All Episodes
Previous Next
June 22, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:30
June 22, 2015, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Let me give you another theory as to why it is said the country is moving so far to the left.
Now, I'm not sure I buy the extent to which this is happening precisely because of the 2010 to 2012 14 midterm elections.
I don't deny that the Democrat Party is moving toward communism at all.
But the country.
But now let's say that the polls are onto something, and let's say there is, by the way, welcome back, L. Rushbow, 800-282-2882, happy to have you here, final big broadcast hour of the day.
Let's take a look at the millennials, 18 to 34-year-olds, it is said.
Can you honestly recall a conservative candidate any of them have ever heard, much less had a chance to vote for.
Not Republican, conservative.
In other words, somebody name for me, say in the last 25 years, a genuine, and I cite Reagan only because he won two landslides.
Cite for me a legitimate Reaganite or conservative candidate in Vane who has been able to espouse it, campaign on it, offer a series of policies based on it.
My point is that people moving to the left have no idea what the alternative is.
It's never been presented to them.
And in fact, not only that, what they imagine it to be is attacked mercilessly every day in the media and not defended.
When you have Republicans coming along agreeing the Reagan of era of Reagan is over, what that does is further the idea that Reagan was just an aberration.
That Reagan was just a, you know, eight years of, wow, this country really got off track for a while.
To people that didn't live then and have not been able to read an accurate history of it.
Well, you can't really blame them.
They don't know.
And some of you might be shut, but Rush, there's been your show.
Yes, but this show's not politics, folks.
This show's not out campaigning.
We're not trying to get votes.
I'm not running for office here.
Don't have the power to implement any policy.
And at the same time, hosts of successful conservative media have also been targets for destruction by the American left.
But that could be dealt with if there were.
Now, this current crop of Republicans running, there are a couple, maybe two or three that get into the debates, might electrify.
Because I'm serious when I tell you that there are a lot of Americans.
And I know for a fact millennials have never even had the chance to vote for a conservative, and maybe even people into their 40s.
They've never had it really presented to them by a candidate, by a party, in a positive uplifting explanatory way.
And you couple that with the fact that what conservatism is said to be by the media and by the Democrat Party is constantly under assault, then it may well be that people think this is all there is.
And when they look around the world, they see the same thing.
They don't see any alternative around the world.
And in fact, we live in an era where the current president is doing his best to denigrate America's greatness in the past and claim that it is not real or that it wasn't legitimate.
I mean, the point is there could be substantive reasons, not just psychological, to uh to explain all of this.
And then you if you add, I mean some hardcore realities about how successful the left has been in creating as many dependent people who are now living in the safety net, and add to that then the drumbeat I'm telling you of apocalyptic News story after news story after news story I'm telling you.
I don't think it takes too much of that to create a perpetual doom in people's minds.
And if you doubt me, you remember it wasn't all that long ago, and may still be the case today that you could go into a poor black neighborhood where there was wanton violence, and you'd ask them why they're doing it, and you'd hear them say, I don't expect to be alive much past age 21 or 22.
And that was a real thing.
That's what many young blacks actually thought, may still think it, in fact.
I mean, that was their experience.
And so, what does it matter?
And it was a real experience.
I mean, it was a real life expectancy based on their living conditions, circumstances, and so forth.
My point is that doom, gloom, negativism, pessimism is easy.
We can all do it without any training.
We're all naturally inclined this way.
Thinking positively, that takes effort every day, sometimes it's hard.
As I've always said, you do not need to go to the book or to the library to find books on how to fail.
We all know how.
But people who write books on how to think positively and how to succeed are millionaires.
Because apparently it doesn't come naturally.
And whenever you encounter somebody who's optimistic and upbeat, don't you think they're a little weird?
Wow, what's with that guy?
It's a natural reaction that a lot of people have.
From the UK Independent.
The planet is entering a new period of extinction.
Top scientists warning that species all over the world are essentially the walking dead, including our own.
The report authored by scientists.
Those guys in little lab coats, the white coats that give them authority.
The report authored by scientists at Stanford, Princeton, and Berkeley universities found that vertebrates were vanishing at a rate 114 times faster than normal.
Man, if you're a low information voter, that has got to scare you out of your underwear.
114 times faster than normal vertebrates are vanishing.
Then the next thing they ask is, what is a vertebrate?
In the damning report published in the Science Advances magazine, you have your subscription, Science Advances.
Researchers note that the last similar event was 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs disappeared, most probably as a result of an asteroid.
So we are beginning to repeat exactly what happened to the dinosaurs, except it's happening 114 times faster and without an asteroid.
One of the authors says, we are now entering the sixth great mass extinction event.
This is on the BBC.
Geraldo Sabatos, lead author of the research, said it is allowed, if it is allowed to continue, life would take many millions of years to recover.
Our species itself would likely disappear early on.
The research examined historic rates of extinction for vertebrates, finding that since 1900, more than 400 vertebrates have disappeared, an extinction rate 100 times higher.
You know, every time one of these stories happens about extinction, all of a sudden it's found.
Something thought to be extinct was found in some remote island, Bali Bali, Bali Molly, wherever it is.
I always ask, how do they know it became extinct?
How in the world can anybody know what's become extinct?
Because we can't go everywhere to find out where something might be.
Anyway, the Stanford professor, Paul Ehrlich is part of this survey, and the guy has been discredited for look at.
This is a problem.
The guy wrote a book in the 1970s called a population bomb, and he predicted the earth would die with three billion people running around because we couldn't support the earth couldn't support three billion people.
We were to be extinct by now, according to Paul Ehrlich.
He has been proven wrong in virtually everything, and he's still a professor, accredited at Stanford, still teaching, still writing, and still a credible guru to the left.
And he is the third author of this report saying that species, our species is the walking dead.
It's an obsession this guy has.
He has been proven wrong on virtually everything that he has predicted.
He says, We're all in a tree and we are sawing off the limb we are sitting on.
So here we have worldwide leftists using multiple experts, now including the Pope to throw gasoline on the end of the world, we're all gonna die fire.
I mean, really, who can argue this isn't true?
Stanford, Berkeley, Princeton, and the Pope all agree?
And it's climate change that's doing us in.
And again, how many times do young people need to be told all of this before they start running around and believing it?
And when they believe it, I mean you and I hear this and we chuckle and we do what we do.
They're people that believe this stuff, and they take it to heart.
And if that's imagine somebody who believes this and takes this to heart, we are at the end time.
We are walking the last steps we will ever take on the planet, and there's nothing anybody can do about it except vote Democrat.
That's your only hope is to vote Democrat.
And even then it might not save the day.
What are you gonna do?
What is your attitude going to be?
If you already, if you're starting your life out in intellectual quicksand, what's gonna become of you?
Life's gonna become meaningless, it isn't gonna matter, and it just takes off from uh from there.
I don't know, folks.
It just it's this is this story is exactly what I'm talking about, by the way.
When I when I say that we have all this polling data that results, I'm sure, from stories like this.
I mean, millennials don't trust anybody, millennials have lost confidence, Americans have lost confidence in everything.
Americans have lost confidence in church, Americans have lost confidence in religion, Americans have no hope.
Is it any wonder?
Try this.
Most high school English teachers adore Shakespeare's works, but Dana Dussbiber does not.
In an essay published this month on a Washington Post education blog, the teacher at Luther Burbank has scruwel, explained that she does not want to teach Shakespeare's works, despite his esteemed place in literature because his perspective does not speak well to her ethically, ethnically diverse students.
Dust Biber's opinion caught fire online and on the airwaves, as traditionalists decried her view as academic heresy.
She said, Haskrul teachers are supposed to love Shakespeare, and I don't.
So I said I didn't.
I think the reliance on Shakespeare is something I find odd.
After teaching 25 years in Sacramento, including the last 13 of Luther Burbank has crew, she said that she has replaced Shakespeare's plays in her classroom with works by non-white authors.
Dus Biber, i.e.
Dana Dusbiber, the teacher, is white.
She said many of her students come from different ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds than her own.
She has adjusted her teaching style to show non-white students successful authors with skin colors similar to their own.
Instead of Shakespeare, Dana Dustbiber assigns texts by authors such as Isabel Allende, Sharon Draper, Francisco Imen, and Gary Soto.
Quick, can anybody raise their hand and say you've heard of any of those people?
Have you heard of Gary Soto?
Have you heard of Isabel Allende?
No, you've heard of Savator Yunde.
You've heard of her father, brother, dad, stepfather, whatever.
Have you heard of Sharon Draper?
Yes, you have.
She was in Mad Men.
Francisco Himenez.
You ever heard of Francisco Amenis?
No, you haven't.
In her essay, Dana Dussbiber spoke out against teaching Shakespeare because of his outdated view of the world and his oft repeated perspective as a white man.
Yes, what I worry about is that as long as we continue to cling to one white man's view of life as he lived it so long ago, we perhaps unwittingly promote the notion that other cultural perspectives are less important.
What is Shakespeare?
Shakespeare is philosophy in prose.
Shakespeare, like it or not, is timeless.
But because he's an old white guy, he's no longer acceptable or worth it, or what have you.
We've got Obama out using the N-word.
Media's excited as they can be.
Obama's out of using the N. We went on some podcast from some Amer uh Air America failure.
This guy's podcast, I forget this guy's name, but he was the morning guy at Air America, and he bombed out like the rest of them did.
And he does a podcast in his garage.
Obama's out there to play golf at Palm Springs when it's 112, 14 degrees, which means the courses needed a lot of water in the drought.
During the drought.
And he goes, this guy's garage, does the podcast and uses the N-word.
And the media is praising the use of the N-word.
Yes, because Obama's qualified.
Obama's exempt.
He can do it because he's making a brilliant point.
And now Martin O'Malley.
You know, our language is even getting coarser.
Martin O'Malley has sent out a fundraising email.
This is a guy, former governor of Maryland, former mayor of Baltimore, flirting with the idea of seeking the Democrat presidential nomination.
And here's how his fundraising email begins.
I'm pissed.
That's the first line.
The second line, I'm pissed that after an unthinkable tragedy tragedy like the one South Carolina yesterday.
We sit back and wait for the appropriate moment to say what we're all thinking, but this is not the America we want to be living in.
I'm pissed that we're actually asked somebody running for office.
I gotta take a break.
We're headed down tubes here.
Okay, here is uh Robert Nave Maria, Florida.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
You're up next to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hello.
Hello, dudos Rush.
Uh I'm calling from a new Catholic university town with a huge church in the center of town.
All my neighbors and friends, this is really on our minds, this encyclical.
And uh I wanted to talk about paragraph one eighty-eight.
Okay, go ahead.
All right, so uh by the way, Robert Bork was my law professor while he was converting and uh to the Catholic church.
Oh wow, wow.
He probably encouraged you to uh to listen to those Monsignors that that are approaching you.
Um he didn't I don't know that I ever told him about that, but he probably would have if I had mentioned it to him, no doubt.
So I'll get to my point.
I'm sorry, Rush.
Uh by the way, I'm I'm a Supreme Court justice trapped in a small town lawyer's body.
I just want everyone to know that.
Okay.
Uh so paragraph one eighty-eight says the church does not presume to settle scientific questions or to replace politics.
But I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good.
Paragraph 188 of Laudato Choice.
I'm sorry, but that is not what that encyclical does or is.
I'm sorry.
No, I know.
That's my point, as I'm very frustrated.
I love Pope Francis, and I'll follow him.
And I'll but I but that doesn't mean I'm afraid to challenge him when he says something that uh is hard to make sense of.
And it's not that it's challenging.
I'm happy to be challenged as a Catholic.
But this doesn't make sense because what he then goes on to do is he partners up with you know the multi-billion dollar climate scientist science industry and you know uses only their ideological, you know, and particularly You're right.
It is paragraph 188 that Cardinal Worrell was referring to in his appearance on Fox News Sunday, where he said the Pope went everyone to sit down at the table and as a human family, discuss the issue, which is not what he, meaning I, is saying.
The Pope went every No, that the Pope did not permit, well, the Vatican did not permit people that didn't agree with what they were going to say to even show up and participate.
You are I love Cardinal Verl, too.
I don't think that the Pope has been fair to us, because he seems to violate paragraph 188.
This is where you've got to be.
Embracing the anthropogenic global warming theory and endorsing the UN treaty as a solution.
Well, okay, but something happened.
Something real explains this.
I don't want to go any further, but how long do you think it'll before Catholic priests are required to marry gay men or lesbians?
Do you think that'll never happen?
You know, no, no.
When do you think it no, no, I everybody every everybody says that can't happen.
No way that can happen.
Come on in.
No, no way that can happen.
And I would tell you, my reaction would be there's a whole lot of stuff that not that long ago people said, no way, it's never gonna that is now mainstream.
So Kyle Kyle Smith of New York Post has a column asking the question could Catholic priests be forced to marry Adam and Steve.
Not a chance, declared Slate.com's Emily Basilon in a sneering column that said this was a mere scare tactic.
Political sci-fi, you might as well fear an invasion of zombies.
Well, we're all gonna we're all on the way to becoming zombies, according to Paul Ehrlich and his buddies at Stanford.
It was two and a half years ago that this babe at Slate said, no chance, no chance, don't that's just a scare tactic.
They're trying to scare you about the left is never gonna demand the Catholic church conduct same-sex marriages, weddings.
Two months ago, gay New York Times columnist Frank Bruni pushed a goalpost down the field.
He wrote approvingly of Mitchell Gold, a gay philanthropist and founder of the activist group Faith in America, which is dedicated to stamping out what it calls religion-based bigotry.
Mitchell Gold says that churches must take homosexuality off the sin list.
Speaking of this, 300,000 people rallied in Rome over the weekend against gay marriage.
Hundreds of thousands of people traveled from all over Italy and Europe yesterday to pro to protest against the proposed legalization of gay marriage and the teaching of gender theories in schools.
They gathered in the San Giovanni Square in Rome.
Estimates running from 300,000 to a Million people.
They held banners that said the family will save the world.
Let's defend our children, as the Italian Prime Minister tried to push a civil union bill through Parliament.
The call for Italy to keep pace with its Western European neighbors on the issue of gay marriage has grown stronger since Ireland voted overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage last month.
But you know how that happened in Ireland?
They rented the protesters in Ferguson, Missouri.
They took them over to Ireland to conduct protests and make it look like the whole country was that's exactly how it happened.
I mean, I'm joking about renting the protesters in Ferguson, but it was Americans who went over to Ireland, passed themselves off as people that live there supporting the issue.
And they created a false impression of public opinion via the public protest.
And that's what the people in Italy are trying to prevent happening.
So they're showing up in a preemptive strike in massive numbers opposing it.
Because they don't want it to happen in Italy.
They see what happened in Ireland, they see the technique.
Ladies and gentlemen, your host once again blamed for the division in media, the divisiveness in media by a former Bush spokesperson.
This on Fox News Media Buzz program on Sunday morning, hosted by Howard Kurtz.
And he's speaking with the former Bush White House spokesperson Mercedes Schlepp about Trump and his announcement that he's going to run for president.
Kurtz said, okay, with Jeb Bush announcing on Monday and Trump announcing on Tuesday, how is it that Donald Trump got a week's worth of coverage, a guy who many people think is mostly providing entertainment, and Jeb didn't get hardly anything.
He's an incredibly provocative and controversial figure with these outrageous one-liners that seem to somehow uh make the news, and the media loves that.
It drives what the media is looking for, which is a sort of entertainment.
Let's seize the oil from ISIS.
Let's build a wall in Mexico.
What's been fascinating to watch is that the conservative media has been split on Trump.
So you've got Crotthammer, George Will basically saying he's he shouldn't be running, et cetera.
And then on the other hand, you've got a Rush Liball saying basically that Trump's message is going to resonate.
So he's actually even created division amongst the conservative press.
Trump has created division among the conservative press.
I guess prior to Trump, the conservative press was unified, awind, and all on the same page.
And then Trump came along.
And with these silly little statements like, Why should I have the oil in Iraq?
Why don't we?
Yeah, that's just an entertaining statement.
Don't take that seriously.
That doesn't mean anything.
Just like I'm gonna build the best wall the world's ever seen, and I'm gonna make Mexico pay for it.
That's just an entertaining.
That doesn't mean anything.
There's no basis or substance to that.
And of course, the media eats that set up, and you got Krauthammer and Will over here saying that's crazy, he ought not even get in a race.
And then you got Limbaugh saying, hey, that stuff's gonna resonate.
It does.
Just like Perot resonated.
It is resonating.
I don't look at myself as being divided from Krauthammer and Will on, well, this.
Oh, and uh James Cleiburn, the uh former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucasians, was on Meet the Press on Sunday with Chuck Todd, said he's very proud of the way NBC handled the Brian Williams circumstances.
It made him proud to be a peacocker.
Well, that's their icon.
He didn't say that, but that's what he meant.
He'd be proud NBC employee, proud peacocker.
The way they handle the Brian Williams situation.
Anyway, Chuck Todd's interviewing uh uh James Clyburn.
He said, Congressman, uh, you're from a generation that was in the middle of civil rights movement.
You saw the pain, the protests of the 60s, some of these attacks took place in the 60s.
Did you think this was at all possible that something like this, meaning the massacre of the church, you think this could happen in the 21st century?
Unfortunately, Chuck, I did.
I have been saying for some time now, my friends in the Congressional Black Caucus will tell you, I've been saying to them that there's a rightward drift in the country that I think is going too far.
Uh, and people get emboldened uh by all of this.
What rightward drift?
I mean, even the Washington Post today, when Dana Milbrank is celebrating the leftward drift.
What rightward?
If there were a rightward drift.
There isn't a rightward drift.
Not in the way he means it.
Well, he, you know what he means with Fox News?
He's talking about Fox News.
The right word drift simply means the one news network that's not like all the others.
So Chuck Todd tried to get another question in, but didn't.
Clyburn just kept talking.
We hear all this discussion about the Confederate battle flag.
And what is so interesting about that, Chuck, is that that is not the Confederate flag.
That's a battle flag that flies in front of the State House.
That is a flag of rebellion.
We would not be having this discussion if that were the Confederate flag or the flag of the Confederate States of America.
Because that flag is not a symbol of hate.
So when you see the resurrection of this, a young man 21 years old wearing all of these apartheid things on his shirt, burning the United States flag and glorifying the elongated version of the battle flag.
Certainly you're creating a climate that'll allow this kind of thing to happen.
Who is creating the climate for some kid to run around with the flags of apartheid on his shirt?
Who is creating that climate?
I'm not asking this rhetorically.
Who's creating that climate?
If that climate even exists, who's creating it?
I gotta take a break.
Nobody seems to want to answer that.
Let me give you a an example here what I'm uh what I'm talking about.
Let's let's take a look at gay marriage.
You've got F. Chuck Todd in the Washington Post today saying one of the reasons why the country is moving left, he happily thinks, is because the country so overwhelmingly approves of gay marriage and transgenderism.
And when people find out that those things are articles of faith, that liberalism is that's what liberalism is, then that's me.
Count me in.
Except there's a slight problem.
The only evidence that gay marriage is all this supported and so wonderfully accepted is polling data.
Gay marriage has not been voted on, just like abortion.
It's taken out of the public's hands and imposed on the country by the Supreme Court.
Likewise, it is the courts who are imposing gay marriage on the nation.
The public hasn't voted on it.
The left has taken gay marriage out of the Democrat process.
So you know all this talk about how America supports gay marriage, isn't it wonderful?
Yay, yay, yay.
Left must not think so because they will not put it up to a vote.
The left is resorting to non-democratic means to impose gay marriage.
And after the fact, say, look at oh man, everybody supports it.
Just like they tried to say everybody supports abortion after Roe versus Wade, but it's not.
And this kind of stuff is what royals a society.
You know, in Great Britain, abortion is never argued about as not nearly like it is here, because they voted on it there.
It wasn't imposed on them.
You know what I didn't get to?
I didn't get to the Taylor Swift Apple thing, and that's actually from the standpoint of uh business and perhaps antitrust.
I mean, there's all the kinds of fascinating things about this.
Uh, and I want to get into those, and I did just slip my mind once we got into other things, so I'll just save that for tomorrow.
And there's a couple other things too that I didn't get to today, but no need to tell you what they are.
You'll know tomorrow when you hear them.
▲
Export Selection