All Episodes
Previous Next
April 7, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:42
April 7, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings and welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
And as always, coming to you from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, the telephone number 800 282882.
And if you want to send an email, we see them.
Check them every break.
L Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
Now the bottom line is this whole business.
I keep struggling to find different ways of making the point, because obviously I'm trying to be persuasive on this.
If you go back in the late 70s and early, it's nerdly you'll remember this because you lived in New York, New Jersey at this time.
Back in the in the late 70s and early 80s, there were constant gay demonstrations, gay rights demonstrations in the West Village in New York City, and they always chanted, what do we want just to be left alone.
And that's undergone a major transformation.
Now it's not about being left alone.
Now it's about being accepted.
And if the acceptance is not forthcoming, then there is going to be force attempted.
My whole point with this, and I want to stress, as I have on numerous occasions.
The gay community, like every other community, is not monolithic.
You have in the gay community, all kinds of gay people are apolitical.
They don't care about politics, they're not involved, they're certainly not activists, just like you have in in any other group.
But you also have, as is the case in every other group, some died in the wool activists.
Now, when it comes to militant gay activists, they're almost all leftists.
And gay rights is not what this is about anymore.
This is it's gone way beyond that.
Uh this is about an all-out assault on essentially religion, but it's also an assault on majority, the majority or any majority, numerical majority or any other kind.
Uh and it's about a quest to secure power from this majority.
And I'm sure that many of the militant gay activists, just like any of the other civil rights activists you find on the left, are kind of stunned at how easy their task has been.
They're not finding a whole lot of resistance.
When they do encounter resistance, particularly if it's uh identified as a Republican Party, there's almost an immediate cave to any anger or outrage expressed by it.
But the the best way to illustrate this is like in Indiana and this whole business of uh wedding cake or in Denver, a wedding cake or wedding pictures.
The fact of the matter is that any gay couple, married or otherwise, doesn't matter.
Any gay couple, well, let's since marriage is what the objection is to, let's focus on that.
A gay couple in anywhere in Indiana, probably wanting to get married, or anywhere in New Mexico or anywhere in Colorado or California, can find somebody to make them a cake.
Now the impression that is desired is that they can't.
They want to create the picture that there's so much bigotry and so much discrimination, so much anti-gay bias, so much homophobia, that they can't even get a cake bake for a wedding.
And all they do is love each other.
But what the hell?
But there's clearly any number of places they could go to get a cake baked.
What they do is target for a place that specifically will not.
And by the way, it's it's a it's a it's a militant activist couple that would push this envelope.
It's all politics, folks.
It's a pure Political issue that is that is about making forcing, intimidating, threatening whatever, the current majorities, to cave.
And that has a political objective to it.
Now it's all shrouded in the quest for fairness, and the quest for equality, and the quest for social justice.
But there are any number of people in this country who need a product or service who will have it denied them somewhere for some reason or another.
And in that case, they simply go where there isn't a problem.
But the picture is being created, and the media is helping.
The image that is taking hold is that the majority of Americans are a bunch of hobafoe.
They all happen to be Republicans, don't you know?
And that homosexuals who want to get married, who come out and do so publicly, are finding impossible odds arrayed against them, stacked against them, creating a picture of massive discrimination, total injustice, incredible unfairness, and it's not an accurate picture.
It's designed to get people to cave and compromise their beliefs and their and their principles, not for the end result of social, well, for there to be an expansion of rights.
It's specifically about trying to wrest control or power away from majorities simply because this is a majority rule country, and if you're in the minority, if you're in a minority that's barely 5% of the population,
and you don't like that, and you don't want to deal with the realities of what that means, then you're going to have your political activists help you go about trying to intimidate that majority into not acting in their own uh principled interests or what have you.
So it leads to a culture war, and we've been in this for years, decades now.
And it's not just about militant homosexual feminism is all in intertwined in this racial politic.
Ferguson, Missouri.
And the fact is, the bottom line, every one of these major big news stories are all lies.
They are manufactured and made up.
Rape on campus is an example.
UVA, the Rolling Stone story.
What could be the purpose?
What in the world?
Why would somebody purposely publish a story that's not true?
About a premise that isn't true.
Why would they do it?
They have a reason, they're doing it on purpose.
There's no question there's a reason for it.
And even when it's exposed, even when it's exposed, now the drive-by media is doing a list of victims of the Rolling Stone story.
Who do you think the number one victim of?
You would think it would be the fraternity that was lied about.
The fraternity who was impugned and maligned and was shut out of campus.
And everybody thinking they were just a bunch of reprobates running around mistreating women and getting them drunk and raping them, and it happens every day and every night, you would think they'd be the number one.
No, the number one victim, according to media analyst in the drive-by media, is the woman who made it up.
Jackie was her name.
She's the woman who made it all up.
And she is being said to be the biggest victim of all of this.
Nobody's been fired for this.
Nobody's even going to be reprimanded for it.
What we have here, not even journalism.
You call it.
Look, it all it is is the is the daily Journalism has become the daily march of the Democrat Party agenda, which is the leftist agenda.
That's all media is today.
And probably has been for a long time.
Now they just make no bones about it.
So the answer to all this, I mean, the real point of all this, how do you stop it?
What is the best way to avoid succumbing to all of this phony pressure?
The phony allegations, the lying and fake news stories that are driving all this.
The bottom line is the proponents of all this, the culture war, that the people instigating it, the leftists behind it, literally have to make up things in order to get their ideas advanced.
They cannot live in the world of reality.
Because their claims are not true for the most part.
But they've got everybody befuddled how to best deal with this.
Because everybody lives under the false impression that somehow they can be mollified, and that individuals can show that we don't really, we don't dislike you, we don't mean you any harm.
And somehow we can tell you the truth about who we are.
Once you learn who we really are, you'll stop trying to damage us.
That's not ever going to happen.
They don't care to get to know you.
They already do.
They don't like you as you are, pure and simple, because they've concocted notions that you want to deny them left and right, this kind of thing.
It's all it's a deeply.
What's the word?
It is a deeply woven web of deceit here.
And most people are uncomfortable being involved in it at all and always seek what they think will be the easiest way out, which to many people is acquiescence.
It's caving in thinking that that'll be the end of it, and it never is.
In most cases, it's just the beginning.
Look at what's happening in California.
This is a, I think, a classic example.
There's been a drought in California for as long as I can remember.
But the current drought is said to be four years, said to be the severest drought anybody alive can remember.
The snowpack doesn't exist in places that there are usually feet of it, waiting to melt, and provide fresh water sources and resources for the entire state.
Well, this is a crisis made order for the left.
Because don't you know?
Here's Governor Moonbeam running around now slapping restrictions on water usage statewide, blaming it on global warming, climate change, and claiming that they have all decided, scientists have agreed there's a consensus that says this is permanent.
This is not part of an elongated weather cycle, meteorological cycle that will eventually end with another hundred-year flood and blah, blah.
This is permanent.
This drought is forever.
This is the new California.
And there isn't enough water to sustain the people that live here.
There are too many people that live here.
There were never this many people intended to live here.
40 million, no way, it's impossible.
So the left is salivating at the chance, at the opportunity to once again move in and further dictate and control behavior and life, and slap restrictions, further restrictions on the actual veritable freedom of the people in California.
And they end up getting many people in California to agree with them because it's all about they've set the table.
Well, they've told these people for decades that this was going to happen.
They've accused them of destroying the climate, destroying the planet, and now you've done it.
You didn't listen to us these last 20 years, and you didn't reduce your carbon emissions, and you didn't start driving enough electric cars or whatever the hell.
And now look, now it's permanent.
it isn't permanent, but even nobody knows it cannot be established, but it's just a political statement that it is.
Now I read a piece at redstate.com today posted by uh Seaton Motley, and this is a good thought that the next thing to happen with this is the federal government will come in and try to nationalize this.
And I don't doubt that for a I don't doubt that Obama is salivating over the opportunity to get in front of and exert total control over the drought and the water restrictions and everything involved with that in California, because this is what they are absorbed with.
They are just consumed with this desire to control people, to control way people live, and to inflict and meet out punishment.
So people likely gonna end up with uh water meters in their house.
And their usage is going to be monitored, and there will be heavy fines for people.
The average shower said to be no longer than five minutes, and if you go over that, the minimum fine could be in the hundreds of dollars.
All this still being formulated now, but these are some of the preliminaries.
All because some politician and a bunch of pseudoscientists claim it's permanent.
This permanent damage brought on by profligate climate change, brought on by selfish Americans.
But here come the guys on the white horses to save the day, to save the state from the very people who have destroyed it.
And I mentioned Carly Fiorina earlier.
Carly Fiorina, she former CEO of Hewlett Packard, a former Republican uh candidate.
She ran for the Senate in California.
She was part of the McCain team back in 2008.
But she is on fire, taking on everybody, and particularly in California, and she is blaming liberal environmentalist wackos for what she calls a man-made drought in California.
She said this is a man-made disaster.
She's considering running for president 2016.
She says that California is a classic case of liberals being willing to sacrifice other people's lives and livelihoods at the altar of their ideology.
It is a tragedy.
Tragedy of California because of liberal environmentalists' insistence, despite the fact that California has suffered from droughts for millennia.
Liberal environmentalists have prevented the building of a single new reservoir or a single new water conveyance system over decades during a period in which California's population has doubled.
There is a man-made lack of water in California, and Washington manages the water for the farmers.
And she's right.
I gotta take a break.
Back to the phones, Allentown, Pennsylvania.
This is Mac, and welcome, sir.
It's great to have you with us.
Hello.
Oh, thank you, Rush.
It's an honor to talk to you.
Listen, I'd like to uh talk about the agreement that uh they're pursuing the Obama administration's pursuing with Iran.
And uh, you know, what makes it particularly devastating is uh the stated objective is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear device, which has been a stated objective for a long time.
Well, but see, actually it isn't.
Well, the presumption that probably presumption is, but the objective isn't that Iran will get a nuclear weapon in ten to thirteen years.
That's the state.
I I disagree with that.
In the intelligence community, particularly Israel, the presumption has been that they had a testable device for a while, limited.
What they're really pursuing, in my opinion, is a sustainable weapons program.
Oh, that would be the reason to never test it because of the repercussions from the international community.
If you look at the evidence, the amount of centrifuges are running, the independent work on long-range missile technology.
The only way to accomplish this is to remove the sanctions and to prevent uh in the international community from bearing down on it.
If they test now, it'll bring a backlash, it'll prevent them obtaining.
No, no, I I I agree with all that.
I I think you misunderstood.
My It is not Obama's intention to deny them nuclear weapons or power.
He only states that.
That's been our traditional stance is that they shouldn't.
But the Obama deal, the deal on the table, Obama's even conceded that their breakout time for nuclear weapons could be almost down to zero after thirteen years, meaning they're thirteen years away from getting it.
They're much closer than that, as you point out.
Oh, I agree with you, and I believe it's maybe six years, and I think if that happens, uh you know, we're gonna move to extortion diplomacy.
And I believe once they have the capability to build a sustainable weapons program, because that's what's needed, um we're in much worse trouble than we are.
And I actually have to do that.
Well, you mean as opposed to one nuke?
That's not a absolutely.
And Netanyahu referred to this in a roundabout ways, and uh, you know, the sanctions have worked for preventing them pursuing their real goal up to this point.
But if the sanctions come off, uh they're gonna make all the fuel they need.
They're gonna keep pursuing the long-range missile technology.
The sanctions have come off, and we are not demanding they reduce their centrifuges.
They get to keep them and even build on them.
That's exactly right.
And that's why keeping what they produce is such an important factor, then they're never gonna let it outside of their borders or store it in Russia or anywhere else.
No way.
No way.
So I think we're heading towards a very dangerous time, and from having friends on the ground in Egypt that uh they really perceive as all America thinks the way Obama does, of course.
Well, they're not right about that, but I'll tell you it may be time to review Obama's foreign policy.
Let me do this after a break.
I think this will be a cold dash of reality for you.
Daniel Pipes.
I found this at a uh on a post today by John Hindrocker at uh at Tower Line.
Daniel Pipes, who is a Middle East expert think tank specialist, has really put together a great paragraph that describes the wreckage that is the Obama foreign policy.
Count the mistakes, helping overthrow Moammar Qaddafi in Libya, leading to anarchy and civil war, and ultimately Benghazi.
Pressuring Hasni Mubarak of Egypt to quit, and then backing the Muslim Brotherhood.
And then the Arab Spring, what a total disaster that was.
This in turn has led the now president of Egypt, Al-Sisi, to turn toward Moscow.
Because we've alienated him.
He's not our guy.
The Muslim Brotherhood was our guy, and the Muslim Brotherhood made a mess of things.
The Egyptians threw him out.
Al Sisi is a good guy, but he's not one of ours.
Obama doesn't particularly care for him, so he's had to turn to Moscow.
We have alienated our most stalwart ally in the Middle East, that would be Israel.
Obama said of ISIS, the junior varsity just before they seized major cities.
Obama hailed Yemen as a counterterrorism success just before its government was overthrown.
This alarmed the Saudis to the point that they put together a military alliance against Iran.
And then Obama decided to coddle the leader of Turkey, encouraging his dictatorial tendencies.
We got out of Iraq and Afghanistan prematurely.
We have doomed the vast American investment in those two countries.
We've just basically wiped out every accomplishment that was made there.
All because Obama didn't agree with us going in the first place.
Now what this what this leads to, it is a question that has been on the tip of everybody's tongue since practically the first day of this admin.
Well, in my tongue since two weeks prior to the inauguration, you'll never forget when I said I hope he fails.
And everything you see now is why I said that.
But here's the question that everybody has.
Is it on purpose or is it in competence?
Is the Obama foreign policy disaster?
The sum total of his foreign policy is a disaster, all these elements of it.
Is it on purpose or is it incompetence?
Another way of asking, is Obama succeeding?
Is this what he wants in the Middle East?
Or does he want something else that isn't working?
Does he really believe that everything he's done foreign policy-wise would renew love and respect for the United States and bring peace and tranquility to the region?
Or does he want this chaos?
Does he want Israel to be in everybody's crosshairs?
Does he want the United States to have a reduced role and thus much less influence in the region?
Does he want this chaos?
So is he failing or is he succeeding?
And that depends on what the objective is.
And this is what people still are uncertain of.
Daniel Pipes continues, is this a random series of errors by an incompetent leadership, or does some grand, if misconceived, idea stand behind this pattern?
Yeah.
To an extent, its ineptitude, as when Obama bowed to the Saudi king and threatened Syria's government over chemical weapons before changing his mind.
And now sends the U.S. military to aid Iran in Iraq and fight it in Yemen.
Stop and think about that.
We send the U.S. military to help Iran in Iraq, i.e., fighting ISIS, and to fight Iran in Yemen.
Now, at the end of every one of these listed disasters, mistakes, or successes, depending on your perspective.
There is Iran getting a nuclear weapon.
And I think by now, those of us who pay attention on a daily basis have become fairly confident that there is no deal.
The Iranians are happy because their sanctions have been lifted, but there are no restrictions.
There's just a series of promises that we're going to talk further, and that Obama and John Kerry caved on virtually every demand that we had made.
And the Iranians said, nope, that doesn't work for us.
I'm sorry, Mr. Kerry.
He caved.
Every one.
Three or four different things.
And the end result of this is, like our last caller said, Iran doesn't just end up with a single nuclear bomb and the ability to make more.
They end up with a nuclear program, nuclear power, nuclear weaponry, which will provide a brand new, unprecedented destabilization of the region.
And the question continues to be asked, is this on purpose or is this ineptitude?
Now, the ineptitude people say, no, this is Obama's naivete.
He really believes in his own speeches.
And he really believes that we have no business telling what countries that what weapons they can't have.
And I believe that, but I really believe he thinks that we've had no business being who we are since the days of our founding.
For whatever reasons, we've been through them left and right.
I think he thinks this country is unjust and immoral, ill-conceived, and all these things.
And we've had no right to tell people around the world what they can and can't do.
So...
None of our business whether Iranians have a nuclear weapon or not.
They've got the ability to make one.
Who are we to tell them they can't?
Nobody told us we couldn't.
Absent the concept of good guys and bad guys, then it might be easy to look at the world that way.
So Obama says we don't have a right to tell them they can't get a nuclear weapon.
So instead, what he says is it's up to us to persuade them never to use what they build for aggressive purposes.
And that's just utter denial in who we're talking about here.
Obama gave an interview with uh Thomas Loopy Friedman.
Let me see if I have that here.
Please tell me I printed this out, please.
Please tell me I printed it.
Oh, come on, did I print it out or not?
I'm gonna have to summarize it.
Obama said to Thomas Loopy Friedman, and it was about our foreign policy, obviously.
Obama said, look, we've been trying things for 50 years here.
And we've never tried anything different.
Look, we are the all-powerful United States.
We've got all the power in the world to start trying different things.
He said, Look at Cuba.
Cuba can't do a damn thing to us.
Since 1959, we've frozen them out.
Well, let's try something new.
Let's open up.
Let's see if it changes things for the Cuban people and for the United States.
What harm is there?
If it doesn't work, then we'll go try something else.
Ditto Iran.
We've been trying to tell the Iranians they can't have a nuclear weapon for all these years.
We've been calling them names and calling them the state sponsors of terrorism.
But we haven't tried anything different.
Let's try something different.
We're the powerful region.
Iran's a small country.
They can't do anything to anybody.
He really said this.
They have a GDP of 30 billion.
We've got a GDP of whatever it is.
It's a tiny country compared to us.
We've got all the power in the region.
Let's try something new.
Let's try something that's, and he used the magic words change.
Young people love the word change.
The uh uh low information crowd loves the word change.
Believe me, it's a magical word.
Uh for for particularly for for leftists.
Do not doubt me on this.
Damn it, I wish they had this thing in front of me.
I'm gonna print it out during the break.
Because the whole point of it is that Obama is saying, look, we've been doing things the same for 30, 40, 50 years, and it's not gotten any better.
It hasn't made any difference.
We're so powerful, we can't be hurt by trying something new.
Let's go ahead and try a new approach.
If it doesn't work, then we'll try something else.
And if you read it, you may say, oh, it makes some sense.
But it's it's rooted in total naive.
The reason there are reasons that we have been consistent.
From administration to administration, party to party, there's a reason we've been consistent, and that's because of a common understanding of who the bad guys are and who the good guys are in wherever in the world you're talking.
That's the thing that escapes Obama.
Probably purposefully.
Let me take a break and I'll find it.
They'd be right back.
Don't go away.
But the point is, Obama says here that we can take all these risks and test these propositions without putting ourselves at risk.
I've got to save this for tomorrow.
Quick phone call, Mark in Waterford, Michigan.
Great to have you, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you for taking the call.
You bet.
Uh, in in this morning's uh Detroit News, there was an article uh that the Detroit Tigers announced that they will be hosting their first LGBT pride night on June 3rd.
Now uh what this has to do with baseball, I have no clue.
And the timing of this announcement couldn't be more suspect.
Uh the day after opening day in Detroit, which is like a national holiday here.
Um, I love baseball.
Baseball's probably my favorite sport next to golf.
But what does this have to do with baseball?
Nothing.
It has to do with the Tigers are moistening their finger and they're putting it in the wind.
And they're thinking, okay, how can we avoid what happened to Indiana?
How can we avoid being a target?
How can we avoid being the enemy where they want to put us out of business or whatever?
That's all it is.
Um at least on the surface, that's my best guess.
I don't know how long they've had it planned.
It maybe it's something they conceived.
Last fall when they're putting this year's schedule together.
Who knows?
But it's probably rooted in Indiana and a desire to keep the hordes away from the ballpark.
Okay, out of time here today, folks.
I know where the time has gone.
It just goes by so fast, but there's always tomorrow, and we always look forward to it.
So appreciative and thankful you've been with us today, as every day.
And we'll be back loaded and ready to go tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection