All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 10, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:20
August 10, 2015, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, folks.
Welcome back.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
800-282-2882.
Email address, LRushbo at EIBnet.com.
So in the last soundbite that we played, F. Chuck Todd is begging Trump.
Well, he's not begging.
He's just as incredulous.
Why can't you say you're sorry?
Why can't you just apologize?
It's a very common statement for people to make that they were wrong.
You know, the drive-bys are obsessed with this, by the way.
They would not let George W. Bush.
It was one particular press conference.
Every question was, have you made any mistakes?
They want people to admit they've made mistakes because that changes the whole narrative.
And they're trying to force.
Trump's not falling for that.
But in this soundbite, F. Chuck says, come on, man.
I mean, why can't you just apologize?
Look at him.
You go after people like Bett Midler, Gail Collins.
Let's talk about that for just a second here.
His people, our last caller, Josh, he started out liking Trump, but this is making him nervous.
Just attacking everybody is not what he thought this was all about.
It started to make him nervous.
And F. Chuck Todd is getting mad at Trump because he's attacking women on the basis of their looks and so forth.
But let's take a look at Bette Midler, for example.
Now, Bette Midler, and I have never talked about this because my policy is to ignore it all.
Bette Midler is a raving, lunatic leftist and angry, so much so that in her recent concert appearances in Vegas or wherever, she peppers her performance with insults of me and Bush and anybody else she doesn't.
Now, do you think, just stick with me here for a second, it's not about me, do you think in all of the hundreds and hundreds of people that show up at Bette Midler concerts or whatever, do you think some of them in there maybe are not liberal progressive?
Some of them maybe just in there to hear her sing and she starts into this political stuff and they get ticked off?
That's not, they don't show up at these things, get preached to by singers, especially from an upstart, condescending, arrogant platform, condescending, arrogant way.
Okay, so if you happen to be one of those people, and there are probably thousands of them by now, and all of a sudden here's Trump firing back at her, you might sit there and say, good, because you might be sick and tired of having to put up with it for all these years.
And not just Bette Midler, but everybody else in entertainment.
Gail Collins, who is editorial board in a column, New York Times, hasn't had a good thing to say about a conservative since she was in the New York Daily News.
Does anybody ever fire back at her?
No, because the media is off limits.
Well, Trump is.
Do you think maybe some people enjoy it?
Maybe some people find it refreshing.
I don't know how far they're taking it in terms of just what they want in a candidate, but for now, at this moment in time, what everything is, there are some people that may be nothing more than that.
Our previous callers, Josh, said to him that Trump's coming off is juvenile.
Maybe.
It may be, but to a lot of people, and I'm just telling you that I don't want to just focus on the media.
When I talk the elected political class, I'm talking about people in Washington, people in New York, all of the elites.
Don't think they have the slightest idea.
They think they do, but I don't think they have the slightest idea the real anger in the country over what they are doing to it.
There is real visceral anger over this amnesty, BS.
There is real visceral anger over what's been done to the economy.
There is real visceral anger over what is being done to the health care system via Obamacare.
The reason they don't know it is because they do not care to talk to the people who feel that way.
So they never do features.
They never go out and do man on the street interviews with people like that because they are interested in furthering the agenda that has made all of this happen.
Now, they know there can be some people disagree with it, but they immediately relegate them to insignificant status.
They're either bitter clingers or they're lunkheads or they're small in number or they're just old-fashioned diddies that don't deal well with change or what have you.
But they're missing the real anger, and it's been building.
And the anger, you can see it in the midterm 2010, 2014 elections.
There have been people who have shown up in droves.
The Democrats have lost over 1,000 seats in those midterm elections.
And part of those elections were Republicans being elected because the people voting for them wanted them to stop all of this, or at least try.
And they don't see any trying to stop it.
They don't see any effort being made, serious effort, to defund Planned Parenthood.
You don't think there's some real outrage in this country over what has been learned was always suspected.
Now what has been confirmed is going on in those abortion clinics.
There's real anger out there.
And the one person that's come along that's tapped into it and that gives everybody the impression that he's fully aware of it and agrees with them is Donald Trump.
And as such, he's got a pretty wide berth here.
He's got a pretty big margin of error.
I can confidently say to you that the noted experts in both parties, the political professionals, and all of their associates are stymied and stupefied over the fact that Trump went up in a poll after the Thursday Night Fox debate.
They thought that was it.
You even saw a Drudge headline on Friday.
Forget what it actually said, but the meaning of it was, was that party leaders, in this case, GOP party leaders, thought that he had finally stepped in and it was over.
Now, as to this apology business, I know the people involved here.
I mean, I know Megan Kelly.
I've gotten to know her socially and professionally, and the same thing with Trump.
And I know a little bit about them.
I'm not good friends with either one.
But I know enough to know that the last thing Megan Kelly wants to be is perceived as a victim here.
So I doubt, and I could be dead wrong about this, but I doubt that she's out there craving an apology.
Nor is she even considering offering one.
But I know she doesn't want to be considered a victim.
She doesn't want to in any way, shape, manner, or form.
So I think that to her, this is part of the territory as far as Trump's concerned.
The first time I actually met Trump, not just to say hi somewhere, was at his golf course here.
And this is years ago.
And he was then what you see today.
He found out I was there.
He came up and said hello to me.
And the first thing he did was point out some guy.
See that guy over there?
Yeah.
Richest man in Italy.
My friend.
Richest man in Italy.
Nobody in Italy needs more money than that guy.
You ought to see his car that he draws.
It's a Ferrari.
You ought to go take a look at it.
I'll show you.
And then he started bragging about his golf course.
Best golf course in the world.
There isn't a better golf course, no matter what you do.
Augusta, nothing compared to what I got.
They say Pebble Beach is great.
Pebble Beach is nothing compared to my course out in L.A. You see my course in LA?
I have an ocean.
They got a little lake.
No comparison.
It's just who he is.
And my point is, it isn't an act.
It's genuine.
And I think people are picking up on that.
There's one other thing here.
As you know, I'm in the free speech business, big believer in it.
And I think, and I don't quite know how to express this.
I'll give it my best shot.
I think, bouncing off Chuck Todd here today.
Do you apologize, Donna?
What's okay?
Just apologize.
What is these apologies?
I'm stunned, frankly, at how words have become so damn powerful.
Meanwhile, if anybody owes anybody an apology, I'm dead serious about this.
It's Barack Obama and the Democrat Party for what they are doing and have done to this country.
I mean, there are real things of action taking place that are genuinely transformative and destructive, transformative in a negative way that I don't believe anybody in the near-majority came close to voting for.
And I think that is far more offensive to me and bothersome and worrisome than anything anybody says.
And particularly when people are trying to tell jokes or be funny about something.
But we've learned that stand-up comics do not even play college campaign anymore because political correctness is so ingrained that nothing is seen as funny.
Well, that isn't healthy and it isn't good.
And I know some of this is also a two-way street.
Do you notice nobody ever demands people on the left apologize for anything?
And I'm telling you, you could throw Trump in there.
Whatever happened to the Fox debate, some of the stuff that is said about some of us on the right by people on the left dwarfs what we're all talking about today.
What happened in the Fox News debate?
Some of it is despicably destructive.
Look at what Reed said about Romney.
Look at what the Obama campaign said about Romney not caring that some employee's wife died or that Romney hasn't paid his taxes in 10 years.
Just out and out lies for the purposes of destroying someone's character, personality, and career.
And nobody ever runs to them and asks them to apologize or to explain themselves.
So it's clear to me that certain people can say whatever they want and it's fine and dandy and it will maybe even be applauded.
Now, I'm not saying if they get away with it, we should be able to get it.
I'm saying that there's a double standard here.
And too many people on our side attempt to comport themselves in ways they think will gain the approval of our enemies.
An example would be anybody who says, I want them to know that I can work with them, that I'm willing to cross the aisle, that I can cooperate.
We are not the problem.
By we, I mean conservatives.
We are not the problem.
None of this that's happened in this country has got our fingerprints on it.
Now, I'll give you detailed examples of this as we get deeper into the stack of stuff as the program unfolds here today.
I don't know how much of what Trump says he's trying to be funny and how much of it he's being dead serious, but I've always been not perplexed because I understand it.
I just have always been somebody goes out and says something outrageously offensive, insulting, whatever.
Outrage automatically appears.
How dare they?
Who would think that?
I'm sorry.
I didn't mean it.
It wasn't me.
That's not who I am.
Okay, everything's okay.
You mean that takes away that it was said.
If it was so bad, how can an apology erase it?
How can an apology make it as though it didn't happen?
There's something, something else at work here just besides apologizing for something outrageously stated.
I just think everybody's a little bit wound too tight over this.
And I would dare say that even that is a direct result of liberalism and PC and all of that that has been inculcated in the skulls full of much in public education for the last 50 years.
You got all these socialist economists writing books about the failure of capitalism, the failure.
Tell me something.
When have we had capitalism in this country for enough years for it to actually demonstrate what it does?
The liberals have been running this show for every bit of trouble that we are in in this country.
The vast majority of it is because of liberalism and the success they have had in implementing their beliefs, policies, or whatever, much of it without even having passed Congress.
EPA regulations, fish and wildlife regulations, you name it.
And they never have to say a word, just have to put the regulations in place.
People automatically abide by them.
And they're assumed to have the force of law.
And they end up being destructive and damaging to the American economy, the American culture.
And then all of a sudden we hear that guys like, well, take your pick, any Republican president is the problem.
Or a Republican senator conservative is the problem.
The fact of the matter is, aside from the eight years of Reagan, when has there really been any?
This country is what it is because liberals have been winning and have been succeeding in forcing their policy preferences even on the judiciary now.
Now, what's frustrating for me is that is a fact.
That is a reality.
And I watch millennials interviewed on TV.
What's the biggest problem your generation faces?
Jobs.
Jobs have jobs.
Why do you think there aren't any?
Why do you think the job market is what it is?
Who has been taking pieces of the private sector and pieces of the private away and making it smaller and limiting opportunity?
Who's been doing that?
The Democrat Party gotta take a break.
Sit tight.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Don't go away.
Hey, we just got a new poll.
Hot off the presses.
You know me, I'm not big on polls, but what the heck?
It's our buddies at this Kami-Lib polling unit in North Carolina, public policy polling.
And it's Iowa.
Trump still leads in Iowa.
He's at 19%.
Ben Carson at 12%.
Scott Walker.
Wait a minute.
Yeah, 12% of Ben Carson and Scott Walker are both at 12%.
11% for Jeb, 10% for Carly Fiorina, which is way up.
9% for Cruz, 6% for Huckabee and Rubio.
And the other nine are clustered between 3% and zip.
Kasich and Rand Paul at 3%.
Bobby Jendal, Rick Perry, San Torum at 2%.
Chris Christie at 1%.
Gilmore, Lindsey Gramnesty, and Pataki have less than 1%.
So Trump is still leading 19%.
I don't know what he was in the previous public policy polling Iowa poll.
So I don't know if 19%, I haven't.
That's just the first paragraph.
I just got this.
I haven't been able to read the whole thing.
12% for Ben Carson and Scott Walker.
So this is two polls that Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina have skyrocketed after the Fox News debate.
Two different polls.
And Trump holds his lead in both polls.
And Cruz is up too a little bit, but not nearly as much in this one as he was in the NBC monkey time, Survey Monkey poll.
Here's Gregory in Washington, D.C. Great to have you, sir, on the EIB Network.
I'm up.
Thank you, sir.
You bet.
Enjoy your show.
Thank you.
Very much.
Thank you.
But I wanted to make the point was, what I wanted to say was that people are standing with Donald Trump, even if they don't agree with him, because people don't like bullies.
They don't like to see people being treated unfairly.
And if you look at what's going on, you see a lot of people have that Donald Trump.
Even if you look at articles that are from liberal sites to conservative sites that point out that Trump is now getting ready to fall into polls, that he's attacking women.
If you look at the comment section, you'll see a lot of people saying, look, they don't buy it.
They don't like the attacks that they are aiming at Donald Trump.
And even as a Christian, I'm a conservative, evangelical Christian.
There's no way that I can look at Trump's statement that he said in regards to Megan Kelly and then say, based on that statement, that he was talking about menstruation.
Now, there's no way that I can make that judgment.
So, and I would challenge any Christian to say that based on his comments, that you can say definitively that you know what was in his heart so you can make that statement about him.
So to make the statements like Erickson did, talk about he wouldn't want his daughter in the room with Trump, to say what Fiorina said, saying that now there was no excuse for Trump to make such a statement.
She stands with Megan Kelly.
All of this is just completely off base.
And when people see those kind of attacks taking place, they don't want to be a part of it.
Even if, again, they might not agree with Trump.
They don't like to see that happen.
And one last thing: I think Republicans are missing the point when they say the goal is to win the presidency.
No, the goal is not to win the presidency.
My goal is I want to see a true conservative represent what I value.
So even if I lose the president, even if the left wins the presidency, the EU is We're out of time here, but that's interesting, Gregory.
We'll be back, folks.
By the way, ladies and gentlemen, is it clear now why I, as a policy, do not endorse anyone early in a primary season?
Greetings.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
Great to have you.
Now, this next story is exactly, it's an example of exactly what I'm just talking about.
It's from Salon.com, which is a worthless, left-wing rag website.
The only thing decent there is Camille Paga.
Honestly, that's my opinion.
Here's the headline: Meritocracy is a massive lie.
Race, inheritance, and the truth about the rigged American dream.
Upward mobility has become a mirage.
The rich have never had more wealth.
The rest of us have never had more debt.
It's a long piece.
I'm not going to read the whole thing to you.
But let me ask you a question: why is Salon even doing this piece?
What are the circumstances they are complaining about?
More importantly, what has produced these circumstances?
My contention to you is that the policies of people that work at Salon have created these very things they are complaining about.
Meritocracy?
Who did away with that?
Who were the people that came along and said being better than somebody else is not fair?
Who came along and said we cannot educate people learning faster than others because it would humiliate those who don't learn as fast.
So we have to slow down the fast learners.
Who is it that came along and wanted to start punishing success and achievers by raising their taxes and stigmatizing them as cheaters, winners of life's lottery?
Who is it that came along and pretty much destroyed the whole concept of meritocracy by attacking it as illegitimate and nothing but luck?
It wasn't us.
It was people like Richard Gephardt and people like Barack Obama who talked that way.
Who is it that's keeping race relations alive?
Who is it that has gone rich, gotten rich, off of racial disharmony?
Who is it that stands in the way of racial solutions to problems?
Who is it that can't stop talking about race?
Who is it that can't stop blaming everything on race?
It's these people.
Who has created the whole concept of student loan debt?
And who now owns it?
The Democrat Party via Barack Obama, the federal government.
Pretty much everything this guy laments in this story is the result of progressive policies.
Liberalism, if you will.
Here's how this story begins.
Once a process of economic polarization begins, it's very hard to turn it around.
And do they ever know that?
Not just economic polarization.
They have polarized this country.
Barack Obama is one of the biggest dividers that we've ever had in the White House.
Polarization?
Attitudes harden.
Fears grow on fear as people polarize geographically.
They begin to know less and less of each other and become more fearful and more distrusting of each other.
Did this?
Who created this polarization?
Who refused to just let people live and live and live and so forth?
Who was it that tried to control everything everybody thought, everything everybody did?
Who was it that started trying to control outcomes?
Economic outcomes, educational outcomes, you name it.
Who is it that stigmatized the whole notion that some are better than others, some smarter than others, some more talented than others?
Who was it that came along and said all of that is unfair?
Who created things like affirmative action, an artificial way of reverse discrimination?
They did.
This is what so frustrates me about listening to millennials talk.
The very things they complain about, no more American dream, prospects of them doing better than their parents are gone.
They never, if you've been listening regularly, you know how frustrating this has been to me.
They claim the country's best days are over.
They claim they've lost faith in the country.
They don't have any ability, because of education, I guess, any ability to actually tie what has happened in this country to specific policies that have created it.
What's happening in this country is not the natural evolution of the human condition.
What has happened in this country is social architecture and economic architecture implemented, written, and implemented by the Democrat Party and the American left.
And now that it's failed, and now that 90, nearly 94 million Americans are not working, but they are all eating, so why do they have to work?
Now, all of a sudden, it's time to criticize America.
Poor guy writing this has no clue that it's his own policy beliefs that have created the problem.
Because these people believe their good intentions, that's all that matters.
They want to help.
They want it to be right.
And when it doesn't end up right, there must be somebody thwarting their good vibes.
There must be some evil force out there standing in the way of their good intentions.
Well, when you create, you put obstacles in front of people.
The creative are going to find a way around them.
The less creative are going to find a way to get along despite it.
And others are just going to stop trying.
And you end up with a polarized culture.
When you strive to take God out of as much of American life as you can, what do you think is going to happen?
Not just take God out of as much of American life as you can, but replace God with something like climate change or whatever other newfangled left-wing creation there is?
You ought to see some of the stories in the Snack.
There is a story about, get this.
Now, keep in mind as I go through these that climate change exists in only one place: computer models.
Climate change exists in predictions based on computer modeling alone.
There is no data.
There is no evidence.
Used to be freezing, then it was global warming.
Now it's climate change.
that any apparently abnormal weather event can be attributed to climate change, be it a tornado, be it a two-inch rainstorm, even a hailstorm that damages a jetliner can be blamed on climate change.
Yes, see how it works.
And they've done that with his climate change prediction models and a consensus of scientists.
A consensus of science.
But not all.
Because there are many scientists who do not believe with the so-called consensus, but the consensus of scientists.
Here's the headline for the New York Times.
29 U.S. scientists praise Iran nuclear deal in letter to Obama.
29 of the nation's top scientists, including Nobel laureates, veteran makers of nuclear arms, and the former White House science advisors, wrote to President Obama on Saturday to praise the Iran deal, calling it innovative and stringent.
So I guess now it's going to be settled science.
See, 29 scientists praise the nuclear deal?
What's that say about Chuck Schumer?
Speaking of whom?
You know, I was wrong about this.
I didn't comment on this wisely.
When I heard that Schumer was going to vote against it, my instinctive reaction was that must mean they have the votes to pass it on the Democrat side, giving him cover to stay unified with his constituency, but that's not right.
He did more.
He did more than vote against it.
He's spelled out three reasons why.
And he is urging others to join him in this.
What happens to him?
I mean, these 29 U.S. scientists praising the nuclear.
Who cares?
Scientists?
And only 29?
I mean, you know how many scientists support climate change?
By the way, from this New York Times story near the bottom, get this.
In a technical judgment that seemed more ominous than some other assessments of Iran's nuclear capability, the letter from these scientists says that Iran, before curbing its nuclear program during the long negotiations, was only a few weeks away from having fuel for nuclear weapons.
So, according to the New York Times, these 29 scientists knew this minor detail that Iran was only a few weeks away.
But Obama's team didn't.
But sure, let's trust Iran with an agreement where there's no real verification.
They were weeks away, and we're going to trust them with a deal that there is no verification.
And this headline, Coca-Cola funds scientists who shift blame for obesity away from bad diets.
This is also the New York Times.
Coca-Cola, the world's largest producer of sugar beverages, is backing a new science-based solution to the obesity crisis to maintain a healthy weight, get more exercise, and worry less about cutting calories.
All of a sudden, scientists aren't so good because New York Times has found a bunch of scientists at Coca-Cola ostensibly is paying to say that sugary drinks have nothing to do with obesity.
But wait, if Coca-Cola can find scientists and get an opinion that they want from by paying them, do you think the same thing can happen to climate change scientists and a consensus of them?
Do you think somebody could come along and offer those scientists enough money?
I mean, the left, if anybody's paying attention, is writing their own obituary in this stuff, undermining the whole notion of a scientific consensus.
Now it can be bought and paid for by Coca-Cola.
Now over here, it's only 29 who knew more than Obama knew about Iran's capability and they're being only weeks away from having nuclear fuel.
And meanwhile, everybody's up in arms.
Well, I don't even know about what now I've forgotten.
So the New York Times inadvertently admits that scientists can be bought.
The New York Times inadvertently tells us that scientists can be corrupt.
Yeah, when Coca-Cola wants scientists to say that their drinks do not contribute to people being fat, there are scientists that'll take the money and say it.
Well, could there be scientists who would take the money and say what, say, ever Al Gore wants them to say?
There's another story in the stack.
Do you know that climate change has become an industry?
It is a $1.5 trillion industry.
This is from an insurance website.
They know this because all of these various entities have to buy insurance policies, and the value of these policies is still $1.5 trillion.
Interest in climate change is becoming an increasingly powerful economic driver, so much so that some see it as an industry in itself whose growth is driven in large part by policymaking.
The $1.5 trillion global climate change industry grew at between 17 and 24 percent annually from 2005 to 2008.
And there are more details on this coming later.
I got to get back to the phones.
This is Susie in Novai, Michigan.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Rush, it's an honor.
Thank you for taking my call and mega, mega dittos.
I'm calling in regard to Carly Fiorina and her support in her tweet where she clearly stated, I stand with Megan.
She tweeted that Rush, and you know what?
In my book, you stand up with the media or for the media, you are now part of the media.
If you align yourself personally with the media, you are now part of the media.
And Rush, she has clearly played straight into the hand of the media.
And there is no way I want my president to send out little tweets in support of the media.
I'm just outraged.
Wait a second now.
What if she was just acting in solidarity with another woman?
I don't believe that's the case.
And even still, I kind of have to stand behind my statement.
You just, you know, Rush, we are fed up, like you said, with the media.
And I just don't want to see that.
I don't want to see a political, you know, presidential candidate sending out tweets in support of a media member.
And I just don't really think Carly needed to interject herself into that.
I think it shows just a weakness on her part.
Wait, wait, wait just a second.
I'm a big devil's advocate.
Carly Fiorina did this before the most recent polling data came out.
She's obviously trying to attract attention.
This is what every candidate needs to do because she needs to show that she can climb in the polls and therefore generate donors and fundraising.
And what if she just made a calculation?
I don't know.
I'm just playing devil's advocate with you.
What if she made a calculation that a lot of women were upset by what Trump said and that she could capitalize on it here and further her campaign?
Yeah, well, first of all, I don't believe in this war in women, and I don't like to have a part in that anyway.
So I'd really be maybe even more disappointed if she made that tweet in support of, you know, women, maybe even pushing the war in women.
I don't know, Rush.
It just disgusts me on many levels.
And I'm sure you're right.
She knew it would get her a ton of publicity, which it has.
Well, there's not a shortage of that to be found in this mess.
I mean, that's what everybody in it's trying to do is get publicity for themselves.
That's the name of the game in America today is get noticed, you know, become part of the story.
Insert yourself in it somehow and get noticed, be a factor, what have you.
I mean, that's why do you think reality TV still pops.
Do you realize?
Do you realize, Susie, do you realize there are millions of Americans who want to be on the Jerry Springer show?
Well, and maybe that tweet is like being on the Jerry Springer show then, and that kind of helps make my point.
I just don't want a presidential.
My point is, do you want to know anybody who wants to be on the Jerry Springer Show?
Just with the tweet about I stand with Megan.
I don't know.
Okay.
All right.
I appreciate it.
Susie, thanks very much.
Appreciate that.
And let's see.
Oops.
No more time for anything else right now.
Back with more, though, in a jiffy.
Ha, are you?
Welcome back.
Have you heard about the couple of black babes on YouTube that are just huge Trump fans?
Major, major Trump fans.
They've got their own YouTube channel, The Viewer's View, Lynette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson.
And we'll have the sound.
They're not happy with Megan Kelly.
They do not.
They're upset what Megan did, and they love and defend Trump.
▲
Export Selection