All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 9, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:34
September 9, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back to the fastest three hours in media.
I'm your host of the most listened-to radio talk show in the country and the most talked about host of the most listened to program in the country, El Rushbo, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
And now, according to the latest opinion audit from our official opinion auditing firm, the Sullivan Group, in Rancho Cordova, California, 99.8%, almost always right, 99.8% of the time.
Okay, a couple of emails.
People took great offense at my comment on Denmark and the number of soldiers lost in the Afghan war and necessitating their pullout.
Let me put it back in context for you.
And even if the emails were just a bunch of hoaxers, it's still a decent opportunity to really explain this without time constraints.
We had a caller who thought just moments ago how ironic it is.
Here we are in the United States.
We rebuilt Europe after World War II with the Marshall Plan.
And then we continue to protect them.
They didn't have to spend any of their national budget on defense, very little.
We did it for them.
We set up NATO.
We were NATO.
We funded it.
Our defense budget shielded Europe from Soviet attack, any other attack.
They had marginal membership.
They contributed troops and so forth, naturally, but they didn't have to spend these European countries didn't have to spend anything compared to us on their national defense.
We were their national defense.
So his point in calling, isn't it ironic now?
Because we were their national defense, they were able to establish themselves as welfare states.
They took what would have normally expected to be spent on national defense, and they were able to spend it on welfare.
And their politicians were able to buy power and buy votes by playing Santa Claus with their population.
And as a result, we have so many Western European democracies that tend toward socialist or big government welfare states.
And his point was that it's ironic since all of this had happened.
Now they're being flooded with the very kind of people that we used to defend them from.
Except they're not being flooded by military action.
They're people just on the Hoof Express or on the train or on the bus.
And it's a new experience and they're being invaded.
Very few people are going to call it that.
They're calling it a refugee relocation.
But make no mistake, it's an invasion.
It's a particular invasion.
The majority of the arriving refugees are Islamic.
And from everything I've seen, the clear majority are military-aged young men.
Now, I mentioned Germany, got it right here in front of me.
Germany has promised to accept 500,000 of these migrants per year, as Angela Merkel is bragging that this influx is going to change her country.
She's bragging about it.
When I saw this, whoa, that would be like us bragging over what's happening at our southern border.
That would be like Obama going out bragging how much positive change on our country this is going to be.
There'd be an outrageous, just uproarious revolt in this country if he ever did something like that.
I mean, that's what many people think is happening anyway, but he hasn't said that.
If he were to go out and say, man, this is the greatest thing in the world, we're going to welcome 500,000 and 800,000.
They're going to change our country.
This is great.
There would be, even though that's what's happening, those numbers may change.
So I had to find out why.
And it is that Germany's birth rate, they're in danger of even as near as 2020 to 2030 seeing their bottom of their economy drop out simply because their birth rate hasn't been and isn't anywhere near replacement level.
Don't know why, didn't delve into that.
It was just enough that I had to find out why in the world the German president was going off the way she was on this.
I mean, she's welcoming in 800,000 this year and then 500,000 a year for every year with no end in sight.
Well, in the midst of all this, this guy calls and talks about how it's us, the United States, that has enabled these Western socialist democracies to do this, because we eventually essentially funded their defense, and they didn't have to spend that money.
And to make his point for him, I talked about this television show I've been watching called Borgen.
And again, I want to stress that's the English pronunciation of the word.
It's not pronounced that way in Danish.
It's the actual translation of the words castle, and castle is their building that houses their parliament and their prime minister in Copenhagen.
And it's a great show.
It's purely politics.
It's produced in Denmark.
It's for a Danish audience, 30 episodes over three seasons.
And it's how to describe this.
I mean, the primary character is a woman, member of parliament, who inadvertently, somehow, miraculously becomes prime minister.
It's about her life, her home life, her professional life, trouble with her kids.
I mean, it's the usual expose of how people are pulled and torn in different directions and what happens in aspects of their life when it's unbalanced.
And in the process, you learn about Danish politics.
Now, we already know that Denmark is one of these socialist democracies, and they're very proud of it.
I mean, in this series, they proudly even call themselves a welfare state.
Candidates campaign on the premise that they will enlarge it.
Whereas here, somebody actually campaigned on the premise of enlarging the welfare state would be doomed.
We hope, we think.
But there, it's the exact opposite.
The bigger welfare state, more tax increases on the rich, all that, it's just applauded and it's rewarded.
Well, in the midst of all this, there were a couple of episodes dealing with Denmark's contribution to the coalition force in Afghanistan after 9-11.
There's not a lot about the U.S. in this series other than references to our power and our Secretary of State and how we're pretty demanding and so forth, but it's not adversarial, so there's nothing in it that would make you mad if you watched it about the United States.
It's strictly a program about Danish society and politics.
But what struck me is in two episodes about this particular coalition force they contributed to in Afghanistan, there was an attack when it happened to be that Danish media was there to do a report on the great contributions that Denmark was making to the coalition.
The great bravery and the courage of Danish soldiers and TV won the network sent a reporter there.
I think even a couple members of parliament and the equivalent of Secretary of Defense.
And while they were there, there was a sneak attack by the Taliban and eight Danish soldiers died.
And that begot on this show a strenuous debate on whether or not they should pull out.
Eight deaths.
That's unacceptable.
Eight soldiers dying.
Our country won't put up with that.
Eight centuries is not worth it.
Afghanistan, nobody has ever won anything there.
It's where you go to die.
It's where you go to lose.
We need to pull out eight soldiers.
The only reason I mentioned that because it dovetailed with the point the caller made.
These Western European socialist democracies never had to pay for their own defense.
They never had to suffer losses like this.
They never had to make investments in heavy military.
They all had a jet or two.
There is a segment in the show where they're arguing about buying a couple F-22s and whether or not it's too expensive.
Now, in fairness to Denmark, eight soldiers being killed might be 10% of their military.
You know, everything's proportionate.
I mean, it may be a bit of an exaggeration.
But all I was doing was trying to prove the point the caller made by, and I'm sure this representation, by the way, was factual.
I'm sure it was a factually accurate representation of the Danish population's attitude to being part of the coalition in Afghanistan.
And I just was thinking, one sneak attack by the Taliban and eight soldiers die, and they pull out.
That's not what we signed up for.
We didn't bargain for any of the eight soldiers.
Meaning they haven't had to pay for their defense really since World War II.
They haven't had to commit to it.
It's not a criticism.
It's just an acknowledgement.
So, and it was not a criticism of Denmark.
I have, actually, I'd kind of like to go to the place now, having seen this show.
I never saw the sunshine, but that's just a fact of the production.
But regardless, I thought it was a great way to illustrate the point that the caller was making.
But for those of you in the audience who were Danish, there was no intention whatsoever to criticize or insult, unless you consider it insulting to have an accurate portrayal of Danish attitude toward war.
I mean, eight soldiers was just not what we signed up for.
It's too many.
But then, at the same token, they had politicians that wanted to be known as great military warriors and so forth.
The politics ran the gamut like it does, like it does here.
Anyway, what's happening in Europe all over with this migrancy or this invasion or whatever is game-changing.
Angela Merkel's right, it is going to change Germany.
And I don't know if she's really stopping to think how.
She's strictly looking at it economically, she's just looking at bodies.
And it's the same way the Democrats look at bodies arriving here via our southern border, but they're not looking for workers per se.
We don't have a birth rate problem here, not nearly as bad as Germany's.
But the Democrats are looking for voters.
The Republican Party is, however, looking at the labor force aspect of it and how cheap it might be.
And let's be honest here, folks.
Angela Merkel has ended up nailing what everybody in this country is so damn concerned about.
And it's why any politician standing up to this is going to be rewarded with overwhelming support.
It is.
It does have the potential to change the country.
And we don't want it changed.
I don't know what the Germans are thinking.
Angela Merkel bragging about how it's going to change her country.
I don't know how her countrymen react to that.
I haven't seen enough of that yet.
But I do know that here in the United States, the kind of change that this represents, it's not.
We want people to come here and assimilate and become Americans.
We don't want to have a country that becomes Balkanized.
And that's the primary reason there is so much opposition to this so-called illegal immigration, which is an invasion, in my mind, of our country.
There's nothing, this is nothing about immigration, what's happening on our southern border.
It's all happening outside the law.
They call it illegal immigration to put a softer face on it, but it is.
It's an invasion, especially the numbers that we're talking about.
But it is the change that threatens the country as a result of this, that has everybody up in arms.
Not to mention there are other aspects of it, too.
I'm clearly up to speed on them.
And when we have politicians in Washington who seem impervious to that, unaware, don't even care, then that makes it even worse.
So it all kind of went together and made sense in terms of this guy's call and keeping everything in context.
We'll take a brief time out.
We'll come back and continue after this here on the EIB network.
Sit tight, my friends.
Do not go away.
Okay, now, let's bring all this home, shall we?
Because we have the same kind of people running our country as are running these Western socialist democracies.
John Kerry could easily be a Dane, could easily be Francais.
Jean-François Garry could just as easily be at home in Sweden as he is here.
In fact, would probably prefer that this country end up emulating all those.
Let me share with you a couple of stories.
They piggyback.
One is from the Huffing and Puffington Post.
The other is from the Daily Caller.
First, from the Huffing and Puffington Post.
Secretary of State John Kerry said today that the Obama administration aims to allow more refugees to resettle in the United States, including a larger number of Syrians who are fleeing their homes for Europe and other Middle Eastern countries at crisis levels.
I don't know if you're aware of this.
We are actually flying them here.
Did you know that, Snurdley?
We are arranging for certain Syrian refugees to be transported, and it's in six-figure numbers as of now.
So here is our Secretary of State, Jean-François Heli, saying today that the regime aims to allow even more refugees to resettle in the U.S., including a larger than is already happening, number of Syrians.
He said, we are committed to increasing the number of refugees that we take, and we're looking hard at the number that we can specifically manage with respect to the crisis in Syria and Europe.
That crisis is of their making.
That crisis in Syria and Europe is a direct result of the U.S. pulling out of the world.
Spoke about this at great length yesterday.
It's what Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz's book that's just out is all about.
American leadership in the world, why it's needed, and what happens when it's absent.
And this is what happens when it's absent.
Now, what?
One of the things about this European influx, you'd be amazed.
Well, actually, you wouldn't.
If you have a decent understanding of what a Western socialist nation is and how its leaders think, they're looking at all this as a great act of humanity.
They've already seen their open border policy in many European countries destroy or nearly destroy the national identity of these countries.
And now they're welcoming more.
And they're claiming that they're great humanitarians in the process.
And that's all the motivation they need.
Remember the story I've told you about my good friend in an argument with a major daytime television figure whose name you would all know about immigration?
Every fact, every figure presented to the major American daytime television figure is pointless.
He is not moved by it because he ultimately says, all I can tell you is, if some poor soul from some wretched part of the country wants in my country to better his life, then I'm not going to keep him out.
How can I keep him?
Let him in.
Well, same kind of thinking that's now become part of our country.
But wait, as I said, there's a companion story to this, and it is the Daily Caller.
State Department spokesman John Kirby acknowledged that it is a possibility that some of the refugees fleeing Syria may be al-Qaeda or ISIS terrorists.
He indicated it's pretty clear that many of these people, just innocent moms and dads and brothers and sisters, but there could be a lot of actual terrorists in the bunch.
Well, certainly, said Mr. Kirby, it's a possibility.
I mean, you can't dismiss that out of hand.
Obviously, if you look at these images, though, it's pretty clear that the great majority of these people are innocent families.
They're innocent victims of Bashir Assad's brutality and cruelty to his own people.
And they're trying to do what they can to protect their kids, protect their families.
And that's what's really going on here, except that it isn't what's really going on here.
In any video or still photograph, look past the people that the drive-bys are focusing on in the foreground, and you will see the vast majority of these refugees.
Take a look, take any picture.
The vast majority of these refugees are well-dressed young men of military age.
Reuters even admits that less than a third of them will ever be reunited with their families, because it isn't about that.
So here you have Kerry acknowledging that for the humanitarian purposes, we're going to bring even more people in from Syria than we already are.
We're going to resettle even more.
And here you have his spokesman admitting that they are aware that a lot of them are terrorists.
And that is what is happening.
That's how, you know, if you've got a big ocean that you can't walk across to get here, all you need is John Kerry to put you on an airplane.
And he'll fly you here.
And if you have to be a terrorist, well, that's the price we have to pay for bringing in these innocent families.
There's going to be a couple terrorists in there.
Yeah, we'll deal with that later.
We're back.
Half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
We have audio Ted Cruz and Donald Trump today in Washington on Capitol Hill at the Tea Party Patriots stop the Iran Deal rally.
Do you value standing with our friend and ally, the nation of Israel?
Do you value the lives of millions of Americans?
Or do you value more party loyalty to the Obama White House?
How will you look in the eyes of the mother or father or sons or daughters of those murdered by jihadists, those Americans who were blown up, those Americans who were shot, those Americans who were killed, those Israelis who were murdered?
And let me be clear.
If you vote to send billions of dollars to jihadists who have pledged to murder Americas, then you bear direct responsibility for the murders carried out with the dollars you have given them.
You cannot wash your hands of that blood.
Ted Cruz speaking to the Democrats in Washington, telling them they will have blood on their hands by lifting sanctions, approving this deal, and allowing the terrorist-sponsoring state, biggest one in the world, another $150 billion to play with that currently is frozen.
He continued with this remark.
Let me say to Republican leadership.
Well, hold on.
I come not to bury Caesar, but to praise him.
There are two men in Washington, D.C. who can defeat this deal, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker John Boehner.
All that has to happen is for Mitch McConnell and John Boehner to say the congressional review period has not started.
Under federal law, it is illegal for Obama to lift sanctions.
If Republican leadership decides that a show vote is more important than stopping this deal, then the single most important issue in 2016 will be stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
So he starts out telling the Democrats they're going to have blood on their hands and goes to the Republicans and reminds them they can still stop it if they really want to.
Like we said yesterday, the Republicans' new strategy, actually not a new strategy, it's what they've been doing all along.
They pretend fight and then surrender.
Actually, they surrender first before we know it, and then they pretend fight.
Yeah, they surrender.
They decide amongst themselves that they can't stop it for whatever reason.
And then they tell us, well, man, we're going to really be in there, but you know, we don't have the Senate.
It's going to be really, really hard.
Now they've got the Senate.
Well, we're going to do everything we can, but, you know, we don't have the White House.
We can't stop Obama.
So that's the strategery.
And is Cruz just trying to alert people to the fact that deals can still be stopped?
A long shot, but it can.
Here's Trump.
He was there as well.
If I win the presidency, I guarantee you that those four prisoners are back in our country before I ever take office.
I guarantee that.
They will be back before I ever take office because they know that's what has to happen, okay?
They know it.
And if they don't know it, I'm telling them right now.
Donald Trump on the campaign trail.
So was Cruz.
This was at the Tea Party Patriots Stop the Iran Deal rally up on Capitol Hill.
Back to the phones we go.
This is John in San Diego.
John, great to have you with us.
Hello.
Wow, those are some comments.
Yeah, I call about the 2016 election cycle and a quick question on Deflate Gate, but I think the Democrats aren't worried if they win or lose because they've stacked the judges, they've stacked the bureaucracy, and McConnell's not going to do anything about it.
And I think you were searching also for a word on marketing strategies.
I think the word you're looking for is con instead of tricks.
And we're tired of being conned.
And that's what Ted Cruz ain't doing to us.
He's not conning us.
And the American people are tired of being conned.
Right.
It's just, we're tired of it, you know?
Now, what was it you want to say about Deflate Gate, and then I'll answer all this.
Oh, the question was, I don't know what I heard it, but I heard the judge and the owner of the Patriots were seen at some cocktail party after the judgment.
I think it's a very good question.
Yeah, let me tell you about that.
There's a powerful, influential member of the media.
I know about these things.
The CEO of the Discovery Networks, television networks, Zaslav, I think is his name, has a traditional Labor Day party at his estate in the Hamptons.
And the usual suspects always show up, the people that live in Manhattan during the winter, and then go to the Hamptons in the summer to get away from everybody, except everybody else does the same thing.
So they all get together again out in the Hamptons in the summer when it's not cool to be in the city in the summertime.
And they all throw the same kind of parties at the Hamptons that they throw in the city from September through May.
And this was one of those parties.
And it was a mixture of the wealthy and elite and media figures, both from management and talent.
So you had some Hollywood stars there.
You had some producers, directors, you had studio presidents, Ron Perlman of Revlon, the whole gamut.
And it just so happened that in this mix was a guy who makes $140,000 a year, a federal judge by the name of Richard Bourbon, who was the judge in the DeFlategate case when the NFL was sued by the NFLPA and they, well, went into arbitration.
Now, I don't know enough to know if Judge Berman is a regular attendee at these kind of affairs or not.
I just don't know.
I have, you know, I don't read gossip stuff frequently, so I just don't know.
All I can tell you is, and I probably shouldn't, it doesn't fit the profile of the typical guest at this party.
He's not rich.
He's not famous.
He's not a media mogul, except he became two of those three things as a result of his ruling on the Brady versus Goodell case.
Just so happened that one of the invited guests was the owner of the Patriots, Robert Kraft.
And a picture happened to be snapped.
I think of Robert Kraft and the judge.
And so Robert Kraft was asked about it.
Yeah, yeah, I saw the guy.
We chatted for a couple of minutes, but that was all there was to it.
But from that one story, I can't tell you the number of emails I've gotten from people who think that proves the whole thing was rigged.
That here's the judge not partying wherever the NFL people were on Labor Day.
The judge wasn't there.
He was with the Patriots people.
I just don't see it that way.
I just, I have.
Now, is it hard to believe that the Discovery guy, knowing that the Patriots owner's coming, would have this judge there as a nice thing to do or as an interesting?
I mean, everybody throws a party, wants it to be interesting.
You don't want a bunch of dryball dullards there.
But whether it indicates any kind of favoritism on the part of the judge, I don't think it has a thing to do with it.
I think the judge was up front with his incredulity over the fact the NFL was trying to pursue what they were pursuing without any real hard evidence that Brady was guilty of it.
But it's this kind of thing that creates controversies and conspiracies and keeps them alive and breathing when there may not be anything to it.
David Zazlav is the CEO of the Discovery Channel Discovery Networks, and it was his, it was, it was his bash.
Anyway, what was the other party he wanted to know about?
Oh, he said the Democrats are not worried about this because they own the bureaucracy.
They own the judiciary.
So if they don't win the White House now, and no big deal, they own everything else and they can make it hell for every Republican who does win.
And there is truth to that.
But folks, do not make the mistake of thinking that the Democrats are ever of the mindset that it's okay to lose the White House now and then it's going to happen.
They don't think that way.
The White House is theirs all the time.
And when it isn't, it's an aberration.
It's abnormal.
It's unnatural.
And it shouldn't be.
It's not something they think they should have to share.
And when the Republicans do win it, it causes genuine psychological collapse on the part of many Democrats.
As you saw when George W. Bush won.
So they never have the attitude, eh, it's okay, we'll lose.
We still have everything else.
They want it all all the time.
Their objective, never forget this.
You know, here we have Jeb Bush is on Colbert last night.
Yeah, yeah, I, what did he say?
I can govern, I can cooperate, I can, I gotta work with the other side.
They want to eliminate us.
I don't mean kill, they just want to eliminate opposition.
They don't want opposition, they don't want to have to debate, they don't want to have to reach across any aisle, they don't want to have to share power, they don't want to show they can govern.
Their objective is to eliminate viable opposition.
Our objective seems to be to tell everybody, hey, we're happy to work with the other guys.
It's a big disconnect.
What a day here, folks, on the EIB next.
Some of the things that I didn't get to, John Kerry has appointed an email czar for the State Department.
Is this not a laugher?
He's tapped a former career diplomat as an email czar to coordinate the State Department response to the myriad of document requests, mostly related to Hillary Clinton.
They're going to call this person the State Department's Transparency Coordinator.
That's right up there with Ministry of Truth.
That is where that's Orwellian.
Ed Klein, a famous Clinton biographer writing at Newsmax, says that a Hillary advisor has urged her to cut a deal on this email scandal and not run.
That if she runs, she could end up in jail.
Ed Klein and Newsmax, just some of the things we didn't have a chance to get to today.
Well, that's it, folks.
Another exciting excursion into broadcast excellence in the can.
All of it soon to be on display at rushlimbaugh.com in one of many forms.
And while you're there, make sure you visit the virtual Limbaugh Broadcast Museum.
It's always fun, folks.
It's always an honor to be here with you.
Look forward to tomorrow, 21 hours from now.
We'll be here, and I hope you are too.
▲
Export Selection