All Episodes
Previous Next
April 27, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:35
April 27, 2015, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations daily.
Rush Limbaugh doing the work the drive-by media used to do.
Maybe.
I actually can't remember the last time they were what they claim to be.
Many, many, many moons ago.
Nevertheless, we're here and taking care of business.
Great to have you, 800 282-2882 if you want to be on the program at the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
So I checked email during the break.
You didn't tell us about the battery life of the watch.
It's not a problem, folks.
This, at least in my usage, and I spent quite a bit of time on Friday playing with it, using it much more than I'm anybody will use it during normal course of events after you have it and got to playing with it out of your system.
This watch for me is going to get anywhere from 16 to 20 hours on a on a charge.
It isn't going to be a hassle.
But even if it weren't, I'd just plug in the second watch while use it while the first watch is charging.
But that hasn't been a problem.
In fact, the battery life is uh is stupendous.
If that's something that's got you concerned, uh don't let it be.
George W. Bush, closed door meeting, Jewish donors Saturday night, Las Vegas, delivered his harshest public criticism to date against Barack Hussein Oh on foreign policy.
He said that uh President Obama is being naive about Iran and the pending nuclear deal and losing the war against ISIS, the Islamic state.
And it's this is the first time Bush has said anything, and the drive-by media is outraged.
I mean, it's laughable.
This is a this is a Doomburg story for George W. Bush.
The remarks in Vegas showed he has little respect for how the current president is running the world.
He also revealed that he takes little responsibility for the policies that he put in place that contributed to the current state of affairs.
This is not an editorial.
It's supposed to be a news story, but it concludes with Bush also revealed, revealed he takes little responsibility for the policies he put in place that contributed to the current state.
You know, we live in really do two different universes.
If anybody's policies are destroying success in the Middle East, it's this administration's.
Bush's policies are gone.
They've been overridden.
They have been nullified and negated.
And this is not a full-throated defense of them.
Don't misunderstand.
But this is just classic.
Bush has been among the politest of former presidents.
It didn't take Bill Clinton but a couple of days to start weighing in on George W. Bush.
And after those couple of days, it seemed like every week or month, Bill Clinton or Al Gore or somebody is overseas trashing Bush, trashing the war in Iraq, trashing the United States.
It was the rigor.
It was every day, it seemed.
There was no respect shown in anywhere near the level of respect that George W. Bush has shown.
And this was not even in public.
I mean, it was a fundraiser, donors, and it was at the Venetian, which is Sheldon Adelson's property.
Oh, and they had to get that in.
Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers, and all the rest of these Republican donors.
They're all guilty of something.
Being Republicans.
And Bloomberg calls what Bush did bashing.
I think calling Obama naive is being far too generous.
George W. Bush says that our policies in the Middle East and a dealing with Iran are naive, and Bloomberg calls that bashing.
One attendee at the Republican Jewish Coalition, that's the title of the group, the Republican Jewish Coalition Session, held at the Venetian with owner Sheldon Adelson, transcribed large portions of Bush's remarks.
The former president, who rarely ever criticizes Obama in public, at first remarked the idea of re-entering the political arena was something he did not want to do.
He then proceeded to explain why Obama, in his view, was placing the U.S. in retreat around the world.
He also said that Obama was misreading Iran's attentions while relaxing sanctions on Tehran too easily.
How can anybody see it otherwise?
This isn't even bashing.
This is just correct.
Correct observation and commentary.
Bush said that Obama's plan to lift sanctions on Iran with a promise that they could snap back in place at any time was not plausible.
He also said the deal would be bad for American national security in the long term.
And they quote Bush as saying, You think the Middle East is chaotic now.
Imagine what it looked like looks like for our grandchildren.
That's how Americans should view the deal.
Bush then went into a detailed criticism of Obama's policies in fighting ISIS and dealing with the chaos in Iraq.
On Obama's decision to withdraw all U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of 2011, he quoted Senator Lindsey Graham, calling it a strategic blunder.
Bush signed an agreement.
Oh, this is this is pretty telling, too.
Bush signed an agreement with the Iraqi government to withdraw those troops.
But the idea had been to negotiate a new status of forces agreement to keep forces there past 2011.
The Obama administration tried and failed to negotiate such an agreement.
That's a blatant lie.
That is just an out and out lie.
The Obama administration did not try to get such an agreement.
They did not want to the Iranian the Iraqis wanted our troops to remain.
They offered a very feasible deal.
Status of forces.
The argument was, as it always is in these things.
We did not want our troops subject to war crimes charges and trials.
As a result of any action they might be involved in in Iraq post-American departure.
And the Iraqis at first hedged on that, but then ultimately came through and granted it.
And Obama's all running around saying that the Iraqis are intransigent on it and that they will not concede and will not grant and Obama's.
I'm not going to subject our troops to that circumstance.
And it just isn't out and out lie.
According to even the New York Times, the Obama administration was offered exactly the same agreement in 2011 that they've accepted now.
They have finally accepted it, but they were offered it in 2011, turned it down.
So this story absolutely gets that wrong.
Bush said that he views the rise of ISIS as Al Qaeda's second act, and that they may have changed the name, but that murdering innocence is still the favored tactic.
Obama promised to degrade and destroy ISIS's forces, but then didn't develop a strategy to complete the mission, Bush said.
He said that if you have a military goal and you mean it, you call in your military.
You say, what's your plan?
He indirectly touted his own decision to surge troops in Iraq in 2007 by saying, when the plan wasn't working in Iraq, we changed it.
So you see, indirectly touted his own decision.
But Doomberg thinks that every Bush policy was an abject failure, and that Bush didn't have the guts to admit that.
Let's not forget, folks, that Obama and Joe Biden, hell, half the Democrat Party made fun of and mocked the surge during the 2007 and 2008 campaign.
Said it wouldn't work.
Dingy Harry's out there.
This war is lost.
Petraeus is called up to explain the surge on Capitol Hill and everybody from Hillary to Dingy Harry, basically accused him of lying before he's even testified.
And all the while, see, Obama had a plan.
Yeah, the brilliant young boy president had a plan.
We were going to bug out of the Middle East.
We're going to let Iran and Russia have it.
That's what the plan was.
That's what Obama's plan was.
We had no business being there.
It's none of our concern.
Especially if it's telling Iran they can't have nukes.
It's none of our business.
What if somebody had told us you know the drill?
The only reason all of that hasn't happened?
ISIS.
ISIS gummed up Obama's plan.
If ISIS hadn't come along, believe me, the Middle East would look very differently today, and we wouldn't be there.
And I realize some people think that's good.
You know, I run into people now and then, like the avowed socialists that I referenced on the golf course about a month ago, who said to me, but don't you think that it's ought to get a better deal just to get out of there?
And let those people just defect each other.
And if they wipe each other out, it's it's fine and dimy, but what are we going there?
We have no business being there.
And if they if they if they if they want to fight among themselves, then Syria, what's wrong with that?
So there are a lot of people think it's a perfectly good plan just to get out of there.
But that ignores the uh the role of the United States and the world, and if you ignore the role of the United States and the world, it means you don't really have a concept of the importance of the United States, nor do you understand why the U.S. is important.
And that to me is also it is tragic.
But education combined with the media leads to a lot of Americans' minds literally being polluted.
Quick time out back with more after this.
Here is Frank in Albany.
Frank, I'm glad you called.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello, sir.
Thank you very much for taking my call.
And just uh before I get to my point, I just want to give a little shout out, shout out to uh Mr. Snurley, uh, what an intelligent uh just got to the core of my issue and helped me along with it.
And uh and I just want to also uh the the speech that you made for Mr. Kit Carson um was just so genuine and heartfelt uh that um the your description of him if more men, uh more people in the world were like him, uh we'd be in a much better place.
And um just want to say that it was uh I wish I could have gotten to known him.
Well, thank you.
Thank you very much.
You say that Mr. Sturdley helped you focus on your the point you wanted to discuss here?
Yes, he did, because I was Well, let's let's test that out.
Let's see.
Let's see how you do.
What is it you call about, Frank?
Well, what you were talking about earlier, I I thought about a month ago, and I was just I almost pulled over.
I was so mad at my uh mad at things, and I said, Why didn't I think this earlier?
With with all this riot stuff going on, all I thought about was somebody had if somebody just said, you know what?
Let's these let's let these people do whatever they want, because we're gonna assume they can't control themselves.
Instead of going out there and saying, listen, you do anything, and you're gonna get arrested.
No, it was more like, well, we understand you guys can't control yourself, so we're gonna let you do whatever you want to do, you know, blow off some steam, kind of like you said earlier.
Right.
Uh it's just and the liberal media that just absolutely doesn't call them on it.
Or our friends, uh uh Mr. Jeffy Jackson or or our uh uh our other friend there, um, I can't think of his name right now.
Short thing.
Why didn't they come out and say, listen, look how they're treating you.
They think that you can't control yourself.
That's why they're letting you do this kind of stuff.
Well, none of the great answer to the question.
They don't want them to be responsible.
They want to be responsible for them.
They don't want these people to respond to reason.
They don't, they're not trying to help these people.
It's the bottom line, they're not trying to help these people.
Uh, I have chosen to categorize this in a in a way.
I'm always trying to come up with ways of describing things that'll help me persuade people what's really going on.
Now, here you have in the case of Ferguson, or now in Baltimore, you have the grievance industry on parade.
And a grievance, if your grievance is against the country, then as far as the left concern, it's valid.
Whatever your grievance is, and you are going to be represented and you're going to be encouraged in acting out that grievance.
Because the desire here is not for I know what you're saying.
Why doesn't Al Sharpton or the Reverend Jackson get their megaphones out and go to where the protesters are raising hell and say, did you hear what this mayor said?
This mayor said that you people have to be given space to go out and destroy it because that's what you're gonna do.
Well, how about shaping up and exhibiting a little self-restraint and some responsibility, and let's not go about it this way.
Jesse Jackson will say that in private to a group here or a group there.
He'll disavow it if his remarks are caught on camera or a microphone.
But he has in private and small groups said that.
But in public, never.
No way.
He is not going to, and neither will Sharp.
He's not going to say to these people, you've just been insulted.
The mayor just said you can't control yourselves.
The mayor just said that you're out of control.
The only way to deal with you is to let you go ahead and make fools of yourselves.
Well, show them you're different.
That's not serve the purpose of the cause.
The grievance industry requires people angry.
The grievance industry helps fulfill and portray the idea that this country is unfair, that it's unjust, that it is immoral, and it has been that way since its first days.
And what they want you to think is happening is that finally, after 230 plus years, the aggrieved have had it.
They've reached their limit, and they're now standing up and they are demanding redress.
They are demanding fairness.
They are demanding equality.
And this, in fact, publicly is what the Reverend Sharpton and Jackson promote.
What you're suggesting is a good idea, but this is what responsible parents do, uh, or responsible mentors.
A parent or responsible mentor is trying to get anybody to be the best they can be.
It's trying to inspire people to live the right way and have good manners and all that.
But that's not a factor here.
There is no mentoring going on.
In fact, the encouragement is all the other way.
They throw gasoline on these riots.
throw fuel on these fires.
That'd be the worst thing that could ever happen for Sharpton and Jackson if this This stuff stopped happening.
And there wouldn't be any need for them.
That's see that's the that that's the real bummer about all this.
These people's lives are in a process of being utterly totally destroyed and rendered meaningless in the long haul of things.
And they're being encouraged.
Nobody's trying to motivate them, inspire them to seek greater heights, be better than they can be.
No, when that's brought up, people laugh at you say, Yeah, you just don't understand Rush.
That doesn't work for the people we're talking about.
It works for everybody, human beings are human beings.
Some days the scope and the difficulty of my job is made very clear to me.
There are people who have been with me for all intents and purposes since day one.
Now, Mr. Snerdley has been intimately aware of this program since day one.
He didn't join the program until a couple of his cousins bombed out.
Mario Snerdley didn't work out, and Melvis Nerdley was first.
But Snerdley was around.
He's been around the program for all 26 years, whatever it is.
Snurdley just asked me a question that by virtue of being here 26 years, he should know the answer to it.
And yet he still had to ask me.
And this tells me if somebody that's been here every minute, other than vacations, of course, of the past 26 years and still doesn't know the answer to this, then what can I expect audience members Who cannot spend that much time with the program to understand?
And it just makes it just makes it obvious how difficult the task is here.
The question is thirdly asked me is can you tell me why this Bruce Jenner story is getting so much attention?
Yes.
But you should not have to ask me that.
If you were just now, I realize you can't listen every minute of the program because you're screening and you might miss profundities and salient points during such times, but I say things more than once, so the odds are you do.
When I mention this, you'll remember me having said it.
The fact that you have failed to connect it to your own question is what's interesting to me.
Do you recall last week and the week prior that I observed the gay community has pretty much peaked in terms of protest, anger and agitation because they've succeeded.
Gay marriage is happening.
Young people seem to be totally in favor of it.
If you look at pop culture television, you can't, you cannot watch a single TV show.
Whether it's not gay affection, gay sex, gay love, well, just it's common now.
But they can't just go away because the agenda never gets completed.
It always has to march on.
So what has surfaced to take the place of anger and protest in the gay community is the transgender community.
The transgender community is the gay community of ten years ago.
The transgenders are now, they've taken the place of gays who were discriminated against and made fun of and laughed at, and so forth.
The transgenders are now occupying the position in the political spectrum where the militant homosexuals occupied ten years ago.
Well, that alone should tell you why it's a big story.
Because what Bruce Jenders that Bruce Jenner is engaging in here is transgenderism, is it not?
And he's maybe one of the biggest transgenders in terms of name recognition.
And credibility.
I mean, he's a gold medal-winning Olympian in, I think the decathlon.
That's ten different competitions in one event, and he won the gold, and he had numerous profiles during that Olympic games.
You know, the profiles they do of the competitors.
They followed him around one average training day, and it started with the alarm clock going off at four in the morning and Jenner jumping out of bed, followed him all through the day.
You add to that he has become, by virtue of marriage, the stepfather of the Kardashians.
I mean, anybody in their orb is going to make news, and the weirder the better.
The question is not, why is Bruce Jenner such big?
Now, are you asking me why is the Bruce Jenner story so big with the public or with the media?
Because with the media, it's a slam dunk answer.
This fits everything the media wants to do in terms of turning the culture upside down, redefining what normal is, getting revenge against the majority for all of these decades of discrimination and mockery and disapproval, and all these religious fanatics judging other people simply because of quote who they love, unquote.
Bruce Jenner helps to unlock the rage and anger.
Now he made a mistake in the interview with Diane Sawyer.
Well, I don't mean to make it a stake, but he announced that he's a Republican.
So whatever good vibe he was gonna get from coming out he just destroyed.
You ought to see what happened to him on Twitter.
You ought to see the Twitter verse after Jenner announced that he's a Republican.
Love went to Instant diabolical hate and rejection.
People who previously applauded him for his bravery.
Hell, you want to see the sports drive by is they're so orgasmic about this they can't contain themselves until he said he was a Republican.
Now they're prepared to throw him overboard.
They were calling him brave and courageous, and more people need to take this step.
Now we've got interviews with the first wife.
Yeah, he told me he really liked to wear my dresses.
We're getting interviews with the second one to Linda Thompson.
Yes, I've known this, but I didn't go public with it.
So apparently, the news that we're getting is that Bruce Jenner has been oriented toward the female and the Choppedick off me what 40 years and finally overcame the oppressive judgmentalism of society and decided just to go for it and let his inner female come out and the outer female be the dominant.
And there was applause because anything to upset the Christians, Mr. Snerdley, anything to upset the religious right, anything to upset these damn conservatives and Republicans that believe in their precious social issues.
This is a slam dunk why this is big news.
But the fact that he announced he's a Republican, uh that cost him, that cost him some love and affection within certain people out there on Twitter and so forth.
And by the way, that is its own lesson.
That even you you have these um what do I call them?
I don't want to call them conditions.
You have these lifestyle choices.
Some of them are automatically assumed to be liberal.
Single mother, single parent, uh gay, automatic Democrat, right?
Automatic liberal.
Um transgender, automatic liberal.
Bruce Jenner comes in a republic.
Uh uh.
We now don't care that you're transgender, because the fact that you're a Republican is yuck.
How could you dare?
You can't be a legitimate transgender and be a Republican.
You should see some of these tweets.
Which, as I say, is a lesson into itself about, you know, what can the Republicans do to reach these people?
Nothing.
There's literally nothing.
Call it whatever you want.
The brand is so destroyed.
However, you want to explain it or category.
Look at Ted Cruz and these guys that own the gay hotel.
It wasn't a fundraiser.
He just went to talk to them.
He just went to talk to him in their Manhattan penthouse.
And these guys are being hit up and beat up and ripped to shreds by other gays and homosexuals who are telling him, boycott this guy's hotel, don't ever go to these guys are acting like I've never seen two more frightened public people.
They're begging forgiveness.
They're now ripping Ted Cruz to shreds after saying he was a nice guy, and it was a productive meeting, and we like to get to know all kinds of people.
Not acceptable.
That's I was gonna save this for the next hour, and I still will, but I'm gonna tease it.
There's a piece that I found here.
I think it's at National Review online by Larry Cudlow.
Larry Cudlow is the guy that explained baseline budgeting to me.
When he was at Bear Stearns, Larry Cudlow is a was uh an original uh Reaganite.
That's another stack.
Um yeah, here it is, and it is National Review Online.
Larry Cudlow now is at CNBC, or he was.
I don't think he's he's still there or is leaving there or something.
Anyway, wrote a column.
Snarking Hillary is not the way to the White House.
Now, this is the proverbial, we gotta leave this alone.
What we need to do as Republicans is start talking about our economic policies.
We have got to make ourselves known as the party of positive economic growth, strong national security.
Because the party needs a positive rebranding and a positive vision, and Hillary Bashing is going to drown all of that out.
I'll never forget.
It was 2011, and there was a convention here.
It might have been it might have been uh Horowitz's thing in November.
Um Restore Me weekend or whatever it was.
Restoration weekend, right?
And a lot of the Republican potential, you know, nominees were in town, and a couple three of them called and wanted to come by on the Sunday morning where everybody's getting out of town.
Just to talk to me.
And three of them did.
And they all said the exact same thing.
Quote.
Now, Rush, we do not dare go after Obama.
We do not dare criticize Obama.
We have to talk about the greatness of our economic message.
To the extent that we go after Obama, we're gonna go after his policies, Roush, but not him.
If we go after him, it's the end of us.
We got a great econom.
And I asked myself, how's this working out?
Meanwhile, Harry Reed can go out and accuse Mitt Romney of not paying his taxes for ten years.
And that's just fine.
The Democrats do not say that's not the way to go after Mitt Romney.
We must go after Mitt Romney, not by a personally attacking him.
We must talk about the best nature of our policies and how we have the advantage.
They never do all they do is I'm not talking about going after Hillary to destroy her, but the idea that we gotta leave this alone.
Do you think I'll tell you what?
Let's send Bruce Jenner out and have him talk about Republican economy.
We're growth economy policies to see how it's gonna work.
It this misses the whole point.
We talk ourselves into defeat every four years.
Why can't we do both?
Why where why do we have to tie one hand behind our back and say essentially we can't criticize Obama.
Now we can't criticize Hillary.
We've got a crime family operator here.
We can't criticize it.
And Trump's right about something.
This is potential big-time RICO crime that's going on here.
People are in jail for doing this.
This is a total abject violation of the Constitution.
You cannot sell influence like this.
It's the emoluments clause, and it's in the Constitution.
But even so, I I I this this idea that that all we're gonna do is hurt ourselves.
Nobody is saying focus on Hillary and don't do anything else.
But I know what drives this.
What drives this if if you know if if if we're seen criticizing, it's gonna be we're gonna be called sexists, and they're gonna say we're mean-spirited.
It's it's it's a it's a total defensive posture that it isn't working.
If it was working.
I mean, Romney tried it in 2012, didn't he?
And McCain tried it in 2008.
I remember McCain says, same thing.
Yes, that's right.
They must go after his policies.
But you know, we can stress the importance of origin and the superior.
We can't go after a person I can't do it.
It's a mistake.
Right, right.
So we can't, we can't really define our opponents.
And the media isn't gonna do it.
So the voting public's never gonna learn the truth about the people running against the Republicans.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are gonna be tarring and feathering and trashing and destroying personally and professionally every Republican they can.
And we're supposed to respond by saying, you elect us, and your top marginal rate is gonna go from 39.6 down to 35 percent.
You know what that's gonna mean for the marginal income on the base calculations of the PO profit and loss statement over there at Apple.
Right.
That's a winner.
We'll be back.
Here's Aaron in Santa Maria, California.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hey Rush, thank you for taking my call.
Mega Rush 24-7 Ditto.
I just I'll get straight to my point.
I think the mayor in Baltimore is actually regretful about the damage that was done.
She you think she's regretful.
Right.
You don't you don't think she was encouraging the uh violence?
Exactly, exactly.
I think she tried to create an environment where you could protest, and that she's regretful that it led to an environment that caused damage.
All right, grab somebody 15th.
Let's listen to it.
Uh because I I got an email uh from somebody who thinks, Rush, I don't have a stake in this, and I would never tell you how to do what you're doing, but you're really missing this.
This mayor's actually a good mayor.
She's uh okay, fine.
Takes all kinds.
Let's listen to Stephanie Rawlings Blake again.
Well, I did.
Another radio guy sent me.
I wouldn't presume to tell you to do your show, but you don't know what you're talking about with his mayor.
And now you, Aaron.
It's a good thing I have a spine of steel.
Here comes the sound bite.
We'll listen to it again.
I've made it very clear that I uh worked with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their uh right to free speech.
Stop it, buddy.
Stop it, stop it, stop.
Aaron, a quick question.
Does expressing your right free speech give you the right to destroy people's property?
No, it doesn't.
Okay.
Resume the bite.
Very delicate balancing act.
Because while we uh tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other you know, things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.
Okay, so we uh we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.
You think she's saying that uh regretfully?
Yes, exactly.
I think her thing in our effort to protect the protesters, we also gave enough room to those who wanted to do damage, and she's regretful of that as she talks about the the delicate balancing act.
She regrets that she gave them room to destroy.
That's what you're interpreting.
Right.
I think in her effort to give the protesters room to protest, it led to the damage, and she's regretful that that you know, that balancing act failed.
Well, yeah.
She regrets the balancing act failed, but maybe it failed because she gave the protesters room to destroy.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I got plenty of Hillary stuff here, but see, I purposely delayed it until the final hour of the program.
But we've got it.
And uh more discussions on the intentions, the comments Saturday night of the Baltimore mayor.
It just feels bad, I guess.
It didn't work out.
▲
Export Selection