All Episodes
Previous Next
June 22, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
June 22, 2015, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings to you once again, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
Great to he uh be back and great to be with you here.
The EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The telephone number if you want to be on the program as always, 800-282-288-2, and the email address, El Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Once again, your host taken to the woodshed over the weekend on some cable news programs.
And your host nevertheless validated after having been taken to the woodshed on some cable news broadcasts over the weekend.
And sadly, my friends, I'm going to have to continue the theme, begun last.
And actually, I don't know that uh end in sight to this because this is only intensifying.
Here.
Let me let me find the headline.
It's all you need.
Here it is.
From the UK independent.
I mean, this is not some obscure never heard of website or blog out there.
It's the UK independent.
Earth enters sixth extinction phase with many species, including our own, labeled the walking dead.
Report was authored by scientists at Stanford, Princeton, and Berkeley.
We're the walking dead.
We're over.
We're finished.
That old joke about God deciding the human race of failure and ending the earth and calling three newspapers to report the news.
It's coming true.
Absent the call from God.
Earth enters sixth extinction phase with many species, including our own, labeled the walking dead.
I mean, what it's absurd.
It is literally absurd.
You know, I so many conflicting things I read over the weekend.
Dana Milbank and the Washington Post is all jazzed and excited.
The word liberal is no longer an epithet.
It's a it's uh they don't have to use progressive anymore.
They can call themselves liberals because everybody's becoming liberal.
Everybody's turning liberal, and there's some theories, but his favorite theory is you know why the country is moving to the left?
In a great sensible reaction to the rise of the Tea Party.
The rise of the Tea Party has awakened a sleeping giant of a country and is forcing them, encouraging them, and they're willingly going way to the left.
Yet as we make this move to the left, where leftists are supposedly excited about nobody's happy.
As we make the move to the left, everybody is upset, everybody is deranged, delusional, depressed, something or other negative.
It is uncanny.
Well, it's not an it's understandable to me.
I mean, liberalism does not create joy.
It does not create happiness.
In fact, it can't thrive amongst such things.
Liberalism requires practically apocalyptic attitudes in order to be attractive to people.
But it it doesn't do anything but breed even more of that.
I mean, it's it's amazing if I put on my sociologist hat and just back off and look at this stuff objectively.
It is it's a difficult thing.
Well, again, no, it's not difficult to understand at all.
It's difficult to see.
No, it's easy to see, but it's hard to see it.
I mean, just it's painful to see it.
And a friend of mine sent me a note over the weekend.
Two 21-year-old young men, one of them over here, clean and pure as the wind-driven snow, two-time golf major championship champion, Masters U.S. Open, Jordan Spieth, University of Texas, great family, uh live in Texas, wholesome, everything that you would want and expect in an American family Over there.
Over here, you have 21-year-old Dylan Roof, who looks like one of the three stooges, and of course, who walked into a church and shot nine people dead.
Two 21-year-olds.
What's the difference?
How do you explain one and the other?
Now the answer, and I was thinking I was thinking about this myself.
It isn't simple.
A lot of people think of the answer to that's very simple, but it isn't.
I mean, you come up with off-the-cuff immediate reactive answers, and they would be right, but they don't go nearly deep enough.
You would say, well, take a look at the various families involved.
Yeah, okay, fine.
Uh then take a look at the different economics circumstances.
Yeah, fine.
But you see, the problem with that is that a lot of great people have come from the same circumstances that Dylan Roof came from.
A lot of great people were born to poverty and had lousy parents or no parents, and they overcame it and they rose up and they become.
I mean, I the the names are famous too.
I don't have it at the top of my head here, but that argument has already been vetted in the abortion argument.
The, you know, when the abortion argument was at its peak back in the 80s and 90s, one of the arguments made by the pro-choice crowd was we don't want to bring children into that world.
Look at poverty and pestilence and disease.
And so poor people having abortions was considered a good thing because it was just criminal practice.
Just we wouldn't want to bring a child into those circumstances.
And yet, this caused people like me to go look at all of the great people who were born into less than ideal circumstances, who try many scientists, a whole bunch of great people, and not everybody is born of the wealthy and the rich, obviously.
And it is a it is a uh a dilemma.
And then I'm still struck by, ladies and gentlemen, it's not that long ago, what, eight, ten years ago, that the subjects of maybe not even eight, ten.
Gay marriage, transgenderism, transnationalism, transracism, all of that was considered to be so outside the mainstream and so fringe, and nobody ever thought it was gonna matter to anything.
And now here it has become mainstream, and in fact, in many people's viewpoint, it's become dominant in American politics.
And so a lot of people are scratching their heads.
How did this seem seemingly happen overnight?
At any rate, there's that with the Confederate flag.
Folks, do you realize the Confederate flag flies because of the Democrat Party?
Do people even care anymore about truth?
Objective truth, ontological certitude.
Do people care about this stuff anymore?
Does it matter?
Or is truth something so elusive that it's impossible to achieve because everybody has a bias, and somebody's truth is somebody else's lie?
And if a truth is a lie to somebody, then it can't be the truth.
Is this where we are now?
Facts are irrelevant.
The Confederate flag in South Carolina, there's a man, there's a name.
There's a reason why that Confederate flag flies over the State House in South Carolina.
Anyone know the name?
You know the name, don't you?
His name was Ernest Fritz Hollings of too much consuming going on down there.
Ernest Fritz Hollings, well-known Democrat, senator from South Carolina, is responsible for the Confederate flag flying over South Carolina.
When did this become a Republican problem?
Who wrote the lyrics of the song Dixie?
When did all this become a Republican problem?
If you go to Arkansas, you know, all of these old racial segregationists and stuff, they're all Democrats.
Bill Clinton's mentor, Arkansas, Senator J. William Fulbright was a proud segregationist.
And Bill Clinton signed a proclamation authorizing the Confederate flag to fly over the state house in Arkansas.
I've got the proclamation right here, my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
Where'd the Republicans get involved in this?
What did the Republicans have to do with this?
But there they are, in full blame.
Yeah, I'd be able to produce for you before the program is over today the names of 15 billionaires born into poverty.
And it's probably if you go beyond billionaires, millionaires born into poverty, you'd be stunned.
And then yesterday on Fox News Sunday, Cardinal, I'm not even sure how to pronounce the name.
I did not see the episode.
We'll hear the soundbite in just a moment.
Cardinal World, W U E R L. You know, the Fox News people called us on Tuesday, or no, called us on Friday and asked to use a clip from this program earlier in the week, and they identified the clip they wanted to use.
And I said, Yeah, yeah, it's not the best clip, by the way.
I mean, I said a lot of things later in the week added to that.
It made it even better.
No, no, no, this is exactly what we want.
So, okay, so I knew they already had their segment planned.
They wanted to use a soundbite for me on Tuesday.
And since it was uh since it was Fox, I granted them permission to do so.
And it was the soundbite where I, in analysing the papal encyclium, or encyclical, suggested that what it essentially was was a commandment to vote for the Democrat Party.
And so Chris Wallace played that soundbite for Cardinal Worrell and asked him to reply to it.
And we have that uh that coming up.
Also, the uh let's see what else.
Uh oh, I have I have learned, ladies and gentlemen, something I did not know.
The Pope actually has a climate advisor working on his staff, and he is a genuine lunatic.
His uh he's he's a German.
What did I do with it?
I just printed it out here.
I'll have to find it somewhere in one of these stacks here.
But I I really, when you when you look at some of the language that's being used in the papal encyclical about climate change, it really does come from the leftist political world, all of the phrases that the Pope uses.
And I'm I'm I'm really beginning to wonder if if this thing holding wasn't put together by a committee that may have essentially is hijacked the Vatican on this.
I mean, that's what the left does.
They move in, they corrupt things.
Just have to see.
Also, Apple and Taylor Swift, there's more to this than you may think.
There's well, there is more to this than you may think.
Uh, as you know, Apple on June 30th is going to announce their gonna introduce, they're gonna release, they're gonna they're gonna inaugurate their own music streaming service because people don't want to buy tunes anymore at 99 cents, they want to stream them.
And Apple tried the streaming business in a sort of half-sorted way with iTunes Radio, but it didn't really take off, and now they're going full bore into it.
And they are offering, they're gonna offer a three-month free trial, and then after that it'll be $9.99 a month.
And Apple said, by the way, since there is nobody paying for the service for the first three months, we aren't going to be paying any royalties to either the artists or the writers, the performers.
Well, of course, this didn't sit well with the music industry, which is having a tough time.
The biggest problem the music industry is having is generational.
Millennials have grown up with music free as a bird on YouTube.
Millennials, the last thing in the world they ever expect to have to pay something for is music.
It has been free from the first moment they got interested in it.
And the and the and as such, people that get into streaming business are having a difficult time monetizing it.
The royalties therefore being paid to artists and performers are getting smaller and smaller and smaller.
And because the cons the customer expects music to be free, everybody on the production side said, hey, wait, what about us?
How are we going to get paid?
And it took Taylor Swift, who is one of the few artists who still sells albums in great quantity.
Taylor Swift's latest album, 1989.
She sold eight or nine million copies of it since late last year.
Very few artists sell albums.
People won't buy albums, they stream songs.
I mean, some people download albums, some people, I mean they're still purchases, but it's nowhere near the way it used to be the primary consumption of music.
And more and more people, as I say, when you tell them that they're gonna have to pay to listen to music, they get offended.
It's not something that they have, it's not just music.
Millennials have grown up expecting a lot of stuff to be free.
It's why they hate the cable companies, it's why they hate the phone companies, it's why they hate the electrical companies, like they hate the car companies, because they charge them.
They hate to have to pay for anything.
Taylor Swift comes along and says, hey, Ample, you don't give us free iPhones.
Why should we musicians give you our music for three months just so you can establish a streaming service?
Why should we let you use us for free while you establish something you hope to profit?
Well, Apple caved inside of 20 minutes.
But there's more to this.
If I were to tell you that what Apple is really intending to do is increase the royalties paid to artists by virtue of the three-month trial.
They are.
That's one of their objectives.
But the musicians and artists said, well, fine, okay.
Then all you executives at Apple, then go without your salaries for three months to see how it feels.
I mean, some really reasonable counterarguments presented, and Apple, with at least 200 billion dollars in cash hanging around, had no choice but then de cave here.
But what their ultimate objective is with the three-month trial actually will be more beneficial to artists, performers, producers, and so forth than anything in the streaming business now, simply because of size.
I will explain this to you as the program unfolds before you're very well the the the objective Apple wants to put Jay-Z's business out of it.
They would love to put Spotify out of business.
And by the way, there's another thing nobody's talking about here yet, but can Apple just I mean, Spotify and and Pandora, they don't have this kind of money.
They couldn't do it.
Is there some sort of um legal can Apple just legally pay these artists out of pocket?
I don't know, folks.
Well, there's a lot going on here, and of course, we here at the EIB network get to the bottom of everything we talk about.
But liberalism, it's a bad bottom, but we go there.
We have to.
You have to make a minor correction.
And unlike most, we make a correction, we do it prominently.
I'm not gonna say something a day that's erroneous and wait until Friday at 2.55 in the afternoon to fix it.
So here we go.
The Confederate flag does not fly over the South Carolina State Capitol.
Only the U.S. flag and the state flag actually fly over the Capitol.
The uh the flag in question, the Confederate flag, flies separately on the state capitol grounds.
And the controversy is whether it should be on the grounds of the state capitol at all.
It does not fly over the actual capital.
So anymore.
I mean, it once did.
Um the the point is not changed here.
Ernest Hollings, a Democrat, put the Confederate flag up.
The old the Dixiecrats were Democrats.
The old segregationists were racists.
The name Bull Connor ring a bill.
Does the name Lester Maddox ring a bill, is the name George Wallace that Ringabell.
These are all Democrats.
How this all became something that originated with the Republican Party is one of the greatest scams in the in the history of modern politics.
And of course, the Republicans run around making it look like the scam is true because they have this guilt complex about it.
Rather than speak up about it.
Anyway, I'm I'm just wanted to clarify that because as you know, there's no point in being wrong here if it's not no point in making things up.
We don't do that here.
So stand by, we'll come back and uh get to what was said on Fox News Sunday.
We get back.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh serving humanity just by being here.
You know, this Confederate flag business.
Hillary Clinton has not come out, and she's demanded that the Confederate flag be removed in South Carolina.
And really it is a key point.
It does not fly over the State House.
It used to.
And resulting from the commandment, if you will, from Senator Ernest Fritz Hollings.
Democrat Senator South Carolina used to be the governor.
He put it up.
It was a Republican.
Ladies and gentlemen.
Conservative Republican governor who first tried to get the Confederate flag removed from atop the State House.
And by the way, that conservative Republican governor got no support from the local NAA LCP.
In fact, when that all happened, the Democrats used the flag against the Republican governor, and it may have cost him the election.
That was not that long ago.
Now Hillary Clinton has come out and demanded the flag be removed.
Never mind that while the Clintons were in Arkansas, they presided over something called the annual celebration of Confederate Flag Day, which continues to this day.
Oh yeah.
It does.
Confederate Flag Day continues to this day in Arkansas.
And when the Clintons lived there, they presided over the annual celebration.
Not only that, Governor Bill Clinton, 1987 signed into law an act that commemorated the Confederacy with a blue star in the Arkansas state flag.
And I know I'm just looking, I'm I'm spitting against the wind here.
I know none of this is gonna matter, and I owe it to anybody.
But I have such reverence for you people in this audience, I have such respect that I want you to know the truth of these things.
And it's just this wave, this never-ending wave, literal destruction that is just sweeping across our country is relentless.
And I whatever I can do to have those of you know the truth about this and the blatant hypocrisy, Democrats are never held to account for hypocrisy.
Meanwhile, some AP photographer released a photo.
Ted Crew is making a speech somewhere, and and uh the photographer probably waited and waited and waited till Cruz in the right position, crews is positioned in such a way that a poster to his left on a wall to his left features a gun nearly as large as his head aimed right between his eyes.
And that's the picture, Cruz's head in the left half of the picture and the right half is a gun aiming right at him.
And then there's a caption that says Ted Cruz is addressing Second Amendment advocates, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
It's clear that the photograph has it.
You remember how ape, everybody went after Gabriel Giffords was shot, somebody found uh some sort of a viewfinder target on Sarah Palin's website, and they tried to blame that.
I mean, can you imagine if Barack Obama were in this picture instead of Ted Cruz, the media would be featuring it all over the place.
Now they're just calling it ironic.
You know, it's just ironic that Cruz happened to be standing right there when the AP guy snapped his shutter and took the photo.
Fox News Sunday yesterday, this is what I talked about in the previous half hour.
They called they wanted to use an excerpt from this program.
They didn't tell me why.
I mean, they didn't tell me who their guest was going to be.
I said it didn't matter.
It's Chris Wallace.
It's Fox News Sunday.
I've had nothing but pleasant experiences with him, I trust them.
So I said, go ahead, use it.
Here's the first bite.
Well, the Pope has bigger things on his mind than American politics.
Some American conservatives say he is choosing sides.
Cardinal, forgive me, because this is going to get a little salty.
Essentially, what this papal encycly is suggesting is that every Catholic should vote for the Democrat Party.
Well, no, that's what how in the hell else do you interpret it when the Pope comes out and sounds like Al Gore on global warming and climate change?
Okay, so now the po the cardinal, whose name is Cardinal World, uh, is asked to respond, Chris Wallace says, I never thought I'd ask you this.
How do you respond to Rush Limbaugh?
Well, this is one of the great, one of the great blessings of America, isn't it?
We're all allowed to speak our mind.
Even if we don't have all the facts, even if we don't have a clear view of what the other person is saying, we're all allowed to speak our mind, and that's what he's doing.
I think what the Pope is doing is something very, very different from that.
He's saying, why don't we all discuss this?
Why don't we all come to the table?
And before we start eliminating other people from the discussion or denouncing them or even ridiculing them, why don't we listen to them and see what they're saying and see where we really ought to be going as a human family?
Now, I do not know Cardinal Worrell.
I don't know his diocese.
It's not identified.
I didn't bother looking it up.
Uh the cardinal is attempting to do two things here.
He's attempting to be polite and also to belittle me.
While being polite, uh, because I think the cardinal, and he may not be aware, but but many in the Catholic Church are profoundly aware of how strongly they are supported on this program, and by me,
each and every time they come under cultural attack, dating back to the early 90s and act up, storming into St. Patrick's Cathedral and throwing condoms and so forth during Cardinal O'Connor's Mass.
I was a guest of Cardinal O'Connor's at his home on several occasions.
My support for the Catholic Church during any number of things is well documented.
Uh so I think the Cardinal here, of course, has to stand up for the Pope, but here's the problem with this.
That's not what the Pope said.
And I'm gonna say this with all due respect, and I'm gonna be as gracious as I possibly can to Cardinal Worrell.
But the Pope in his encyclical encyclical do not, does not say, why don't we all discuss this?
Why don't we all come to the table?
And before we start eliminating other people from the discussion or denouncing them or ridiculing them, why don't we listen to them and see what they're saying?
That's not what the encyclical says.
And in fact, it's not what happened.
At the same time, Cardinal Worrell was on Fox News Sunday claiming that, while, you know, I was practicing everybody's God-given right to say what I think, but it's wonderful, even when people don't know what they're talking about, was this story had already been published the day before in the Washington Post, how climate change doubters lost the papal flight or fight.
Pope Francis was about to take a major step backing the science behind human-driven global warming, and Philippe de Lominat was determined to change his mind.
A Frenchman who authored a book arguing that solar activity and not greenhouse gases was driving global warming.
He sought a spot at a climate summit in April, sponsored by the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
In other words, the Pope convened a meeting.
Somebody who does not believe in man-made climate change because of greenhouse gases wanted to attend.
He was denied his request.
The Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences was not interested in his point of view.
Nobel laureates were there.
UN Secretary General Ben Khymoon was there.
U.S. economist Jeffrey Sachs was there.
And everybody who was there did indeed call everybody.
There wasn't one doubter.
There wasn't one person there who disagreed with the consensus of the American and worldwide left on man-made climate change due to fossil fuel creation of greenhouse gases.
But it gets better than that.
He did secure a high-level meeting at the Vatican.
He did secure a high-level meeting, and he was told at space permitting, he would be able to join.
So he bought a plane ticket from Paris to Rome.
This is the Frenchman.
Five days before the Papal Summit on Global Warming, De Lorminas said that he received an email saying, sorry, no space left.
It came after other scientists, as well as the powerful Vatican bureaucrat in charge of the academy, insisted he had no business being there.
They didn't want to hear anybody who disagreed.
Amen.
Now the papal encyclical does not suggest that we, as a human community, sit down and discuss this.
The papal encyclical does not welcome anybody and everybody to the so-called table to discuss this.
In fact, people who disagree or have an opposing point of view were uninvited.
After having purchased plant tickets, were told not to show up.
You were only permitted to attend the Vatican Pontifical Academy of Sciences meeting on man-made global warming in advance of the papal encyclical if you agreed with what the Pope was going to say.
Now listen again to Cardinal Worrell.
Cardinal Donald Warle, this is yesterday in Fox News Sunday.
Again, just a rehash.
People that disagreed with this consensus, man-made global warming stemming from fossil fuels and carbon monoxide poisoning.
Or carbon dioxide poisoning were not permitted.
Frenchman wanted to go, had his plan ticket purchased, and was all set to go and was uninvited, as was everybody else who had an opposing view, and yet Cardinal Worrell said this yesterday.
Well, this is one of the great, one of the great blessings of America, isn't it?
We're all allowed to speak our mind.
Even if we don't have all the facts, even if we don't have a clear view of what the other person is saying, we're all allowed to speak our mind, and that's what he's doing.
I think what the Pope is doing is something very, very different from that.
He's saying, why don't we all discuss this?
Why don't we all come to the table?
And before we start eliminating other people from the discussion or denouncing them or even ridiculing them, why don't we listen to them and see what they're saying and see where we really ought to be going as a human family?
You know, there's further irony here.
That's all I was doing.
I was simply expressing my opinion about what the papal encyclical is, and it could have been written by anybody in the upper levels of the Democrat Party, the American environmental movement.
And so here's Cardinal Worlds and the Pope say we all need to sit down and talk about it.
Well, that's not what happened.
They did not permit people that didn't agree with the Pope's consensus on this.
Quick timeout, we'll be back after this.
Don't go away.
Yeah, we're back.
Rush Limbaugh, great to have you here.
I finally found it.
The uh the Pope's chief scientific advisor, this according to UK Independent, which has, by the way, a scathing story.
The UK independent day with a scathing story on two things that are that are linked that are that are creating massive worldwide problems.
One of them is the European Union, just the very idea that it was tried, and what a disaster it is and how that's affecting Greece.
And the other problem that this man identifies, and it's a writer at the UK independent, is the fantasy world the Pope is living in.
His words, not mine.
But I f it's it's in that story that the Pope's science advisors identified.
And I'm just going to read you the passage from the UK Independent.
How forlorn in light of all this looks that would be well-mitting 300-page document in which the Pope, under the spell of his chief scienti uh chief scientific advisor, a fanatical German climate activist, named Hans Joachim Schellenhuber, calls for an end to the use of the very fossil fuels that keep the Vatican's own lights on.
In asking us to pray for that global climate treaty, Pope Francis solemnly trots out all those familiar plaints about melting polar ice camps which are not melting, rising sea levels which are not rising, unprecedented droughts, extreme weather events, and the rest of that green litany, which has no basis in honest science whatsoever.
A fanatical German climate activist.
Not even a scientist.
And I knew this is going to happen sometime or another, so we may as well deal with it.
Maggie in Shiloh, Illinois.
Hello.
Hi.
So I came on to say how I'm just a bit um well frustrated that you've been bashing a Pope almost every single week.
Because I I love you.
I love your show.
I've been listening to you for years.
I was considered a baby.
And it's just I really I I'm a Catholic, and I really, really trust and respect the Pope on all of his whatever he says.
And I just really am not appreciating how you're treating him.
How I'm treating him.
Yeah, you're dreaming him.
It's it's just that you're not really sective.
I'm from I'm from uh he's he's not he's not maybe Pelosi.
He's not a politician.
Sure, Popes can be political and corrupt, but Pope Francis is not.
Not well, not that we know of.
Maggie, you see, uh this is this is the dilemma.
The Pope has crossed a line here and has now entered the realm of politics.
Well now wait, no, wait, no, wait.
Now, and now I understand you as a devout Catholic, the Pope is infallible and not to be questioned.
And me doing so is near heresy.
And that's the trick, you see.
We're all supposed to stand silent when the Pope speaks, because the Pope is the vicar of Christ, and there's nobody, nobody, who can criticize the Pope for what he says.
It's just not done, it's not acceptable.
And here comes old Rush, the EIB network.
But the Pope to me has entered the realm of politics.
With this portion of his encyclical on climate change.
And I don't know what to do here, Maggie.
I I I don't know.
I don't know what to do.
I because I I fervently care about this, and I firmly believe the Pope is wrong, and I don't believe that this is uh Okay.
Well, that's where I come in.
I really it's not that we have to listen to the Pope on everything.
It's not that he is the like it's he that's Well, I know that, and I'm I'm interrupting because I'm out of time.
I know that's not that.
It's what what isn't permitted or was isn't cool or what isn't acceptable is criticizing the Pope.
You don't have to listen to him, but I better not say anything about him, or else I understand.
And ladies and gentlemen, it's not just climate change for the Pope.
The Pope has now said that weapons manufacturers cannot call themselves Christians.
Yet he wondered why the Allies did not bomb the railroads leading to the concentration camps.
I'm not kidding you here.
▲
Export Selection