All Episodes
Previous Next
April 20, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:44
April 20, 2015, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yes, sir, Bob.
Here we are, ladies and gentlemen.
Rush Limboy, your guiding light, America's real anchorman prepared here to anchor at the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
So I got this note from Cookie just mere moments ago.
It says, everywhere I screened, meaning video, everywhere I screened this weekend, your name came up.
Rush this, rush that.
It didn't matter if it was a Democrat senator on a Sunday show or a Canadian debate about Russia or a nice C-SPAN book TV festival.
You were everywhere.
So I looked at the audio soundbites.
Let me go.
One, two, three, four, five, six, six of them.
One of them is even Vladimir Posner.
Still living rent-free in Vladimir's head, which means I'm still living rent-free in Phil Donahue.
Where is Phil Donahue by this?
Has anybody seen Phil Donahue?
I don't know.
Just thought of that.
Anyway, folks, it's April the 20th already.
Yeah, man, it's like 420, man.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my attempt to reach out to the millennials and the libertarians, 420 being the longtime code name for pot.
Did you know that?
You didn't know that.
See, this is how, this is the reason I remain relevant and hip, even after more than 26 years behind the golden EIB microphone.
420, man.
Yeah, dig it.
They know what I'm talking about.
They actually, and it makes me want to mention also that yesterday, April 19th, what that was?
Well, April 19th is Patriots Day.
Now, I know it's Oklahoma City, but that's the seventh, so we got that Clinton.
He's not in the Rush Soundbite list here at the first, but Clinton blamed me for that.
We've got that soundbite.
Yeah, but it's also Patriots Day.
April 19th, the day of the shot heard around the world in Lexington and Concord, 240 years ago, which began the American Revolution.
And this is something that you may not know or remember, but young people reading the Rush Revere time travel adventures with American, exceptional Americans, they know it because we have written about it.
Anyway, glad you're here, folks.
We've got a full week of broadcast excellence ready to unfold.
I remain unchanged.
I am still bored as I can be with Hillary Clinton being in the news, but it is what it is.
We have to deal with it.
Have you heard that CNN, excuse me, CNN, you know, in order to salvage their plunging fortunes, CNN has announced they're going to hire 40 new reporters.
And they claim that all of them are objective and unbiased and fair and so forth.
And it's not a big deal, but I just, I continue, you know, never-ending study of the drive-by media, who they are, how they perceive themselves, and thus what they think they need to do to reverse fortunes.
And they clearly do.
But that's not the answer.
And I don't know how much money this has cost of 40 reporters ostensibly to gear up for the presidential race.
What I want to know is how many of them are going to be assigned to Hillary.
40 new reporters.
I'll bet you half of them are.
Now, this is nothing new, but it's just silly.
You know, it's absurd.
Obama has said it again.
Let's take a look at what's going on.
We have ISIS murdering 30, at least, Ethiopian Christians, 15 by drowning, 15 by beheading.
The FBI announced just this morning in Minneapolis that we have on the verge of a plague in this country of domestic Americans seeking to join ISIS because there's something romantic about it.
There's something exciting about it.
Their lives apparently are so empty that they're looking for excitement.
They want to join ISIS.
And the FBI made a major announcement in Minneapolis this morning detailing this and portraying just what a potentially huge problem it is.
Because if they are in this country, American citizens obviously are here.
And if they're showing sympathy toward ISIS and wanting to join, at some point, somebody at ISIS is going to figure out they do not have to leave America to join ISIS, and they do not have to leave America to perform various ISIS tactics.
It is an imminent threat, and it's growing.
Iran is on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon.
By the way, all of last week, I refrained commenting on the bill in the Senate, the Corker Menendez bill.
You know, the Senate ostensibly is arguing over whether or not they have a role in approving whatever deal Obama comes up with vis-a-vis Iran.
Constitutionally, the president simply cannot do what he's doing with Iran without ratification of the United States Senate.
But the Constitution has long since ceased to matter whenever Obama really wants something and the Constitution is in his way.
And so a lot of people have been looking at the Corker-Menendez bill, and it's been portrayed as the Senate finally standing up and strutting its stuff and demanding its role and asserting via this legislation that it will act.
And Obama will not be able to unilaterally strike any deal with Iran without them.
And there have been all kinds of different people and pundits and experts analyzing the Corker-Menendez bill.
And I was never comfortable last week weighing in on it because I just didn't think that what everybody was saying first, it's just my instincts.
I didn't get the impression that the people commenting on it were actually up to speed.
They were getting it all.
And it turns out that following my instincts was the right thing to do.
I have since spent some time over the weekend looking into it, and it's a joke.
Now, that was known last week.
Don't misunderstand.
It was a joke.
It was the reason why it was going to be a joke or is a joke that was up for debate and everybody had their own theory.
But it's essentially worthless and meaningless.
But I'll get to that in just a second.
The point is they got Iran on the verge of a nuclear weapon.
ISIS on the march beheading and killing Christians everywhere.
We had how many people drowned in the Mediterranean?
300 trying to get out of Libya.
There is mass murder.
There is death.
There is mayhem.
There is torture.
There is slavery.
The human condition is in great peril all over the world.
And here he comes again, Barack Hussein-O, the president of the United States, on Saturday saying that climate change poses the world's biggest threat.
It's just silly.
It's not even worth a factual discussion.
We've done that for 25 years.
It's just silly.
Today, there's no greater threat to our planet than climate change, Obama said in his weekly radio address.
And of course, it was to tie in with Earth Day, which is Wednesday.
So it's not Iran getting the bomb.
It's not ISIS taking over the Middle East.
It's not ISIS growing homegrown members in the United States.
It's not the Middle East in general burning up and on fire.
It's not any of that.
No, no, no, no, no.
And even though there hasn't been any increase in the world's temperature for 18 years, and even if it were to happen, even if the global warming that is predicted by these baseless computer models, even if it were to happen, exactly as the models say, it's not the end of anything.
It does not destroy the world.
It does not destroy anything.
It's one of the biggest scams that has ever been perpetrated on the people of the world.
Even if every prediction they're making about temperature rise, now they're making specific predictions about drought and flood, all that stuff, that's a crock.
If temperatures have risen and fallen throughout the history of the universe, climate temperature, globally, the Earth is still here, and the population has grown exponentially during all of these fluctuations in temperature.
The idea, even global warming is nothing other than computer models.
Even today, there's no evidence of it.
And this is what really about all of this astounds me more than anything is all these young people, supposedly educated.
You can excuse the low information crowd on virtually anything.
I mean, by definition, they're ignorant and you would expect it.
But people who have been educated, whatever that means in America today, there is no evidence of global warming.
It's nothing more than a project that is rooted in computer models and computer models that are making projections of 50 years and 100 years out.
I mean, not one kernel of factual evidence that anybody can point to and say, see, the models are right.
There is no certitude.
There is no consensus.
Science isn't a consensus.
And in the midst of all this, here comes Obama with all of this surrounding us, claiming that there's no greater threat to the planet than climate change.
Okay, so the question once again must be asked, why?
He said that climate change can no longer be denied, can no longer be ignored.
I'll tell you why.
Climate change is one of the most front and center opportunities that statists and totalitarians have at their disposal for quelling the freedom of individual people the world over by blaming everybody for it.
That's why it's so exciting.
That's why to people like Obama and the United Nations and everybody else, the whole idea that there is climate change and that it's destructive.
And I look, even if the two degree Celsius rise, even if that were to happen over the next 50 years, it isn't catastrophic.
There'd actually be a lot of good that would come from it in various parts of the world.
But it's not happening.
At least scientifically, it can't be proven.
Yet here it is.
It's the greatest threat of all the threats out there.
It poses the single greatest threat to you, your family, your neighborhood, your town, your city, than anything else happening.
It's absurd.
It's just the latest, and actually it's not late.
It's been since the 1980s.
It's just the ongoing liberal effort, like healthcare was, to attempt to rest and exert as much control over individuals as possible.
And that's why people like Obama and others of his ilk salivate.
At the same time, the idea of a nuclear Iran is a yawner.
In fact, it's not even that.
The idea of a nuclear Iran is something that we should not fear.
In fact, we should support it because we're supposed to trust Obama that he knows what he's doing.
The National Institutes of Health, this will come as a surprise, has spent over $400,000 studying the satisfaction levels of the first sexual experiences of young gay men.
$400,000 to study the satisfaction levels of the first sexual experience of young gay men.
You remember when the Democrats claimed, i.e. lied, at the National Institutes for Health did not have enough money to develop an Ebola vaccine because of Republican budget cuts.
Really?
$400,000 NIH spent studying the satisfaction levels of young gay men's first time.
Four-year study being conducted by Johns Hopkins University is examining the meaning and function, quote unquote, of first penetrative same-sex sexual experiences.
Now, wait a minute now.
I thought it was a hate crime to wonder about the meaning and function of homosexual intercourse.
I thought that you weren't supposed to go there.
You weren't really supposed to do that.
Now we're spending $400,000 to study it.
It's all about self-esteem.
Little is known about the meaning and function of the first same-sex experience, particularly in African American adolescent men and whether satisfaction with first penetrative same-sex experience impacts sexual trajectories.
Isn't this what we would go?
Somebody started talking to you about this in your home or at the bar, wouldn't you?
Hey, wait a minute, too much information.
I don't need to know about this.
400 grand, you're government, and now we find they're focusing on the first time satisfaction levels of gay African American men.
It's ongoing.
$410,265 so far.
Funding is not set to expire until May of 2016.
I don't know what they're going to do with the data once they collect it.
I have no idea how the data is being reported.
I don't know what they're going to do with this after they finish it.
I haven't the slightest idea.
45 African-American adolescent men are undergoing in-depth interviews for the study.
It's African-American adolescent.
Well, you define adolescent for me.
45 African-American adolescent males are undergoing an in-depth interview, in-depth interviews for the study where they're being asked to detail the satisfaction of the first time experience.
The Pope will probably support it next week.
I mean, what happened to the National Institutes for Health Research on lesbians?
It's a little sexist here, don't you think?
I mean, if we're going to examine the first time pleasure levels of homosexual if we're going to do a study to find out the satisfaction level, first time homosexual encounters of young African-American, adolescent males, have we done this on lesbians?
Have we conducted similar research and the first time satisfaction levels of gratification in lesbian sex?
I have not seen anything of the sort.
Have you seen this headline at the New York Times?
You probably haven't.
Let me share it with you.
See if you've heard this somewhere before.
Republican hopefuls in New Hampshire attack Clinton more than one another.
Where have you heard that, folks?
I think you heard that on this program some days ago, maybe last week or the week before, in which I suggested I imagine myself to be the campaign consultant for all 16 as a group.
And I was advising them as a group.
And so one of the pieces of advice I would offer is do not do what you normally do during a primary like this and go out and destroy each other.
Go out and focus on Hillary Clinton.
She is already the presumptive Democrat nominee.
And you combine two things.
When you focus on exposing Hillary Clinton, the media is not going to vet her.
The media is not going to define her.
Half the country doesn't know of the Hillary Clinton of the 90s.
The millennials only know Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, working with Barack Obama, first female president, all good stuff.
They don't know the real Hillary Clinton.
It's up to you guys to tell the people of this country who weren't alive or who weren't paying attention in the 90s who Hillary Clinton is.
And in the process of doing that, you leave each other alone.
You sink and swim on the basis of whether you can handle it yourself or not.
And you expose liberalism at the same time because Hillary is.
And this is what needs to be.
And the New York Times followed the Republicans to New Hampshire.
And by gosh, that's exactly what the Republicans did.
It looks like Bob Schieffer wants to go out with a big, big scalp.
It looks like Bob Schieffer wants to leave CBS News having taken out one of the Republican presidential candidates.
Do you remember in January of 2012?
It was a Republican primary candidate debate.
It was the debate where George Stephanopoulos kept hounding Mitt Romney on contraception and whether he favored the states having some role in it.
The subject had not come up.
It had not been brought up by anybody.
It was not an issue anywhere.
I mean, it was barely, at that point in time, it was barely a talking point in Obamacare.
But clearly, the Republican candidates were not talking about it.
They were off on other things.
And out of the blue, Stephanopoulos starts asking Romney, and Romney responded rather as expected, what's this, George?
I haven't even been thinking about it.
What do you mean?
And Stephanopoulos just kept pressing.
Yes or no?
Yes or no?
Do you favor states being in charge or banning contraception, whatever the question was?
And he just kept badgering and badgering, and Romney kept appearing more and more perplexed as to what was going on.
And finally, Stephanopoulos wouldn't give up.
Finally, Romney gave an answer just to end the discussion.
I don't even remember what his answer was.
But it was along the lines of, it isn't a big deal.
Nobody cares, George, but it didn't matter what he said.
All that mattered was that he did answer it.
And that is how the so-called Republican war on women was born.
It was, I am convinced, a tactic that had been planned by Stephanopoulos and others in Democrat campaign war rooms as a means of tripping Romney up.
So I'm going through the audio soundbite rust.
I didn't watch Sunday shows.
I never watched the Sunday shows.
I haven't watched a Sunday show since the last time I was on one.
And even then, I didn't watch it live.
I watched it via TiVo much later in the day.
And I really don't watch these anymore.
And the reason is no news is made on these shows anymore.
And you don't learn anything on these shows anymore.
And furthermore, all they are is just, each network is a Democrat campaign office.
It literally is pointless.
There is no value in the time it takes to watch any of these Sunday shows.
Maybe Chris Wallace, I have an exception for him because I think he is actually trying to make news with what he does on that program.
But the rest of the time is just promotion of the Democrat Party agenda.
And Bob Schieffer's announced he's leaving CBS.
He's, what, 95?
And he's 30 years past the Walter Cronkite mandatory retirement age.
And they're going to retire him and they're going to put in the political director named John Dickerson going to run this show once Schieffer leaves.
I guess he's going to leave sometime this summer.
And it's clear that he wants to go out, having claimed a scalp.
Are you ready for this?
This is so transparent.
This is so typical.
This is so unlike a question any Democrat would ever get.
He's interviewing Marco Rubio.
And Schieffer says, let's talk a little bit about the social issues.
Never mind, the social issues are now front and center for the Democrat Party.
The Democrat Party's going to town on social issues.
It's the Democrat Party pushing the culture war in this country.
It's the Democrat Party trying to score big on the so-called social issues.
The Republicans are running away from social issues that they've been trying to for 20 years.
The Republican establishment wants nothing to do with the social issues.
The Republican Party's made it clear time and time again that it doesn't matter.
They're going to forget all of that and talk about the economy and other things.
Right on cue, Bob Schieffer to Marco Rubio.
Let's talk a little bit about social issues.
You've said you're against gay marriage.
Do you think homosexuality is a choice?
Now, that question, that question has no probative news value.
That question, the answer to that question is worthless in terms of news value or even informing people who Rubio is.
And furthermore, do you think homosexuality is a choice has nothing to do with whether or not somebody does or does not support gay marriage?
So it's obviously a trap.
It's a setup.
Now, I understand that the Republicans, if they're going to go on these shows, they have to be aware of it and they have to be prepared for it.
I understand all that.
I'm just saying this is lame.
This is cheap.
This is obviously partisan.
It's low rent.
It is undignified.
And it is as clear as a bell what this is.
It's an indication of just how biased Schieffer is.
And it's the latest attempt by Schieffer to be the next George Stephanopoulos.
And enter a subject here that has nothing to do with who the next president is going to be.
Absolutely nothing to do with Marco Rubio's campaign.
And yet the very asking of the question is designed to make the low information crowd and the rest of the audience watching this, the whole purpose of this question is not even dependent on the answer.
The answer, if Rubio screws it up, is icing on the cake.
The whole purpose here is the question, do you think homosexuality is a choice?
That question sends a message.
And the message is Republicans are dinosaurs.
Republicans are sexists.
Republicans are mean-spirited.
Republicans do not love people.
All of that is what's wrapped up in this question.
An irrelevant, meaningless question when it comes to the presidential campaign.
Irrelevant and meaningless when it comes to defining who Marco Rubio is.
And it has nothing to do with the way Schieffer set it up or whether or not he supports gay marriage.
Well, let's listen to how Rubio answered it.
Again, the question, talk a little bit about social issues.
You've said you're against gay marriage.
Do you think that homosexuality is a choice?
What does that have to do with gay marriage?
What in the world does it have to do with gay marriage?
It has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I don't care how esoteric some of you want to get, how legalese some of you might want to get.
It has nothing to do with it.
And Schieffer knows it.
This question could be rephrased.
Are you a bigot?
Are you a homophobe?
Do you hate people?
Is what this question is.
That's what that question is.
And it's a question Schieffer would never ask Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, both of whom opposed gay marriage before it harmed them.
At times in their political careers when they felt it was okay to be honest, they said they opposed gay marriage.
At the very moment where it became necessary to support gay marriage, they changed on a dime.
If anybody deserves this question, it's Hillary Clinton.
Do you support gay marriage?
Because you used to not.
Your husband used to not.
Your husband used to oppose abortion.
I don't know about you, but your husband used to oppose abortion.
So did Barack Obama.
But all of a sudden, three years ago, everybody in your party changed their mind.
All of a sudden, gay marriage became fabulous and wonderful.
Why?
But they're never going to ask that question of the Democrats.
Because the question really isn't about homosexuality, and it's really not about gay marriage.
The question is, why do you hate people?
You're a Republican.
You obviously do.
So why do you hate people?
Why are you mean?
Why are you intolerant?
That's what this just ticks me off like you can't believe.
I do not think these people deserve these Republican guests.
Such an obvious patent setup.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we've got Rubio's.
I'm telling you the answer doesn't matter in terms of the audience.
The audience got everything they needed to know simply by the question being asked.
I'm talking about the low-information crowd or the naive or the ignorant or what have you.
Let's hear his answer if you want to hear it.
I believe the definition of the institution of marriage should be between one man and one woman.
States have always regulated marriage, and if a state wants to have a different definition, you should petition the state legislature and have a political debate.
I don't think courts should be making that decision, and I don't believe same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.
I also don't believe that your sexual preferences are a choice for the vast and enormous majority of people.
In fact, the bottom line is that I believe that sexual preference is something that people are born with.
Right.
Fine, Dandy.
Cool.
First answer on marriage right on the money.
The last part of it's okay, too.
But the whole idea of asking this question, he is guilty, as Bob Schieffer wants him to be.
He's guilty before he says a word.
He's guilty after he answers the question.
Because the question is a question that attempts to define Rubio.
Just the fact that you have to ask the question means there must be some question here about how mean or nice a guy Rubio is or how smart or Arianette or whatever.
This stuff ticks me off like I cannot tell you.
Let's take a break here.
We'll come back and we'll get started with the sound bites that feature me.
As there are many of them.
Do not go away, folks, back after this.
There's another question like the one Rubio got that I think was asked of Scott Walker.
Would you attend a homosexual marriage of someone in your family whom you loved?
Oh, you hadn't heard that one?
You think they're going to ask a Democrat that question?
These questions would never be asked because, again, as I say, the hypocrisy on this issue is all on the Democrat side.
They're the ones who all opposed this until it became politically opportunistic to do so.
And I dare say politically mandatory.
About three years ago, it became an obligation to be in favor of gay marriage.
Otherwise, the gay campaign money was going to dry up.
And at one time, gay marriage was seen as a near impossibility.
It wasn't going to happen.
It was this extreme wacko-fringe cause.
And no Democrat wanted to be seen anywhere near it until the militant gay lobby, politically gay lobby, got motivated here and started threatening to withdraw money.
And so on a dime, Obama and Hillary and all the rest of them who needed to switched and became ardent supporters of gay marriage.
And they sent Joe Biden out there to lead the transformation, making it look like Biden screwed up.
They sent Biden out.
He was on a Sunday show or somewhere, some interview, and he made it look like he said something he shouldn't have said, as in letting a cat out of the bag or maybe making a gaff.
But nobody refuted it.
They kind of got mad at, Joe, what are you doing?
They treated him as, there goes Joe.
Let's just go.
Joe, the gums are flapping.
Nobody knows what's going to come out.
But they stood by it because the gays were threatening to withhold money.
I mean, if anybody deserves these questions, it's Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
They're the ones who used to be steadfastly opposed to this.
So do you think homosexuality is a choice?
Would you attend a homosexual wedding if it featured someone you loved?
They asked Walker.
Walker's answer was, well, no, I wouldn't.
I would attend the reception, but I would not go to the actual ceremony.
The questions are traps, and the answer can make it worse, but the question itself is what is to do the damage.
The question being asked is the attempt to damage the candidate.
Do you think homosexuality is a choice?
The implication, you bigot, you closed-minded Neanderthal, you hate monger.
That's what's implied in the question.
And the same thing with whether or not you'd go to a gay wedding if a loved family member were in it.
Loaded questions.
You know, I said we're going to go to the rush sound bites, but I think I'm going to save that for the open and the top of the next hour.
Let's start on the phones and tell me, line one or two, which one do you want me to take here?
I can, either one of them.
Which one?
That would be Chuck in Virginia Beach.
Chuckster, great to have you here.
You're up first today on the EIB network.
Hello.
Ditto, Rush.
It's great to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
Look, you just said on your program that the Republicans need to focus on Hillary Clinton.
I disagree.
Why?
Especially during the primary.
Why can't they put forth a good, sound, conservative plan for America rather than sink to the Democrats' level of campaigning and using personality?
No, no, no.
That's exactly what I'm suggesting.
I'm suggesting that they go after Hillary by drawing a contrast between...
I'm not just attacker for the sake of it.
Oh, no, no, no, no.
I know that.
But I'm just thinking, forget Hillary altogether, especially during the primary.
Go ahead and put forth our conservative plans for.
I don't think they can wait for the general because by the time the general comes around, the Republican candidate is going to be so damaged.
Whoever the Republican nominee is going to go into the general election already damaged, maybe beyond repair by the media, by the Democrats.
And Hillary is going to be unscathed if we follow your theory.
Hillary needs to be damaged right now when there's a chance to do it.
With 16, 15, whatever it is, Republicans defining her.
I'm not talking about being mean to her.
I'm talking about informing people who she is.
I don't care about being mean to her.
I'm just thinking that the important thing for us to do is to put forth a plan that works for America and let the American voter hear it and know it.
Yeah, don't attack each other.
Remember the 11th Commandment and all that.
Just go forward and put forth our plans and argue the merits of our plans.
And if the Democrats have something to say against that, say, what do you got that's any better?
And I think the American people are smart enough to know that a good plan is going to work and we can win with a good plan rather than going ahead and doing these political sniping at each other.
Well, let me make a prediction to you.
Okay.
The Republican candidates are, at one point, going to start in after another.
It's the nature of the game.
I would like to see it delayed for as long as possible.
What I don't want to see, Chuck, in the process of us putting together our killer idea and killer plan, I don't want to see conservative nominee after conservative nominee after conservative nominee taken out and disqualified because he might not be a full-fledged conservative on a certain issue that, say, the Tea Party or some other conservative group demands.
The history of these things is that we take out all the conservative candidates and leave the moderate establishment as the only guy standing.
That's how we got Romney.
It's how we got McCain.
So rather than go after each other as being impure On conservative issues here or there.
The opportunity is based, going after Hillary, it's an opportunity based on the fact that there are a lot of Americans, Chuck, who do not know her the way you do.
And you can't leave it to the assumption.
You can't let it be assumed that people now know everything about Hillary because many of them were not alive or were not old enough to know who Hillary is and what she was and what she did.
And my whole point has been that if you go after Hillary, you're going after liberalism.
You're drawing a contrast between Hillary and liberalism and conservatism because obviously you advance your own agenda at the same time.
And you point out how Hillary's doesn't work by pointing out the last six years and her role in it.
It seems to me to be a slam dunk.
But it's not one of these either-or things.
It's not as though if you go after Hillary, you don't advance your own agenda.
You do both at the same time.
Yeah, once again, my friends, I was blamed for everything except global warming over the weekend on television, coast to coast, and even as far north as Canada.
▲
Export Selection