Rush Limbaugh Program - July 2, 2015, Thursday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 2, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program

35:19

July 2, 2015, Thursday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The views expressed by the host of this program documented to be almost always right 99.7% of the time.
	I am your host, L. Rush Moe, with half my brain tied behind my back.
	Always make it fair.
	Telephone number, you want to be on the programs 800-282-2882, and the email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
	We're doing open line Friday on Thursday.
	Eric Erickson will be sitting in guest hosting tomorrow.
	So even though I've asked a couple questions and you're free to take a stab at either or both, you can also mention or talk about whatever it is that you want.
	Pretend that it's Friday and there are very few limits on that which we want to.
	And that limits are not really that big anyway.
	I mean, it is really Monday through Thursday, you have to talk about things I care about, or that's it.
	It's the highway.
	Because if I'm bored and I'm the host, I mean, that's not good for the listeners.
	And so the objective is simply keep me engaged.
	That means talking about things I care about.
	On Friday, that's what we take this giant career risk and broom all that, and whatever you want to discuss is fine.
	RG3, the quarterback, don't know for how long of the Washington Redskins came into the league amidst great fanfare.
	First round draft choice, Daniel Snyder, the owner of the Redskins, traded up to get RG3, and he's had some injuries, and he just hasn't maxed his potential.
	Well, some people think he's bombed.
	And the media, it's kind of strange because here we have an African American quarterback, and yet the media has been kind of mean to uh RG3.
	And one of the reasons is that it's suspected that RG3 is a Republican.
	So in light of all of that, Washington Redskins quarterback, Robert Griffin III, was among the many celebrities, including Samuel L. Jackson, to address the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday to advocate for the protection of the Earth's oceans.
	RG3 spoke to how humanity's actions are destroying the oceans, specifically the use of plastic bottles.
	Although that's not the only problem plaguing the oceans.
	RG3 said on Tuesday, it's incredible how many plastic water bottles we use a year, sometimes even in a day.
	I have already started eliminating plastic water bottles from my daily routine.
	Plastic is everywhere.
	It doesn't dissolve, it's always there, and that is part of the problem.
	RG3 was approached by the Parley Foundation, invited to speak to its central mission to address the major threats to our oceans, the most important ecosystem of our planet.
	RG3 the third said, yeah, to have an opportunity go to the UN, speak to some of the delegates, that was really cool.
	Not everybody gets to do that.
	When asked what the oceans meant personally to him.
	What do the oceans mean personally to you, folks?
	What do you think the oceans personally mean to people on the beach of North Carolina today?
	But what seriously, what do the oceans mean to you personally?
	Snugley, what do the oceans mean to you?
	Come on, you telling me you don't even think about it.
	The ocean the oceans don't mean anything to you.
	See, this is the problem.
	Well, RG3, he said, when asked what the oceans mean personally to him.
	He said, I just said that literally.
	It's something so big, much bigger than me as an individual, metaphorically speaking, it's bigger than me because we rely on the ocean.
	People don't understand.
	Once they obtain that knowledge, they can truly understand what we're going and what we're doing to it and why it's important that we don't destroy it.
	Now, this program debut August 1st, 1988, and shortly thereafter, maybe right around that time, Ted Danson, noted bartender on TV, and uh now Crime Stopper on uh TV gave the world's oceans ten years.
	In 1988.
	So we had 10 years, or we were going to die out because the oceans were going to die out.
	But he was not the first.
	For years prior, there have been celebrities and environmentalist wackos warning everybody that if we don't take care of the oceans, if we don't fix them, we don't clean them up, if we don't stop this pollution, then we're finished.
	And it's just one part of the overall apocalyptic message from all of environmentalism.
	The oceans are going to kill us, or climate change is going to kill us, or you name it, it just never ends.
	Nobody has ever been right yet.
	May I remind you of something about the oceans?
	We couldn't destroy the ocean if we tried.
	Just like we could not destroy the ozone if we tried.
	The sun creates the ozone.
	We'd have to put the sun out if we wanted to destroy the ozone layer.
	No matter what we do, there's going to be an ozone layer as long as the sun is emitting its rays.
	You remember the BP oil spill, ladies and gentlemen.
	What do you what could possibly be more yucky?
	What could possibly be more yicky?
	What could possibly be dirtier and filthier and grimier than oil?
	You ever seen what oil does to anything?
	Oh, gee, you put it in a seat of your car.
	You know, it's horrible.
	Oil is just gunk.
	It's just junk gunk to a lot of people.
	Until the miracle of refinement takes place, and oil has become the fuel of the greatest economic engine the world has ever known.
	Nevertheless, the BP oil spill, remember all of that oil.
	Remember all the video tape, remember all the video you've seen of that oil just spurting into the sea from that blown platform, the Gulf of Mexico?
	Remember all the media and the environmentalist wackos and President Obama really just worried, oh my God, the Gulf of Mexico.
	They told us and predicted that the Gulf of Mexico was going to be polluted with oil for decades.
	There's no way we could ever clean up this amount of oil.
	Three weeks after they capped the well, they couldn't find any oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
	They literally couldn't find it.
	And many of the media commentators and analysts and environmentalist wacko guests began to inspect various ocean currents.
	Well, maybe, maybe, because you know, oil floats.
	Well, that's why they couldn't find it.
	We're stunned.
	Oil floats.
	It should be up there right on the surface.
	I mean, you should be able to see it for miles and miles and miles, and they couldn't find it.
	You know why?
	The ocean just devoured it.
	The Gulf of Mexico just devoured it.
	Do you know, ladies and gentlemen, that on the ocean floor, oil is constantly seeping into the water from cracks on the ocean floor.
	Constantly.
	It's a never-ending stream.
	Some tases it's a gusher.
	Never makes it to the surface.
	The sea literally destroys it.
	It devours it.
	It neutralizes it.
	You know what it is?
	It's called nature.
	And no matter where you go, and there have been massive oil spills, they all end up getting cleaned up, don't they?
	And not largely by man.
	I mean, I know we take our little, what is the dishwasher detergent that they took out there to clean the rocks?
	That's right, dawn dishwasher.
	Remember that, Prince William Sound, they actually had people wiping oil off the rocks at Prince William Sound with dawn dishwasher detergent because they said it eats oil.
	The earth fixes itself in all kinds of ways.
	They really they could not find any doesn't matter.
	RG3 is a nice guy.
	He's out there.
	We save the oceans, plastic bottles.
	By the way, who invented plastic bottles?
	Who gave us the concept of plastic bottles?
	Environmentalists.
	Environmentalist wackos and health nuts who told us that tap water in America was foul, filthy, near poisonous, and it was going to make you sick.
	Started urging everybody decades ago now, start drinking bottled water.
	It led to a massive new industry.
	Now the environmentalist wackos claim that there's way too much plastic, and we've got to stop drinking bottled water.
	And RG3 is on the case.
	Do you think there's any coincidence the fact that RG3's career appears to be hanging in the balance and all of a sudden out of the blue, there he is at the U.N.?
	Talking about saving the oceans.
	And there's one other little tidbit that may or may not be related.
	Did you see where President Obama is saying he's going to refuse to support Washington, D.C. trying to lure the Redskins back on the very soil where RFK Stadium used to be.
	That was the Redskins heyday.
	I mean, that the Redskins were champions going to Super Bowls.
	Everybody loved RFK Stadium.
	Washington wants them back.
	They own the land underneath it, and they're going to try to get Snyder and the Redskins to agree to come back.
	Obama says, No, you're not.
	Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, whose department includes the National Park Service, told the Washington, D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser, that unless the Redskins change their name, the Obama regime would not work to accommodate construction of a new venue for them in Washington.
	Only if they change their name.
	Now, it's the city of Washington trying to lure them back.
	I don't think this is the Redskins'idea.
	Washington wants them back.
	They're currently in Landover, Maryland.
	We'll be back and we'll continue with much more after this.
	Don't go away.
	Earlier in the program, I asked the audience a couple questions.
	We're taking phone calls from people.
	If you choose to address, they're more than willing to, more than welcome to.
	First question Do you think the Republican Party, Republican presidential candidates, are being harmed by Donald Trump?
	His behavior, his comments, his presidential campaign.
	Serious question.
	I'm not including my own opinion in that, so don't infer anything.
	Seriously want to know what your thoughts.
	The next question.
	Are any of you surprised by what seems to be a total lack of any public protest or anger?
	And certainly there is no uprising against what could only be described as a full-fledged assault on traditional American culture.
	It's been going on for years, but it codified last week, came to a head with Supreme Court finding a constitutional right to gay marriage, which is now opening the doors to any kind of perversion of the definition of marriage you can concoct.
	It doesn't seem to be any public protest, doesn't seem to be any anger, certainly no uprising against it.
	What's your reaction to that?
	And along those lines, story from the Blaze.com, the headlines all I'll give you now because I'm at the head of the phones.
	The shocking proportion of Americans who believe that religion religious institutions and clergy should be made to perform gay weddings.
	The shocking proportion of Americans who believe that churches and pastors should be forced to perform gay weddings.
	You don't believe it.
	A new survey conducted in the wake of the Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage last Friday found that one in five Americans, 20% believe that churches and clergy should be made, should be required to perform same-sex marriages.
	More specifically, 26% of Americans under the age of 40 believe that churches and clergy should be forced to preside over gay nuptials.
	Survey was conducted by the Barna Group, a polling firm that studies religion.
	Found that 94% of evangelicals oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage.
	Only 2% of them expressing support for it.
	Here is where we go on somebody give me a green banner on one of these lines.
	Scott in Davy, Florida.
	Great to have you, sir.
	You're next on open line Friday on Thursday.
	Hi.
	Good afternoon, Rush.
	How are you?
	Very well, sir.
	Thank you.
	Good.
	Um I've been searching high and low for the answer to this, and I can't find it anywhere.
	Uh so I figured I would turn my attention to the uh Institute for the Advanced Conservative Studies.
	Yes.
	Um what I'm looking for, and like I said, I can't find the answer.
	I don't know if it's been if the precedent's been set yet or if it's even illegal, but we have a ton of uh nominees out there.
	And what I'm wondering is if you have any recollection if it's been done if a uh a candidate before nominated picks their vice presidential candidate.
	And the reason I'm saying this, this could be a good thing for some of these candidates if they were to Perot did it.
	Excuse me?
	Perot did it.
	Oh, okay.
	Well, you have answered my question.
	He chose Admiral Stockdale.
	You have answered my question.
	Admiral Stockdale showed up at the first vice presidential debate and said, What am I doing here?
	And I think there's a couple others have done it.
	I uh it it it has been done.
	It's not unprecedented, but it's never made a difference.
	It's never mattered.
	Okay.
	Are you looking at some way for these guys to break out of the pack?
	Well, yeah, my feelings are this.
	You know, I I mean a lot of people are saying that Jeb is going to be the uh, you know, the nominee.
	Um, and you're not gonna get to the White House unless you get uh Florida and Ohio.
	And practically I'm thinking Jeb may look at picking uh Kasich as his running mate before the nomination.
	Well, like who would you think he would pick?
	Kasich.
	Well, I think Kasich's on the way to announcing.
	And Kasich's about to get in this thing.
	I I've seen that too.
	But I'm just wondering tactically if that would be, you know, beneficial to try to stir up Florida in Ohio.
	Look, it you've you've called the right place, but you're not going to get an answer that you're looking for, I don't I don't think.
	Um in fact, I was going to mention this again today, because it happened again yesterday.
	I showed up someplace, and immediately I get peppered with questions about who I think should be or who I think will be the nominee.
	Now I don't know quite the best way to explain this, because I I don't want anybody to infer from my answer that I don't think it's important, obviously.
	But I think the questions, the the the issues, the uh the challenges we face go so far beyond the question right now of who the nominee is going to be.
	Now, I may be wrong when I assess the people asking me this question, but I get the impression, as I say I could be wrong, it's doubtful, but I have to acknowledge that those rare moments I am wrong, it happens.
	My My perception is that the people that ask me this question, or who are really, really focused on it, are simply looking at the horse race aspect of this.
	Now, I understand the importance of winning.
	This is why I do not want to be misunderstood.
	It's going to be tough for me to explain this.
	But simply the nominee is not the our answer does not reside in the nominee.
	Our solution.
	The nominee is part of the solution, but the nominee is not the solution.
	This is the best way I can put this.
	And to look at it that way is to miss so much of what's important out there.
	Okay, checking the email, snark in the email.
	Mr. Limbaugh, do you realize how idiotic you sound when you say the ocean just ate the oil from the BP?
	See, this is in the old days I would laugh about this.
	This depresses me.
	Do I realize how stupid I sound?
	Do you realize how stupid you are for not understanding it?
	Let me put this in perspective for you.
	The amount of oil that was spilled by BP in the Gulf of Mexico was the size of Cowboy Stadium.
	If you want to visualize the amount of oil that was spilled, it would fill Cowboy Stadium.
	Do you know how big Cowboys Stadium is compared to the Gulf of Mexico?
	The spilled oil, by the way, these stats are from CNBC.
	The spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico would be like pouring a 24-ounce can of beer into Texas Stadium.
	You wouldn't even notice it.
	Grab a 24-ounce can of a two 12-ounce cans of beer and pour them into Texas Stadium.
	Now, ATT stamp.
	Pour them in there.
	You can't find what happens.
	Just randomly pour the beer on the floor on the field where you won't find it.
	The equivalent of 24 ounces of beer was spilled into the Gulf of Mexico.
	It was nothing for the ocean to devour it.
	It was nothing for the ocean to eat it up.
	It was not the end of anything.
	It was not the end of plant life.
	It was not the end of marine life.
	It was not the end of the ocean.
	It was not the end of humanity.
	It was not the end of BP.
	It was not the end of anything.
	It was insignificant.
	But nobody knows that because the media treated it as an outrageous, unparalleled natural disaster, unlike anything we'd ever seen, and it was Trump change.
	Now, all these plastic bottles, where do you think we get them?
	Any of you have any idea?
	In fact, the dawn dishwater detergent that we took out to Prince William Sound with paper towels to try to get the oil off of the rocks.
	Do you know where that dishwashing detergent is in plastic bottles?
	Do you know where we get the plastic bottles?
	It is a petroleum-based product.
	It is oil from which plastic bottles are derived and made.
	If we would burn all the oil in our cars, they wouldn't be able to make plastic bottles.
	So much of this is just...
	It gets back to my question here.
	Are any of you surprised by the utter lack of public protest or anger or uprising against our culture?
	We're sitting here, we are witnessing a time-honored, thousands-of-year tradition and institution, Literally be destroyed.
	And nobody apparently thinks anything about it.
	And the answer to the question leads you to ask further: well, really is maybe a majority of the country already gone.
	Couple of stories for you here.
	The shocking proportion of Americans who believe that religious institutions or clergy should be forced to perform gay weddings, 20% of the country think that.
	26% of millennials.
	Next story.
	From the Hill.com.
	Millennial Republicans are urging Republican leaders to adopt an inclusive tone on gay marriage following last week's ruling.
	They argue that combative rhetoric risks alienating a new generation of voters who can abandon Republican candidates over the issue.
	Alex Smith, the executive director, the college Republican National Committee said dignity, respect, and fairness are a huge part of what this generation wants to see in this debate.
	You know what's funny about that?
	In all candor, again here, just in all honesty.
	There isn't.
	Well, they say they don't want to see dignity, respect, or fairness, but he who opposes gay marriage.
	They don't want to see.
	The point is that the proponents of gay marriage are permitted all kinds of indignity.
	The proponents of gay marriage are permitted all kinds of disrespect.
	The proponents of gay, or any other issue here that is causing cultural upheaval, the proponents of whatever it is are perfectly allowed to be unfair.
	It's okay if they are undignified in their approach and manner in which they secure it, but the opponents had better sit idly by with inclusiveness and tolerance while what they believe in is destroyed, or else there's going to be trouble.
	Now, does that make any sense, folks?
	The people who are doing the upheaval, the people who are engaging in efforts to totally upend the culture, they can be as undignified as they want, they can be as unfair as they want, and nobody is critical of them.
	But if those whose culture is being turned upside down and destroyed, do not act docile and tolerant and stand aside quietly, why then there's going to be trouble.
	This kind of reminds me of the old saw that uh the Republicans had better understand here that if they start getting too critical of the Democrats, the independents are going to abandon them and run right to the Democrat Party.
	But the Democrat Party can be as undignified, as mean-spirited, as extremist as it wants, and that never seems to bother the independents.
	So I'm just, I'm just confused here.
	I don't, I don't, I literally don't understand what the point is.
	And we're told the same thing about amnesty.
	We're told the same thing about race relations, we're told the same thing about abortion, we're told the same thing about drug legalizations, every other thing the left wants.
	You're just supposed to back dignified and be fair and be tolerant and shut up, and whatever you do, don't oppose it.
	That's going to give us all kinds of trouble.
	But the proponents of all this can go out and destroy their opponents literally and figuratively.
	They can put people out of work, they can destroy businesses, whatever they want to do in furtherance of their objective.
	Why, that's applauded.
	And that's said to be okay.
	But the victims of all this are not even allowed victim status.
	Now, somebody tell me how that works.
	Somebody tell me if that's really true.
	Is the way.
	Let's say you just a pick, let's say uh that's gay marriage.
	We'll still say you oppose it.
	You're not supposed to say so, and you're not supposed to act on it.
	That's not undignified.
	And you're exhibiting unfairness if you're not tolerant.
	If you, if you don't stand aside and let it happen, well, we're gonna have real problems as Republicans.
	Meanwhile, the people in favor of it can destroy that bake shop over there or That photography studio over there or whoever they want to render a church meaningless if they want to.
	They can engage in whatever behavior they want, and that's not criticized.
	How does this work, folks?
	This is what Trump is actually standing up against.
	Young Republicans say party risks losing millennials after gay marriage ruling if they don't just shut up.
	And so Mitch McConnell says, hey, it's the law of the land now.
	Nothing we can do about it.
	We have to move on.
	The next story from Breitbart and the young and brilliant Ben Shapiro.
	A new poll from TransferWise shows that 35% of those born in the U.S. would consider leaving their home country and live elsewhere.
	And that number 35% skyrockets among millennials aged 18 to 34.
	55%.
	According to TransferWise.
	Never heard of it, but if Shapiro's quoting them, they've got to be okay.
	55% of millennials, 18 to 34, said they would think of taking off, leaving America if given the chance.
	And most of that 55% of millennials say economics is the chief reason in their desire to leave.
	43% of men, 38% of women said they would leave if they could get paid more in another country.
	Now, wait, how does that jibe when everything else we're being told about millennials who love Obama, who love what's happening to America culturally?
	They're obsessed with equality and fairness and tolerance, and yet 55% of them want to leave the country if given a chance for more money.
	I mean, I had been led to believe that millennials didn't care about money, that that was not as important to them as it has been to other generations, that they were more interested in equality and fair treatment and everybody getting along.
	But if you've got 55%, this doesn't jibe with any other piece of news we ever get about millennials.
	The story we get from millennials is that they are in love with the Democrat Party.
	They love the left-wing media, they've loved what's happening to our culture, they massively support gay marriage and transgender rights and whatever else is going on in the culture.
	And we just had the Republican.
	The college Republican guys say that if you people don't stand up and shut down and shut up about gay marriage and you're just gonna hurt the Republicans because the millennials all support this.
	Well, how does that jibe with them wanting to leave the country?
	55%.
	And 43% of men, it tells us two things.
	One thing it tells us is millennials have been taught they do not have a good economic future in this country.
	And number two, they don't realize that the U.S. is the place with the best economic opportunities in the world.
	But really, how can you blame them?
	Stop and think of how old they are.
	They're 18 to 34.
	What have they seen growing up?
	Remember, 18 to 34, they discount the first 15 years.
	Maybe the first 12.
	So in the last half of their lives, if they are 34, what have they seen as evidence of a great American economy?
	I'd submit to you they haven't seen it.
	And to the extent that they may think they've seen it, what have they been told about it?
	18 to 34 is become of age, between 2000 and 2008.
	What was happening then?
	The media and the public schools were just literally destroying, Trying to destroy the Bush administration, the war in Iraq, the U.S. economy.
	It was a steady drumbeat of America sucks on virtually everything from torture to war to the economy to Republicans.
	That's all they know.
	That's all they've been treated to.
	Anyway, we have to take a break.
	Get back to your phones after this.
	Don't go away.
	It's not just Donald Trump, the drive-by is on now.
	The New York Times is aiming at Scott Walker.
	It's not bad yet, but the New York Times is warning Scott Walker: hey, you're about to move too far to the right for your own good.
	Walker is uh getting close to an announcement.
	Iowa, he's he's uh trying to distance himself, and he's already solidly identified on the right.
	And they claim at the New York Times he's moving too far for the right to the right.
	It's not gonna be good for him later on.
	He'd better pull back if he knows what's good for him.
	It would be unfair, and it would not be dignified.
	If he were to continue on this path.
	Not fair at all.
	Certainly not dignified.
	Here's AJ in Albuquerque, New Meiko.
	Hey, AJ, welcome to the program.
	Hi, Arrest.
	After 23 years, I finally made it through.
	Well, I'm glad you made it.
	That's persistence.
	Uh, do you want uh an answer to question one also as far as Donald Trump?
	Whichever one you want to answer the most.
	Well, as far as Donald Trump, no, he's not hurting the Republicans.
	His speech is a uh breath of fresh air.
	All right.
	And as far as number two, uh, let's face it, liberals have infiltrated every crevice of American lifestyle, uh, preaching their views.
	So, particularly in high schools and colleges where the young heads of Marsh, they don't want to buck the system and be an outcast.
	So many of them just, you know, have embraced either libertarian or democratic views.
	And as far as conservatives, let's face it, you know, we are working people.
	You know, liberals can get people, they will pay people to protest.
	I can't take off a day and lose a day's pay to go to a protest.
	But the thing is, they have their uh propaganda machine, uh, whereas the conservatives, we do not.
	We do not have a okay.
	So let me let me cut to the chase.
	Are you saying that because of this infiltration that that there really isn't any serious opposition to the cultural shifts taking place because they've all been corrupted, and they're really the the people that oppose are so cowed by political correctness anyway that that there's nobody to speak up in opposition because they're either few in number or they're afraid.
	Yes.
	I mean, it most people who agree with what you and I believe are older Americans who, you know, really don't go out and protest to begin with anyway.
	Well, now I understand that.
	I know in the question that's always gonna be a caveat.
	Um anyway, I'm up against it on time here, AJ.
	Great brevity.
	I'm glad you got it both in here.
	We gotta take a break.
	Back after this.
	Time is just zipping by here, folks.
	Fastest three hours in media, the fastest week in media.
	Brief timeout here at the top, scene profit break, back with much more.

▲