian, well, the Reagan campaign during 1980 and the Iranian government to make sure the hostages were not released before the election so as not to help the incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter.
Made this allegation and put it in a book.
A book, supposedly, with all kinds of support, documentation, all kinds of evidence.
Tom Foley was the speaker of the House at the time.
This was when George H. W. Bush was president.
So this we're talking sometime between 1988 and 1992.
Remember Tom Foley, the Democrat speaker of the House going on TV and saying there's no evidence yet for this, but the seriousness of the charge demands that we investigate this.
There was nothing to it ever, and everybody knew it.
All it was was the Democrats concocting a scheme to impugn and attack Bush 41 while in office.
In fact, this might have been during the campaign of 1988.
That I'm not sure on.
But it was either to make sure he didn't get elected or make sure he didn't get re-elected.
It was one of the two.
And there were even allegations that uh there were midnight flights of Reagan campaign officials to Paris to meet with the Iranians to secure the deal.
None of it was true.
But it was all justified.
And the investigation into it was justified.
And it took months, by the way.
The idea that the Reagan campaign had arranged with the Iranians to keep the hostages hostage till after the 1980 election.
That story was the investigation of that in the 90s, went on and on and on.
So again, we had seriousness of the charge being all that mattered.
Nature of the evidence, irrelevant.
There have been other classic illustrations of this, but this has reared its head in the Rolling Stone case.
The second premise that the Democrats operate under, second principle is that never are we to examine the substance of their ideas or their programs, the results of their programs.
Take any leftist program like the war on poverty.
I don't care what it is, name it.
We are never ever supposed to examine the results because they fail, and that's why we're never supposed to look at it.
Instead, we are to judge their intentions, where we will find they have the greatest hearts in the world.
My God, they've got the biggest hearts, they care, they love people, they have all this compassion, they're only trying to help at least they're trying to do something.
And that excuses every failure involved.
Those two principles are front and center throughout this Rolling Stone story on imaginary rape at the University of Virginia.
Jan Wenner, who is the publisher, the owner, who editor, I don't know what he does, Rolling Stone, said that the problems with the article started with its source.
He described the source as a really expert, fabulous storyteller who managed to manipulate the magazine's journalism process.
What an admission.
The liar was so good.
Such a really expert fabulous.
This liar was so persuasive and so charismatic.
She fooled everybody.
She fooled our brilliant reporter.
She fooled our brilliant editors.
She fooled our photographers.
She fooled everybody.
Everybody.
Our entire journalistic process was manipulated and corrupted.
What the hell could your process have been worth if that's the case?
Isn't that the whole point?
The journalistic process didn't even exist here.
The journalistic process that he described ceased to exist long ago.
Journalism today is nothing more than a Democrat Party agenda being advanced under false premise.
That's why the story happened, because it advanced the Democrat Party agenda.
It advanced the likelihood the Democrats will win the White House again in 2016.
It advanced the agenda that the Republicans end up supporting and taking money from people that don't like women.
That's why the story ran.
That's why the liar was believed, because a blatant case of prejudice and premonition presented itself.
The people at Rolling Stone, without being told and without having any evidence, believe that women are being raped on campus every day.
Or they want us to think they do.
So here comes a fake, fabulous telling a story where it happened to her.
Bingo, we've got a potential pullitzer here.
The Duke Lacrosse case is the exact same thing.
Lacrosse player?
Well, who are they?
Well, they are rich kids.
The sons of rich East Coast white people.
And they did what all of these young kids do.
They have endless money to buy booze and who knows what else.
And they've preyed on a poor black single mother who was reduced because of the inequities of this horrible country to earn money the only way she could, which was basically to prostitute herself out.
As a dancer at scummy little lacrosse team parties.
And they believed everything that she said happened.
The faculty, almost 80% of the faculty signed a letter.
None of it happened.
Every bit of it was thrown out.
But everybody on the left believed it because it fit the imaginary world they have constructed where they live.
All of this discrimination and all of this mean spiritedness, all of this extremism, all this racism and bigotry.
And all somebody has to do is look like a good victim, come up with a story, and they automatically believe it.
Seriousness of the charge, Trumps nature of the evidence every time.
So Rolling Stone gets caught.
Let's blame the liar.
The liar was so good we got fooled.
Really clever liar caught everybody by surprise.
I said a Rolling Stone is so used to dealing with honest people like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama.
All these leftist politicians that they love and adore.
Hillary Clinton, yeah, those people tell them the truth all the time.
They're so used to dealing with all of these paragons of honesty on the Democrat Party that they naturally believed.
Another one.
This one just happened to be a victim.
They're so used to people on the left telling them the truth that they couldn't Even conceive that the woman was making it up.
There was no journalism process because there are no journalists at Rolling Stone, and there is no journalism process there.
Just like the Memories Pizza situation, a reporter went hunting for a story that fit a narrative and desire she already concocted.
The process, the process of journalism today is nothing more than the attempt to prove the liberal Democrat worldview and agenda.
That's all journalism is.
It isn't news, it isn't reporting, it isn't telling people what they don't know anymore.
It isn't standing on the corner, watch what happens, and then tell people who want their.
That's not what journalism is.
Journalism, the journalism process, as Jan Winter says, is the attempt to prove the liberal Democrat agenda.
And look how Rolling Stone defends itself.
They had any number of ways they could go here.
The source was a really expert, fabulous storyteller.
You mean like Hillary and Dodging Sniper fire?
You mean like Hillary and Barack Obama and Benghazi?
Mean like Hillary and the stories of her email and the servers.
Really?
Well, Hillary was so darn good at storytelling, she manipulated the media's journalism process too.
That's how easy this can be spotted.
Because everybody that Rolling Stone covers to one degree or another is corrupting the journalism process because the journalism process is nothing more than the attempt to establish and prove as reality the Democrat Party and liberal agenda.
The journalistic process is to elect Democrats and destroy Republicans.
That's all that happened here.
Thank you.
The process is to be a one-party country that has no constitution and destroy anybody who gets in the way of that dream.
That's the modern day journalistic process.
The Columbia journalism school review and investigation report on this thing is just priceless.
As they they chronicle every mistake that was made and then and then explain it and justify it.
And the bottom line is nobody involved in this whole story is getting fired.
Nobody is getting fired.
Why?
Because they had the best of intentions.
And the intentions, their heart in the right place, big hearts, lots of compassion, trying to help people.
That trumps the result.
The result, an embarrassing lie.
Probably the most, one of the most sordid examples of absolutely horrible journalism in the modern era.
Nobody gets canned, nobody even gets reprimanded because their intentions, they were trying to do the right thing.
And in fact, they almost got it right.
We know that rape is happening everywhere.
We know it just didn't happen here.
Damn it, it's one thing that got wrong.
But everything else about this story was right.
Men are pigs, women are at risk.
There is a war on women.
Young men are natural born predators and women aren't safe, and everybody knows it, and our story made that aware and obvious to everybody.
Your story didn't happen.
It may not there, but we know it happens.
Don't doubt us.
Their intentions were honorable.
And their hearts were in the right place.
So now the Fi Capasci fraternity said that it's moving forward with a possible lawsuit against Rolling Stone in the wake of this.
After a hundred and thirty days of living under a cloud of suspicion as a result of reckless reporting by Rolling Stone magazine, today the Virginia Alpha Chapter, Phi Capasci, announced plans to pursue all available legal actions against the magazines, the fraternity said in a statement.
The Washington Post not too long ago warned the fraternity not to do this.
The Washington Post, looking out for their journalistic brethren at Rolling Stone, warned the frat guys, if you do this, you are likely going to raise the lid on all of the nefarious activity going on in your frat house.
You may be uncovering a lot of seedy activity going on in there that you may not want anybody to know about.
So you'd better really think twice about suing our friends over at Rolling Stone.
But I guess the Frat Boys and their legal counsel decided to heck with it.
Seriously thinking about it.
Yeah, the Washington Post says, you frat boys, you better look out.
Some of you are underage and you drink, and you may have been involved in some unfortunate sexual adventures, and a lawsuit would bring it all out, and we would find out you are exactly what the Rolling Stone story alleged.
▲
Export Selection