All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 23, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:21
October 23, 2015, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And right back here we are, Rush Limbaugh.
The Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies on Friday.
Let's just keep rolling here.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Yes, sir, we open line Friday.
This is where callers are supposed to carry the program.
Never works out that way, but that was part of the original design.
And to further that, whatever you want to talk about when we go to the phones all you, it's a great career risk.
I mean, turning over the content portion of a program like that to amateurs, that's what happens, and I do it with a lot of excitement.
Look forward to it every week.
Find out what's on your mind besides all of this other stuff.
Or if it's this stuff, that's fine too.
Whatever.
And you can you can call or send an email.
It's 800-282-288-2 on the phone.
Email address is L Rushbow at EIB netcom.
Okay, on the Paul Ryan for Speaker of the House situation.
This remains fluid, and it remains somewhat murky.
A little confusing.
Here is the latest that I had in a drive-by media about this.
Reuters' story is Paul Ryan announces candidacy for House Speaker.
Officially jumped into the race for speaker on Thursday after nailing down crucial endorsements from conservative and moderate factions.
They quote Paul Ryan as saying, I believe that we are ready to move forward as uh one united team, and I'm ready and I'm eager to be our speaker.
Now, I I folks, I want to remind you, for those of you who weren't here yesterday, I should have done this before starting into this.
Let me set this up again.
Just a belief.
I mean, I can't prove any of this, but it's just a it's based on what I've learned over the years here, and combining that with uh my natural instincts.
I don't believe that what we hear from day to day really just as spontaneously happened that day in all cases.
And this Paul Ryan for speaker circumstance, I think has been managed behind the scenes long before anybody ever first heard of it.
And I I think that there is an objective to it.
Um the donor class wants what the donor class wants, and the donor class is not going to be denied.
They give that money to these people for a reason.
And they give that money to these people in part to make sure the elections don't matter if they don't have to matter.
The money is given as an insurance against you and how you vote.
Now we know what the big Republican donors want.
That's been reported.
They want, among other things, amnesty.
They want comprehensive immigration reform.
The Democrat donors want it too.
The two sets of donors supposedly have different reasons for wanting it, but both parties want it.
The Democrats want amnesty, obviously.
It's a voter registration drive for them, and it it maintains their permanent underclass that they need of people constantly in need, constantly dependent and willing to vote for Santa Claus to satisfy their dependence.
The Republican side of this is oriented toward big money donors who it is said want to be able to hire people and pay them as little as possible.
Cheap labor.
It kind of that that goes against everything that we as Republicans stand for and believe.
We believe just the opposite, that being paid well is a direct result of working hard and how much you prepare, desire, ambition, and all of that.
And now we find out that our own party seems to be working with people to sabotage that whole notion in exchange for a job pool that's basically unskilled and in many ways uneducated and therefore unable to demand high compensation.
So that side's a little, that's contradictory for us, conservatives and republicans think that we have people on our side that are oriented that way.
We have always believed that the Democrats are into people earning as little as possible because they end up becoming dependent.
And then we find out so much has been stood upside down and on its head.
We now know the Democrat Party's the party of the rich.
The Democrat Party is the party protecting the rich, particularly the financial market rich and the Hollywood rich and the Wall Street rich, and yet the Republicans continue to be blamed for only caring about the rich.
So you put all that in a hopper, you know what the donor class wants.
We know, and it's not just illegal immigration.
We also know that the donor class wanted the Iran deal.
Because they want Iran as a market.
They didn't like sanctions being placed on Iran because Iran is in need of modernizing a number of things, like its national airline.
They're using age-old equipment when they were under sanctions.
They couldn't buy any replacement aircraft or anything else legally, not just for their nuclear program, but anything.
So we came to find out some airplane manufacturers were very happy to see the Iran deal happen because it lifted sanctions.
And the lifting of sanctions immediately provided the Iranian regime with 150 billion dollars.
Not all of it may be spent on financing terrorism.
Some of it might be spent to buy new airplanes or new cars, buses, whatever the hell it is.
So we find the Republicans didn't stand in the way in the Iran deal either.
In fact, they came up with a corker bill that was designed to make it look like they were putting up obstacles, but in fact they weren't.
So when we know all of that, much as it's hard to digest and as difficult as it is to accept, we know all of that.
Then we are treated to John Boehner, supposedly getting frustrated and saying no Moss, no Moss getting out of there.
And now we've got supposedly a crisis.
Oh my God.
Oh my God, who's going to be the next speaker?
And then one day we're told Paul Ryan.
And my only point is that it didn't happen that way.
Washington News is a script.
Washington politics is a script.
It is written.
The people in Washington, in the media and in the political parties, those that are famous and have a role in talking and reaching the public, they have roles to play.
And I just the short version of this is that I think, you know, Ryan had these two demands.
And I think these demands were dealt with long before anybody ever heard about them.
His demand was that he be elected unanimously by the Republican caucus.
He didn't want any disagreement, and that was to further the supposed to further unity.
And the second thing he wanted was to eliminate the House rule written by Thomas Jefferson that speakers can be recalled.
And a third thing, he didn't want to have to travel on the weekends.
He wanted to be able to maintain his time with his family.
Now that was presented to us in one day.
My contention is this was all done days and maybe a week prior, the negotiations, the expressive Paul Ryan telling people what his demands were, and people approaching him to do this, and that processes are put in place to make those things happen.
So that that takes us to this.
Well, no, let me let me close the loop on okay, yeah, that's a good question.
Here's the dream from the Republican donor side.
The Republican donor side is that Jeb Bush or, if not Jeb, somebody else acceptable To the Republican establishment gets elected president.
Paul Ryan is Speaker of the House.
And the donor class thinks that if they can make that happen, that within 12 to 18 months, their entire agenda will be implemented.
And that's why Trump is a problem.
And that's why Ben Carson is a problem.
Because either Trump or Carson put an obstacle in the way of the agenda happening.
And I think it takes a while to write that script.
I think it takes a while to put all these pieces in play.
And by the time the news is reported to us that Ryan is going to be speaker, but has these demands, I think it's already been dealt with.
We're just not told that.
Now, the latest news is that Ryan has offered concessions to the House Freedom Caucus.
This would be the conservatives or the Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives.
And here they are.
Ryan has agreed to delay a discussion about reforming the procedural motion used to remove a House Speaker.
He has not eliminated it, according to Politico.
He has agreed to delay discussion, meaning he's open to taking the job without the guarantee that that procedural motion would be eliminated.
Okay, now, hold your horses.
Given what I've just said, is that really what's going on?
Or is that just what the soap opera tells us?
Is that just what the script is?
You have to ask yourself this.
Paul Ryan is approached to be speaker.
He says, only if, and list three things.
Those three things are announced and a fire storm erupts.
A couple days later, we get this story.
Well, he's willing to delay this provision.
That would do away with the procedure for getting rid of a speaker.
Why?
Why?
If he must really want the job, then I mean the demands were what they were, and now with just a little bit of opposition or anger, he's willing to back off of one of them.
Why?
Is he really backing off of it?
Or is there another way that perhaps they can get this done while it appears he's walking away from it?
I mean, the demand is what it was.
The demand is outrageous that he be voted for unanimously and that they get rid of the rule that says they can get rid of speakers.
But yet he's willing to compromise on that?
Why?
What happened?
What what what changed?
Did it look like he wasn't going to be supported?
And I thought he didn't want it anyway, unless he could get all that.
So what's what happened?
Why back off of this?
Then you ask yourself, is he really backing off of it, or is that just the news?
And then you have to ask yourself one other thing about all this.
You know, there's a whole other party in the House that votes on these things that we're not hearing a thing about.
Where are the Democrats on this provision that you can't get rid of a speaker?
It's just been assumed because the Democrats are in the minority, they got nothing to say about it.
But the Democrats know that someday they're going to be in the majority.
They're going to want to be saddled with a suspension of the rule that allows members to recall a speaker.
Something, this is very, very strange to me.
You make the demand, and it's made almost as a non-negotiable thing.
It's made in almost in in the it's a demand almost of somebody that really does not want the job.
But if if if you're going to make me take it and you're going to have to do this, this, and this, otherwise I'm not interested.
This is a list of demands you make that you don't expect to get.
And on that basis, you say, okay, thanks, but no, thanks.
I don't want the job.
But then all of a sudden, no, no, he does want the job.
He really wants to be speaker, and he's willing to back off of that for a while.
You know, until when I'm sorry, I'm just unable to temper.
I'm I'm naturally skeptical here.
That's all this is.
I don't know anything.
I'm just skeptical.
Intelligence guided by experience.
And then there's this uh story of a Hill.com.
Groups seeking to curb immigration, or group seeking to curb immigration goes after Ryan.
A leading advocate of tighter restrictions on immigration has launched a campaign to prevent Paul Ryan from assuming the speakership.
Numbers USA, which advocates for tougher laws governing both legal and illegal immigration, is warning that Ryan's past embrace of certain legalization benefits for people in the country illegally, benefits the critics deemed to be amnesty, make him unfit for the post.
So we see that it isn't universal acclaim, yet it's one people want it to appear that it is.
Anyway, just it's just very, very fluid out there.
This this whole situation where we're trying to replace Boehner, and I just can't help but wonder if, as is the usual case, there's more going on here than we know that is not being reported, but that is known.
Quick timeout, open line Friday, we'll get to your calls next.
Okay, so I just got a great question in the email.
Rush, in your scenario, you said that the Republican donors, they want Jeb or whoever from the establishment is present.
Ryan is speaker, the next 12 to 18 months they get their agenda implemented.
What happens if Hillary wins Rush?
What then?
Folks, that's automatic what happens if Hillary wins.
And you better be prepared for that right now.
If Hillary Clinton wins, the first thing on election night, they won't even wait till the next day to say it.
If Hillary Clinton wins, the Republican Party will come out in mass and they will say, see, we told you, we need to do comprehensive immigration reform right now, or we will never win back the White House.
That's exact that's already built in.
If Hillary Clinton wins, no matter who the Republican nominee is, that's what the RNC, that's what the Republican establishment is going to say.
They're going to lay the loss off on you, and it because you stood in the way of them doing amnesty.
And once again, conservatives will be blamed for Hillary winning.
That's already written.
That's already done deal.
The one thing that stands in the way of all of this, Donald Trump or Ben Carson.
Either of those two being the nominee, just gums up everything that is on the easel right now in terms of the agenda.
Here's Lucy in Reading, Pennsylvania.
I'm glad you called it open line Friday, and it's great to have you here.
Hi.
Thank you so much, Flush.
This is such a thrill.
I'm beyond excited.
Thank you.
I've been I've been trying to get a hold of you for over 20 years, so this is a dream come true.
Well, thanks for the.
I was born and raised a rush baby, and now I'm a rush babe, and I just love you.
And um, I was just calling uh this is actually the second time.
When I was 10, I tried to get through, but Mr. Snorley wouldn't let me on the phone because uh you had an episode of how much you hated chickens.
And I called in to let you know how much I loved you, uh loved chickens, and he wouldn't let me through.
This is my second time in over 20 years that I made it on.
So I'm just so excited.
Um, but I really wanted to just thank you.
Without you, not only me, but a whole generation of conservatives would have been lost.
And your guidance, your information, your consistency has supported a whole generation, and on my behalf and every conservative I know, I just want to thank you so very much for being there for us.
Well, what inspired this, Lucy?
Well, I I have to tell you, I was driving on the highway, and you gave your symbol, and on came the feminine song.
I was clapping, I driving with my knees so I could clap and uh curious song.
I listened to that song my whole life and loved it.
And I tell you what, when that came on, it was such a blasphemous past, I got so excited, and so I have you on the case.
So it was a little bit of nostalgia to J. It was.
It was complete nostalgia.
I tell you what, I think you were so excited you were driving with your knees.
Yes, I could clap to you and cheer to that song.
You've inspired me for years, and that song just bought me back to when I was 10 years old driving in the car with my mom, and she'd have you on every day.
Well, that's uh I I cannot thank you though.
That's that that perfect.
That's just great.
I'm I'm so glad that you got through this time.
I don't remember, I don't hate chicken.
That's the only thing I'm great to have you with us, my friends.
It's Tom in Columbus, Ohio.
We roll on on open line Friday.
Hi.
Hey.
If conflicting reports stop the truth in Benghazi, which was a planned small organized terrorist attack from being told because of the fog of war and all those things for two weeks, then why report the wrong one about an angry mob upset about a video for weeks?
If they were in search of the truth and they were worried about the fog of war, and they didn't want to say it was because when it when it first happened, they could not allege to fog of war because there wasn't a war.
Well, I know.
We we had I'd like for Hillary to answer the question as to why for two weeks they didn't want to say it was an organized terrorist text because in her words she said conflicting information, fog of war.
Then why report an angry mob for two weeks?
Why would they go ahead and say, okay, we don't care about the conflicting reports to stop the She essentially she wasn't specifically asked that, but she was asked repeatedly about the video yesterday, and and she ends up maintaining that it was still a factor.
She was still lying about it.
She's just gonna lie in any answer, Tom.
Well, I think it's she she'd have to choose.
Either we had all this information coming in, so for two weeks we blamed a video, which the information, 99% of it was it was a organized terrorist attack.
One percent of it was it was an outrage, angry mob that was happening in other countries that maybe I mean, do you think that's I would make her say our administration believed it was an angry mob.
So that tells more about maybe she is that stupid.
Maybe that this administration looked at all the evidence and for two weeks thought it's an angry mob outrage.
And one guy in the corner said, you know, guys, after two weeks, maybe uh maybe all these other angry mobs.
Hey, wait, let me know.
I'm getting, is this is this what are you wishing the hearings were still going on and somebody would ask her this?
You're absolutely correct, and somebody should ask her that in the debate.
Okay, but you know that's not gonna happen because she's through testifying.
Well, I know, but I I'd make her answer that question.
Were you totally incompetent for two weeks blaming the wrong information?
Or were you trying to get Barack Obama elected by saying there's no terrorism, there was an angry mob and we couldn't do anything.
No, that allegation was made yesterday.
Uh the guy um oh Kaskahaska Huscom uh point blank accused her of concocting the excuse for political reasons.
And she just No, Congress and no, no.
I I don't know, Congress.
No, no, of course not, Congress.
She just denied it.
Look, they did a couple people yesterday did a bang up job of exposing the lie on the video.
Well, not just the woman from Alabama, but but Susan Brooks from Indiana too.
I mean, just blew Hillary out of the water a couple of times, but you see, it it didn't matter.
This is this is my whole point, Tom.
The script for this was written long before yesterday.
The script in the media, which is what matters.
It's a sad reality, but the vast you you have to understand something.
Everybody I I this is not meant as criticism, but also please don't take it this way.
Fox News on a good day has two million people watching a newscast.
That's it.
And that's the only place in the media that the questions that embarrass Hillary and her answers, which are unflattering and embarrassing.
It's the only place those answers are aired.
Two million people.
Now you might have people posting this on Twitter and on Facebook to try to expand the universe.
We play the audio sound bites here and so forth.
So more than two million people see it.
However, when it hits Twitter and Facebook, there's a whole army of Democrats that are out there refuting it, accusing all the posts of being filled with lies and so forth.
The bottom line is that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, you name it, do not show any of this.
In fact, they're doing the opposite.
They're out there talking about how brave, what stamina she had, how great her temperament was, and how she blew the Republicans out of the water.
So it doesn't matter what she says.
This is why I was able to predict on Monday what was going to happen here, no matter what, unless the inexplicable happened and she admitted that she and Obama concocted a lie for political reasons.
Even then, the drive-bys would try to save her.
Even if she did that, they would concoct a way of saving her.
And blame that on a lapse brought on by the just the mean spirited extreme questioning of these totally biased chauvinist war on women Republicans.
So no matter what happened, the story was going to be written that she triumphed and that she overcame this effort to destroy her.
That the Republicans are once again laying in wait.
That's why I was I'm uh I didn't I was hoping to avoid everybody being so frustrated.
Even though I'm I'm with you on the frustration, as I said with the program open today, but this was a hand I had to set expectation.
This was this was not going to be that long-sought moment where the Clintons or one of them was destroyed.
This was not going to be the moment where they were exposed, as the frauds and the liars and whatever else you think they are.
That was not going to happen in this thing yesterday.
No matter how good the Republicans happen to have been, no matter how thorough the investigation, it just wasn't going to happen.
If something like that is ever going to happen, it's gonna be the Clintons are going to have to be the sole architects of the action.
Whenever the Republicans are involved in interrogating, questioning, or appearing with it's impossible.
The media is always going to side with the with the Clintons with Hillary.
Look, she's the Democrat Party future.
The media is not going to allow her to be thrown overboard, and they're not going to allow her to be destroyed.
Even if she's the one that comes close to destroying herself.
They're not going to permit it.
So it's that there isn't a scenario that could have happened yesterday where at least not like the caller said, Well, you really need to ask her, how come you didn't say fog of war for the first two weeks?
Why were you lying about the They brought that out.
I mean, the fact that they were lying about the video was fully exposed yesterday.
They could not have done it better.
The Wall Street Journal and some conservative media has every example of Hillary's fraud reported today.
It could not have been done better.
Jim Jordan did a great job.
Trey Gowdy did a great job.
Susan Brooks, they all did a great job.
This whole notion that the video was a lie and a made up political maneuver was fully exposed yesterday.
Here's uh here's Brian in Fairfax, Virginia.
It's great to have you.
I'm glad you waited, sir, open line Friday.
Hello.
Thank you, sir.
And I'd just like to say I remember the day and time when I actually uh changed my life.
December 3rd, 1991, uh in Detroit, 696 eastbound, between uh Orchard Lake Road and Halstead.
It was the first time I heard you.
You know, everybody remembers that.
Everybody remembers where they were when they first heard this program.
But you, you're able to I mean, you like GPS, you know the exact location where you were and what you were doing.
That's fabulous.
Changed the course of my life, or at least my thinking, which then changed my life.
And and and here is my here's here's the thought that I have.
You know, I've been noodling around and not happy with the Republicans since 1992.
Um, and I I've thought for a long time that maybe the unifying force in America outside of a political party could be freedom.
Because guess what?
Democrats don't like to be told what to do, Republicans don't like to be told what to do, Americans don't like to be told what to do.
And the more I'm experiencing what's happened over the last couple of years, and the uh Republican establishment, the more I see the potential of a unifying force of the haves versus the have nots.
And and that is uh the ninety-five percent that aren't in that ruling class, the ninety-eight percent that aren't in that ruling class that are just sick and tired of the wealthy corrupting America from both sides.
And I think that might be one of the things that Carson, Trump are tapping into that we need Americans that care about a regular America and stop worrying about becoming wealthy and stop pushing agenda and stop controlling America.
So I just wanted your thoughts on that.
You think the question, you think it's ninety-five, ninety-eight percent of the people, Republicans and Democrats who are um opposed, because my the reason I ask that is because I I perceive there to be way, way too many people vote Democrat who don't care.
As long as whatever benefits they get continue to come, they don't care.
They'll run around and they'll voice their opposition to the rich and they'll act as though they hate them and so forth, but they will never do anything other than vote for whoever they think is Santa Claus.
Uh that'll continue until uh you know, we're bankrupt and out of money, right?
And if I look at what caused the revolution in America, it was the underclass.
And the ruling class over the last 40-50 years has placated the underclass with welfare payments, social security payments, with disability payments, with food stamps.
But I just have this sense that at some point the opposition is going to come from all directions and raise up against the proverbial one percent and say, look, we we've had enough.
And and that'll be a potentially a unifying force that overcomes the greed.
Well, I think the underclass.
I think you may be stating this uh just a bit too broadly and perhaps stating it in left-wing terminology.
Totally agree.
There are plenty of people who want to be rich.
There are plenty of people who want the opportunity to work hard and be rewarded for it, and don't hate the rich.
You're talking about lobbyists and rich people who use money to affect policy outcomes.
You're not talking about the guy in your neighborhood that has done well with his store and is doing well, right?
You're not, he's not your correct.
All right.
You're you're talking about moneyed interest in politics who are buying policy outcome.
They're buying insurance against elections.
Right.
Exactly.
Well, I think that's one of the reasons Trump's doing well.
I think you're right about that.
I think that's what and I think Ben Carson, too.
Um there's no uh question about it.
And I think there's an ongoing educational thing happening here.
More and more people are learning uh that their votes and their frame of mind opinion, their their thoughts and issues are really not What's governing the political parties today?
And they've always suspected that they don't have that much influence.
They've always known that lobbyists and money people get their way.
But it's now out in the open.
I mean, it's just it it's now there's they're not even making any pretense of caring what public opinion is in uh in in on either party.
It seems inside the beltway.
Got to take a quick timeout.
Sit tight, my friends, back with much more after this.
You see, where Obama vetoed the defense bill.
612 billion dollars.
Do you know why Obama vetoed the defense bill?
He vetoed the defense bill because it prevented, he says it prevented the closure of Club Gitmo and wasted money on unwanted programs.
Even the French news agency observes that it is rare for Barack Obama to reject the law.
This guy signs anything.
He signs any law that comes down the pike, especially if the Democrats produce it.
But making a rare public show of rejecting a law, Obama said the text agreed by the Republican controlled Congress falls short in three areas or key areas.
He said the bill resorts to gimmicks and funded unwanted programs.
So while the Benghazi committee is questioning Hillary about the security of our diplomatic mission overseas around the world, Obama's holding the defense budget hostage.
Remember the outrage when the Republicans tried to defund a small part of the Department of Homeland Security that would administer amnesty.
Remember how they blew their gasket over that?
We were told that it would jeopardize national security.
Just a tiny little section of the Department of Homeland Security budget, the Republicans didn't want to fund that would have necess uh required for Obama to implement his amnesty.
And they're running around raising holy heck saying that this threatens the security of the United States, jeopardizing it like we can't believe.
But by vetoing a $612 billion defense bill, because it doesn't close Club Gitmo.
That doesn't jeopardize our national security.
The things these people get away with in just in hypocrisy alone are a challenge to stay sane.
They just are.
Here's Judy in Baltimore.
Judy, great that you waited high.
How are you?
Hi there, Mr. Limbaugh.
Thank you.
I'm fine.
I'm so glad.
Listen, I'm so excited to have been able to get straight to you.
I have been trying.
Um I was telling the uh the gentleman that answered the phone back when uh Mr. Obama was first running.
I had a dear friend of mine that's uh very I regard very highly that said to me the last thing you want to do is listen to Rush Limbaugh.
And I said, Well, what are you talking about?
I I I heard your name, but I've never heard you.
And uh she said, Well, that's listen, I'm just telling you.
The last thing you want to do is look into Rush Limbaugh.
And I thought, uh-huh.
So I found you on the Dow and I started listening to you, and I haven't stopped.
And um I just want to tell you how much I appreciate you.
I've been trying to get through.
Um, well, this is incredible.
This is the second call of this type that we've had.
I said you actually had a a friend of yours say, your first Obama election.
Look, the last thing you don't want to you don't want to listen to Rush Limbaugh, and you would never listen, so you turn me on to find out why, and you've been listening ever since.
Yes, sir.
And I still appreciate uh your patriotism, uh your knowledge, and um I just you know, I mean, uh I just really I'm very thankful for your um the work that you do.
Well, I'm thankful for you.
I I just you you have you have almost uh rendered me silent here.
I can't I can't thank you enough.
I really I really appreciate it, Judy.
I really do.
We gotta go, though.
I'm out of time.
I'm really up close to it here.
So we'll be back.
I wonder how many new listeners we have who are people who have been warned never to listen to this show.
You don't want to listen to Rush Limbaugh.
And I wonder how many of them are tr intrigued and do, because once you do, you're hooked.
You are helpless.
▲
Export Selection