All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 2, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:30
October 2, 2015, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
Great to have you here, Rushland Bob, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
I'm America's real anchorman, truth detector, doctor of democracy.
It is Friday, and the saga continues.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's open line Friday!
Putin!
Putin!
That was today!
Sirius.
Okay.
Ha!
Welcome back, 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, email address, lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Look, other things happening out there.
We never, ever allow me to be distracted.
Okay, on the Pope story, here's CBS, Vatican source Pope blindsided by meeting with controversial Kentucky clerk, Chicago Archbishop Blaise Kupic or Kupic.
I don't know how it's pronounced, and I'm not trying to get it wrong.
The Archbishop of Chicago is on his way to Rome tonight.
Before he left, he spoke out for the first time on that controversial meeting between Pope Francis and Kim Davis.
The Archbishop, in essence, told CBS Eyeball chief correspondent Jay Levy not to read too much into it.
No, no, no, no.
Highly placed source inside the Vatican says the Pope was blindsided.
Well, now it all makes sense.
Why in the world would the Pope want to meet with anybody following the church's teachings on homosexual marriage?
Who would have even believed that could happen?
The Vatican has since tried to distance Il Papa from Davis.
Vatican spokesman, Reverend Federico Lombardi, said the Pope's meeting with Davis was not an endorsement of her decision to refuse to issue same-sex marriage license.
As I say, who would think that?
Who would think the Catholic Church would oppose gay marriage?
The Pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects.
Looking at CBS, from a deeply relieved AP, the Vatican on Friday distanced Pope Francis from Kim Davis, the focal point in the gay marriage debate in the U.S., saying she was one of dozens of people a Pope greeted in Washington and that their encounter should not be considered a form of support for her position.
After days of confusion, the Vatican issued a statement today clarifying the circumstances of the September 24th encounter with Davis.
In a statement, the Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi, and in a repeat, the Pope did not enter into the details of the situation.
And Mrs. Davis in this meeting should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of the particular complex aspects.
Vatican statement made clear, says AP, that the Pope intended no validation.
So, I mean, why is anybody surprised?
Why would anybody think the Catholic Church supports freedom of religion?
Why would anybody think that?
But you know, that's not what he said on the plane during his flight back to Italy.
According to Reuters, back on September 28th, quote, this is from Reuters, on the flight back to Rome, he was asked if he supported individuals, including government officials, who refused to abide by some laws, such as issuing marriage licenses to gays.
Conscientious objection must enter into every juridicial structure because it is a right, said the Pope.
However, Davis's lawyer, Matt Staver, told EAP the Vatican initiated the meeting as an affirmation of her right to be a conscientious objector.
He said Vatican personnel initiated the meeting on September 14th, the day she went back to work, saying the Pope wanted to meet her.
He said Vatican security picked her up and her husband at their hotel And told her to change her hairdo so she wouldn't be recognized, since the Vatican wanted the meeting kept secret.
Her lawyer, Matt Staver, disputed a Vatican spokesman's claims.
The Pope only met Davis in a receiving line.
He said the couple was in a separate room with the Pope and Vatican personnel.
Well, I knew all that.
That's why this has been sort of confusing to me because I knew the Pope asked to meet her.
That was Reuters said so.
Pope asked to meet her.
They sent a car to pick her up.
They told her to change her hairdo so she wouldn't be recognized.
And then what went wrong is somebody talked about it.
And so now the Pope feels the need to walk it back.
I don't know if Obama called him or what happened.
I have my own experiences with something like this.
There used to be a late-night TV show, and I was maligned and impugned on this program.
I was not on the program that night.
It was another guest.
And the host of the program called and apologized.
And I said, You're surely going to correct this on the air.
No, no, no.
This is just between you and me.
You know, you're not going to correct this on the air.
I mean, this, what was said about me was diametrically wrong and couldn't have been further from the truth.
No, I just, between you and me, I just wanted to call upon.
Well, I happened to mention it on this show, and that person was livid.
But I took it publicly.
Sounds similar here.
The Pope asked to meet her.
Pope praises her, congratulates her, conscientious objector, whatever.
But now that it's become known in the public domain, it's tough to stand behind.
Here's CBS.
It looks like the same story.
Yeah, it's the same story.
So that's that.
Those are the details on the Pope story.
This is another one.
Now, this is from South Africa, News 24.
I love this story.
And you will soon find out why.
This story is about sea turtles.
Ready for this?
The headline is: Turtle Eating Sharks Help Slow Global Warming, Scientists says, or Scientists says.
Isn't that interesting?
Sharks that eat sea turtles are saving the planet.
I'm sure you're wondering how.
So here we go.
Sydney, Australia.
That's where this story is actually reported in South Africa, but Sydney, Australia.
Sharks help to reduce global warming by eating sea turtles and other creatures that consume carbon-rich seagrasses, said an Australian scientist on Tuesday.
Peter McReidel of Deakin University in Melbourne examined the effect on seagrasses in Shark Bay, Western Australia, after an extensive local shark-culling program.
Fewer sharks mean their normal prey, like sea turtles, flourish, and sea turtles' favorite food is seagrass.
And that's not good because seagrass absorbs all the CO2.
So the sea turtles, what they naturally feed on, is harming global warming.
Anything comes along, kills the sea turtles, is saving the planet, according to this guy, Peter McRidel.
He says, seagrass stores vast reserves of carbon within sediments.
And with more seagrass being consumed, the carbon is unlocked and can be released into the atmosphere, accelerating climate change.
Who freaking knew this?
Who freaking knew that sea turtles are leading to climate change?
So I say this: why wait for sharks to come eat them?
Why not let me turn on my outside Lights for nine months a year.
I now have to turn them off.
As do everyone, as does everyone who lives on the East Coast, can't have any lights on at night because sea turtle babies just hatched from the eggs might not go to the ocean.
They might go inward.
And we don't want them to go inland.
We want them to go to the ocean.
They go to the ocean, they might survive.
If they go inland, they will die.
Now, this guy says we want the sea turtles to die.
Sharks eating them is a good thing.
Regular listeners in this audience recall that he had a story about sea turtles just a few weeks ago, and that story blamed the increase in the sea turtle population for the increase in shark attacks on surfers and swimmers along the southeast coast of the U.S. Sea turtles are a favorite food of sharks, and the presence of sea turtles near the beaches is causing more sharks to show up and thus attack people.
So it's not been a good couple of weeks for sea turtles.
Sea turtles being blamed for shark attacks on people.
Now they're being blamed for global warming.
And a scientist has now said that sharks eating sea turtles saves the planet.
Well, let me do my part by turning on my lights at night now.
Who knew?
Who knew that the day would one day come where I and others could turn on simple landscape lights?
I'm not talking about spotlights lighting up the beach.
I'm just talking about landscape lights.
They even try to get us to turn off our inside lights on the second floor.
That failed, but they tried.
Who knew that turning on lights could save the planet?
Why, this one story might make me a temporary convert.
Try this.
This is, you know, people keep statistics on a lot of things.
CBS Sports, the National Football League has gone an entire month without a single player arrest for the first time since 2009.
How about it?
Let's give it up for Roger Goodell, folks.
There's no question this stringent player policy is working a full month and not a single player arrest.
That doesn't mean there haven't been any allegations.
But not a single player has been arrested in a whole month for the first time since 2009.
I mean, that's six years.
Hubba, hubba.
Now, if the Steelers could just get a kicker.
Polling news, Weekly Standard has the latest Pew Center poll.
Shows that Jeb Bush is falling and has fallen to 4% in the Republican field.
Trump leads the field 25%.
Ben Carson next at 16.
Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio are tied for third at 8% in the Republican field.
If you look closely, if you listen carefully to the right people, you will detect that there are rumblings within the RNC and the Republican establishment of maybe turning to Marco Rubio.
If this downward trajectory for Jeb Bush continues, the establishment's going to have to do something.
And it is thought that if and when they do do something, the something will be to shift to Marco Rubio.
When Republican and Republican leading voters are asked in an open-ended format, no names provided under no multiple choice, just name the guy you're for, name the candidate you're for.
None of the 15 GOP candidates are named by more than 25% of those who may vote in the primary.
Now, that is a mis that that's a classic, classic drive-by media way to write a statistic up.
This is a good lesson.
Let me read this to you again.
This is from the Pew Center.
When Republican and Republican leading voters are asked in an open-ended format, no names provided for their first choice for the nomination, none of the 15 candidates are named by more than 25% of those who may vote.
What are you supposed to think when you hear that?
You're supposed to, nobody wants any of them.
None of them are popular.
My God, only 25.
Gee whiz, what a loser bunch.
That's what you're supposed to say.
You're supposed to ignore that the entire total is being divvied up by 15 people.
And for one of the 15 to have 25% is pretty huge.
And in that case, that'd be the Trumpster.
Trump at 25, 16 is Ben Carson, 16%.
Rubio and Fearna at 8.
6% name Ted Cruz.
And 4% name Jeb Bush.
In an even more relevant survey.
From theHill.com, Donald Trump is still dominating Facebook, even as observers wonder whether his campaign is losing Steam.
Talked about this yesterday, too.
They are what they're doing here is projecting their hope on reality.
They hope he's losing Steam.
They want him to be losing Steam.
And since his numbers are flat, they think he's losing Steam.
Even he's gaining a point here.
He's a 0.9, 0.9% of one poll, a point here, two points there.
He's not dropping.
So that means he's flopping.
It's like the way the tech press covers Apple.
Last year in the fourth quarter of 2015, Apple sold 75 million iPhones.
This year, if they sell 75 million iPhones in the fourth quarter, it'll be said that they're doomed.
It's over.
It's finished.
That Apple has failed.
It's the same way they're reporting things on Trump.
However, on Facebook, do you know what I saw?
I saw a fascinating story of Facebook users in India and other parts of Asia and Europe that they don't even think they're on the internet when they're on Facebook.
It's just Facebook.
They have no concept of an internet.
That's how massive in their mind Facebook is.
It is the Internet.
There isn't an Internet.
It's just Facebook.
It's all Facebook.
Anyway, in the period between August 30th and September 29th, Donald Trump generated the most interactions, what Facebook calls likes, shares, comments, and posts, by far more than any candidate in either party.
Nearly 22 million people generated 94 million interactions about Trump around the country.
This is another way to measure things in our political world.
Trump is dominating Facebook.
And this is a huge challenge to experts who hope his campaign is over and is circling the drain.
It's not even close.
22 million people, 94 million interactions.
Next closest to that is, well, it doesn't say.
Well, it doesn't say in an easily decipherable way.
9 million people and 37 million interactions about Hillary.
That's a point of comparison.
I got to take a break.
I just saw the clock.
Back up here.
By the way, Trump says that he would get out of the race if he falls behind in the polls.
We need it to talk about that here in just a second, but in a minute, Broward County in Florida.
Tina, I'm glad you called.
I really appreciate your patience.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Well to do.
Thank you very much.
How about you?
Very good.
Thanks.
Go ahead, have at it.
Okay, so I went to Broward College.
My daughter attends a class there.
She's dual enrolled.
She's a high school student, but she's taking a college class.
And Hillary Clinton's supposed to appear there at 2.30 today.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
That's now.
Yes, now.
And so I left there about 20 minutes ago to pick her up.
And there was nobody there to see Hillary.
They have overflow parking, and it's empty.
My daughter peeked her head in to where she's supposed to be, and she said there were a few old ladies and a couple of college kids, but nothing.
Are you sure?
I just have to do this.
Are you sure you're at the right place?
Yeah, that's where she's appearing.
Yes.
And there's nobody there.
No.
They have signs that say free speech zone when you drive in, which I guess is maybe where people could have stood if they were against her or for her or whatever.
But all that's there is the signs.
Yeah, free speech zone is obviously not about Hillary's speech.
It's obviously where you go if you want to protest.
Right.
Yeah.
Disagree with her, maybe.
Look, Tina, Tina, hang on here just a second.
I need to clarify.
This is Hillary's supposed to be there now, like in 45 seconds, and there's nobody there.
You know, this isn't anything new.
Back to Tina here in Broward County in Florida.
What is the name of the school?
Broward College.
Broward College.
Look, if you're driving around down near Broward County, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, there's a Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton there to speak, and she doesn't have anybody there.
If you're not doing anything in the next half hour, try to find a place and go show up and make it at least look like there's some interest in what she has to say.
This thing happened during her, she knows she had her big book tour.
Nobody showed up.
Nobody bought the book.
Nobody showed up at the signings.
This happened last week.
She was supposed to be somewhere and nobody showed up.
I forget which.
And I think it's, shouldn't laugh here, but they assign an overflow parking lot and nobody's in it.
Yes.
Shouldn't laugh here, but it is a little Shantin Freuda.
Well, you call to report this.
How do you feel about it?
I'm very happy about it.
It's good for us.
It just shows that she has no following, which is what you've been saying and everybody's been saying.
Yeah, well, I'll tell you, you're right.
Tina, thank you very much.
I'll tell you what, folks.
She just the fact that Hillary Clinton has a whole bunch of people want her to be that president is one of the biggest illusions.
She doesn't even connect.
She doesn't have a loyal base of support.
She has people that support her because she's a Democrat.
There's a D by her name, but that's it.
Are you kidding me?
The unemployment rate being is 5.1%.
Now, that's criminal.
That's journalistic mouth, government mouth.
I point 1% on it, but that, nobody can trust anything anymore.
Every institution these people have gotten hold of, the left have corrupted.
Anyway, on this Trump business, this is a story from the New York Post.
Shrinking poll numbers would be the one thing to force Donald Trump out of the presidential campaign.
He said yesterday, talking to CNBC, asked whether he would quit if he could no longer boast he's leading in every poll.
Trump said, Well, I'm not a masochist.
If I fell behind badly, I'd certainly get out.
I'm in this for the long haul.
The real clear politics average of recent national polls has Trump at 23%.
Ben Carson, 16, Fiorina, 12, blah, blah, blah.
You know the deal.
This is not a good thing for Trump to say.
Well, I mean, we're just talking about institutions that have been corrupted.
I mean, all the Rubio pollsters have to do or anybody else's pollsters is just show a poll that shows Trump's dropped five points and then keep going until he's behind somebody.
I don't know about this.
But that's what he said.
So, Hillary Clinton, by the way, speaking of which, folks, if you were, try to imagine that you're in politics or say you have some national identity.
You're in a business that has part of it is you have a national identity.
You're a known national figure.
Your reputation's in tatters.
Where are you going to go to fix it?
What would you do?
Just think of things off the top of your head.
What would you do to try to fix it if it were required that you do it?
If in order for you to succeed in this particular business, you've got to somehow turn around your national image.
How many of you would say, you know what?
I need to go on Saturday Night Live.
Washington Post, Crystal Isaiah.
Hillary Clinton has an image problem.
She's going on Saturday Night Live to try to fix it.
The news that Hillary Clinton's expected to appear on Saturday Night Live represents a clear recognition by her campaign.
She has an image problem with the American public.
It needs fixing and fast Saturday Night Live, really, to change your image.
Maybe long ago you could do that.
But Hillary can't go on Saturday.
She's not spontaneous, loosey-goosey enough to that, that's not.
I know he said if he falls behind badly, none of you falls out of the lead.
I don't care.
Once you put that stipulation out there, yeah, if I lose my lead, I'll think about getting out.
It's just an invitation to the people that hate you to start legitimately playing with their polling day.
You can do a legitimate poll and get any answer you want.
If you want to produce a poll that shows Trump is losing ground, go out and talk to nothing but Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio supporters.
And you can do it, and it'll be legit.
Got to be very careful with this stuff.
Here's Lou in Brooklyn.
Hey, Lou, great to have you on Open Line Friday.
Hi.
Thank you for taking my call, Rush.
Basically, my concern is focused around the shooting in Oregon.
And what I learned yesterday was through a phone interview on Fox, Alex Scarlato, one of the heroes in the European train incident where they thwarted the mass shooting there, called in and he indicated that he actually goes to that school.
And I thought that's pretty odd.
And he happened to be away that day.
Accordingly, they said he was shooting an episode of Dancing with the Stars or something.
I think that's what I heard.
But I hope, I'm hoping that in their investigation of some of the motives here, that they may take that into consideration.
It just sounded a bit, how shall I say, too coincidental for me.
I had not heard that.
Well, so the hero of the train shooting thwartery, the guy thwarted that, goes to this junior college?
Yes.
He was on the table.
And so what's the thinking that he may have been targeted?
That's why this school was targeted.
Is that somebody putting that together as two and two equals four?
I'm not saying that's a total factor, but someone should, you know, should question it.
Well, it is an interesting coincidence.
I didn't know that.
I appreciate the call, Lou.
By the way, folks, if you don't watch this program on the Ditto Cam, if you're not a subscriber at rushlimbaugh.com, then you don't watch the program on the ditto cam.
You can become a subscriber.
It's such a deal.
The content that opens up to you, it's encyclopedic.
And one of the benefits of membership is being able to watch the program every day on the ditto cam.
And I'm getting some email from people who say, Rush, you look like you're sitting crooked more and more every day.
And if you ever notice me crooked, I'm just doing my William F. Buckley impersonation.
You remember how Buckley looked on Firing Line?
He looked like he was going to fall out of his chair, leaning back into the side.
I just wonder how many people would get it.
I do all kinds of crazy things here, tiny, subtle things.
Just seeing people would notice.
How's the book?
The book four, Rush Revere and the Star-Spangled Banner in pre-order announced on Tuesday, still numero uno at Amazon in up and comer and knew this and knew that and in certain age group.
I think Dr. Phil's new book took the number one spot yesterday.
And I don't, I haven't checked today.
I really don't know where we are today, but we'll get it back.
I mean, we're just thrilled as we can be.
We're gratified as we can be over this.
The book doesn't actually hit until October 27th.
This is purely pre-orders.
And the first three days, it was number one at Avon and Barnes and Noble.
And I think Books a Million.
And it's, I don't know.
It's a labor of love, and it's just great to have it reacted to the way it is and received the way it is.
And all the great feedback we get on these books, which is they're an effort to teach young people the truth about the founding of this country.
And they're fun to do, and it's done in a way that takes the reader right back to these historical moments and puts them there while they're happening.
They even get to talk.
Some of the students at the middle school who end up time traveling back with Rush Revere and Liberty the Horse actually get to talk to the founders and the subjects that we tackle in the books.
They're really fun to do.
Anyway, Snerdley wants to know how the book's doing.
I wasn't going to mention it today, you know, overkill, but he asked.
Now, a brief timeout.
We'll come back and continue on Open Line Friday.
You stay right where you are.
Actually, Grab just on by 13.
This is Dr. Krauthammer on Fox on the Kelly file last night.
And she said to him, is it just the America in which we live where we're disconnected and we're on the machines all day?
We have less empathy for our fellow man, according to the studies that I see.
Is that just the reality of America 2015?
We're just disconnected, less respect for life.
We're going to see more shootings.
Under our laws, which allow for maximum freedom, the mother couldn't do a damn thing until he killed.
And that's a problem.
It's an inherent problem in our society to balance security and liberty.
And we have tilted towards liberty, which is completely understandable.
And as a result of that, and the same with possession of guns.
As a result of that, we who live in the far more liberal, in the sense of believing in liberty society, than any other in the West, we have these incidents that are a result of that.
We have to make a choice, and we try to choose the fine line.
It's extremely hard to do.
And however we choose, we are going to lose something.
Now, this is the question related to specific Sandy Hook and cops.
We can't do anything to a shooter until they've taken action.
And she wanted to know: is all the disconnect in this country, so many people on iPhones and iPads, the smartphones, and connecting via text rather than actual in-person?
Is it leading to a desensitization among people and the resulting loss of respect for the sanctity of life?
Is that a factor she was asking him?
And as such, are these shootings just going to continue?
And his answer basically said, look, we have a problem in our society.
We tilt toward liberty.
We tilt toward freedom.
And there are prices to pay for it, and there are consequences.
And possession of guns is thrown into that equation.
And we're going to have to make a choice as we try to choose a fine line between liberty and taking liberty away from people.
His point was it's extremely hard to do.
And whatever we end up choosing, we're going to lose something.
Some people are going to lose some liberty.
And folks, I don't know whether you understand precisely what he was saying, but the upshot of this is right on the money because the proponents of more gun control are damn right there trying to take away liberty.
That's exactly what it's about.
And the problem is that liberty and freedom is not the problem here.
This is my opinion.
And you've got to be very, very careful that you don't agree with the premise that there's too much freedom and too much liberty.
That's what this sports writer, Albert Breer's point, is when he says that these shootings are evidence.
The American public has blown its right to bear arms.
These shootings didn't happen because of freedom.
Shootings happen because of evil, mental disability, derangement, what have you.
Cultural things that result in the loss of respect for life.
But it's not liberty and freedom doing this.
And if you think it is, if you think the solution to this is to shrink and reduce liberty and take it away from people, you're going to be taking liberty away from people that do not do this.
Why should they be punished?
Why should all of us be punished by having freedom and liberty taken away under the premise that we're all being made safer?
Oh, man, that argument has resulted in more tyranny than any I know of.
Give away your freedom, give away in exchange for I will protect you.
Well, people think that's what the cops are going to do now.
People think that's what the government's going to do now.
Lo and behold, they don't.
They can't.
In fact, they come up with plans and policies that put people at more risk, such as no gun zones.
But you've got to be really, really vigilant here that you do not inadvertently end up agreeing with people who think the solution to these shootings is a reduction in liberty for everybody.
Because we have people breaking the law here.
The victims are not breaking the law.
And you and I, who were not there, are not breaking the law.
The National Rifle Association was not there.
We have a single shooter, and the single shooter probably has copycats, and there are probably people like this shooter pockmarking all over this country.
We could find them if we wanted to.
If anybody deserves to have some freedom restricted, it would be some people that have already demonstrated a mental illness and for their own good and everybody else's, institutionalized or what have you.
But the answer to this is not Taking people's freedom away.
Maybe you disagree.
Maybe you think freedom is the reason this is happening.
Do you believe in the concept of too much freedom?
Is the Second Amendment too much freedom?
I don't happen to think so.
And I would really, I would fight anybody who wants to tell me that our problems result from too much freedom as a blanket explanation.
You might be able to convince me that the criminal class may have too much freedom.
Don't forget now, folks.
This is, we live being led by an administration that ran a program called Fast and Furious.
Do you remember this?
In an effort to get more people opposed to guns and to support gun control, this administration enabled the sale of AK-47 type weapons to Mexican drug cartels.
They were purchased in American gun stores and ended up, they were allowed to cross the border into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
And then they were to be used by that cartel, these cartels, in the commission of their crimes.
And if Americans were killed or injured, we were supposed to be outraged and demand the government do something about it.
It was a totally manufactured plan, and it blew up in their faces.
Border Patrol agent got killed.
So be very, very vigilant here that you don't inadvertently agree with giving up your freedom as a solution to this problem.
Thank you so much today, folks.
Thank you for every day.
Thank you, as always.
And thank you again for Rush Revere and the Star Spangled Banner, book number four, continuing to scorch the charts.
All because of you.
Have a great weekend.
We will be back here on Monday.
You can count on it.
▲
Export Selection