All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 24, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:49
November 24, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back.
Great to have you with us, my friends, Rush Limbaugh, as usual.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
A thrill and a delight to be with you.
Telephone number 80082882 and the email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
Folks, I want to pose a question to you.
I mean, I've I've got my own answer to this, but I would be really curious to know what you really think.
No cliched responses, please.
Why do the mainstream media and the Washington well it's all the same.
Why does official Washington so hate Trump?
What is it that they so fear?
What is it?
Do you think that explains I mean this is irrational.
I mean, you can have any number of candidates come along over the years that they disagree with and don't like, like a Pat Buchanan or a Ron Paul, I mean, name them.
And they never ever lose their their heads like this.
But they're literally going nuts.
They're being turned upside down and inside out.
And there has to be some reason for it.
There is an explanation for it.
And I just wonder what you all think it is.
While you ponder that, well, no, I'm not going to answer it right away because when I say something, there's usually nothing more to be said.
So I'm going to hold back on this one.
The President of the United States has told us we've got nothing to fear from ISIS, right?
I mean, nothing to fear from these refugees.
Oh, by the way, hear what Canada has done?
Let me find out.
Canada to no longer accept single male refugees from Syria.
Now the Can the Canadians just elected.
A little commie pinko guy.
What was he?
Trudeau Trudeau's son, right?
Canada's Syrian refugee plan will be limited to women, children, and families from now on after increased security concerns about single males.
The government's been silent about what the security screening process looks like and whether it takes place at camps in Europe or in Canada.
Settling refugees from Syria and Iraq was one of the main points on newly elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's platform during his campaign this fall.
Trudeau slammed conservative leaders for bringing up security concerns during a humanitarian crisis, but seems to have given in.
I wonder what they showed him.
I wonder what data they were able to present to this little guy.
I say that affectionately.
This young kid, I wonder what they were able to show him to make him change his mind on this.
Because they couldn't unilaterally change this without his support.
Well, what do you mean it's Canada?
It's a legitimate question to ask here.
It is a good question.
Let me go back here for just a second.
Canada no longer accepts single male refugees, but what if it's two men from Syria who claim that they're either in love or they want to get married, or uh they want to watch Madame Secretary.
What happens in that case?
It's a legitimate question, given current social mores and a desire to be understanding and tolerant politically correct.
So we'll see.
But Obama's telling everyone he's got nothing to worry about.
These refugees, it's what we've always done.
We've let the war-torn always seek refuge in our country.
And ISIS is a JVT, we got them contained, and they're on the run.
I have a tweet here from a guy named Fred Lucas, who is the White House correspondent for the Blaze.
I don't know when this tweet went out.
I whoever sent it to me did not date it.
So I'm assuming it has something to do with the press conference today between Obama and Francois Hollande.
Apparently Obama said the climate conference in Paris will be a powerful rebuke to the terrorists.
The climate conference in Paris.
So the point is all of these things Obama's telling us there's nothing to worry about.
And yet then you find out that the United States has issued a worldwide travel alert in the wake of terror threats.
It says, It's in the AP.
Americans should be alert to the possible travel risks especially during the holidays, followed increased terrorist threats around the world, State Department warned on Monday.
What is being alert amount to?
What are we supposed to do here?
What does this mean?
For example, if you see a young Muslim boy with something that looks like a briefcase with a bomb in it who says it's a clock.
Are you supposed to report him or not?
Is that like being on alert or not?
You could end up being sued for millions of dollars if you report a little kid with a briefcase that looks like it has a timer in it.
When you find out it's just a science project.
A travel alert in effect until February 24th.
Said current information suggests that militants with the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and other terror groups continue to plan attacks in multiple regions.
Well, wait a minute.
I I thought there's nothing to fear here.
There was nothing to really worry about.
I thought we're not supposed to be concerned.
Everything's okay.
And yet, this says essentially, be afraid.
Be very afraid.
Let's read this again.
A travel alert is to be in effect until February 24th, said current information suggests that militants with the Islamic State, that's foreign, Al Qaeda, that's foreign, Boko Haram, that's foreign, and other terrorist groups continue to plan attacks in multiple regions.
You notice the absence of any mention of any domestic terrorists.
In this travel alert, the State Department does not warn Americans to be on the alert for any terrorism within our borders.
The only terrorism that we're supposed to be on alert for is that that we might see or encounter when traveling.
And yet we know that this regime thinks that domestic terror is imminent in this country, mostly they think from wacko right wing groups.
And yet they don't mention that.
I wonder why.
I'll tell you why they don't because that might undercut the whole argument for importing more Syrians.
If the regime in its travel alert and its "be very afraid" message warns of possible terror acts within the U.S., people would responsibly stand up and say, "Well, what Well, why are you importing all these refugees, among whom could be some terrorists that you're warning us about?
But since they don't mention that, then we're not supposed to object to the ongoing refugee importation.
That is uh that's going on.
Back to the audio sound bites.
This is Trump talking about the fact he saw Muslims celebrating the 9-11 attacks.
And this constitutes Trump doubling down.
So Trump says he saw it.
The drive-by's, he's lying.
This guy's a nut.
This guy's dangerous.
This guy's really got us bugged.
Why is he saying this?
This is crazy.
You're not supposed to attack Muslims.
We're doing politically correct things, so the Muslims don't hate us.
We're trying to let them know that we don't hate them.
We're trying to let them know that we're not afraid of them.
We're trying to let them know that we don't think bad things, and Trump goes in and says this.
So they do a fact check.
And they can't find any evidence of any Muslims cheering, except the Washington Post did publish, and all the fact checkers found it but ignored it.
So Trump then goes back on TV and doubles down on it.
We have a montage last night and this morning.
CNN, ABC, and a couple of other places with uh media types shocked that Trump is not backing down.
Number 10.
Audio soundbite number 10.
In three, two, one.
Do we have number 10?
Donald Trump tonight doubling down on his claim that he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheering Donald Trump doubling down on his claim that American Muslims celebrated on 9 11.
Doubling down again.
Donald Trump defends his controversial comments.
Donald Trump's doubling down on those comments.
Donald Trump doubling down on his statement.
Donald Trump is doubling down on his statement.
Donald Trump is doubling down on his claim that he has seen video of Muslims cheering on 9 11.
Trump doubling down on this paranoid, frankly, racist fantasy.
Yeah, doubling down on it.
So give the timeline.
Trump says he saw it.
The drive byous.
We're not supposed to see that.
We're not supposed to say that it didn't happen.
You're crazy, you're a lunatic.
And they do a fact check.
They don't find any.
But there was a report again, Washington Post, all the fact checkers, including the Washington Post fact checker, ignored it.
American people know it.
They saw applause, maybe not tens of thousands, but they saw Americans applauding.
They saw a bunch of people overseas applauding.
They heard Jeremiah Wright say America's chickens.
Come home to roost and all that.
So the American people know that Muslims were cheering on 9-11.
Trump's acknowledging that.
Drive-by's can't believe that Trump is doubling down on it.
So last night in Columbus at a campaign event, Trump spoke about questions surrounding his comments that he'd seen all these Muslims applauding.
During a speech recently, I said that I saw in parts of New Jersey, Jersey City, but parts of New Jersey.
I saw people getting together and in fairly large numbers celebrating as the World Trade Center was coming down, killing thousands of people, thousands and thousands of people.
People are still dying over what happened to the World Trade Center, and they're dying a terrible death.
And I saw people, and I saw them on television, and I read about it on the internet, and I read about it.
So they said, Oh, we can't find anything, Mr. Trump.
The reporters are calling all day, all night.
They want to find out.
Did Trump make a mistake?
They don't.
No, Donald, a little bit of advice.
They're not interested in finding out if you really made a mistake.
Their objective is to convince people you're lying.
The objective of the media right now is to convince people that you're just making it up.
You're a racist and you're a bigot and you're flying by wire here and you just say whatever you say.
And you're dangerous because your people are believing you, and you're ginning up all this fear and hatred of Muslims, and there shouldn't be any fear and hatred of Muslims, and you're irresponsible, and you're scaring the people in the media, Donald.
You're scaring them.
So their objective is to try to convince as many people that you're crazy and making it all up.
That's why they ignored the Washington Post story that did report on this on 9-11 in New Jersey.
And here's in fact Trump referencing that.
But the media was going crazy.
They were having a field day.
And one of my people came in.
Mr. Trump, I have a story in the Washington Post.
Washington Post.
How good is that, right?
That's good.
Because they do us no favors.
In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners plowing into the World Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river.
So his people found the Washington Post story and they brought it to him, and he read from it there.
So it's the Washington Post.
I mean, it's instantly credible.
As far as the drive-by's are concerned.
And in all their fact checking, they ignored that.
Even the Washington Post's own fact-checker, guy named Glenn Kessler, ignored it.
So it's clear what the media is trying to do.
So here's Trump reading from a story in the Washington Post that confirms what he says he saw and read prior.
If they think, if the drive-by is and these fact Checkers think that they're going to succeed in watering down Trump support.
They really are misreading this.
It's stunts like this that cements Trump support, stunts like this, which grow Trump support.
Marco Rubio yesterday in Iowa had this brief three seconds.
This is all this is.
Marco Rubio said this about it.
It's not true, and there's plenty of fact checks to prove that it isn't.
So Marco Rubio said, no, no, no, there was no cheering.
I've read all the facts check, fact checks, and uh plenty to prove it that there wasn't any cheering.
But there is the Washington Post story.
Now, yesterday in Perump, Nevada, which is where you end up if you're drunk trying to get to Las Vegas, and you miss a couple turnoffs.
Nothing against Perump.
I do wonder.
What the people that named it, what were they thinking when it came time to name their little town, Perump.
There has to be a reason for it.
I'll look it up.
I'll find out what there has to be an explanation.
Let me take a brief time out here.
Because up next is Ben Carson on the whole concept idea of Muslims celebrating 9-11.
Quick time out, don't go away, folks.
Okay.
Parump Nevada.
Wikipedia.
They reportedly chose the name for Perump after the original indigenous name, Parimpe, or Water Rock, so named because of the abundant artesian wells in the valley.
A lot of things in Nevada are named after water sources, apparently.
Perump is right next to the Mojave Desert.
The reason people are curious the name, because the Rump in there, R UMP.
Rump means something.
Rump, it's a gee, I'm happy my butt's where it is.
That's why I was wondering.
But now we know.
Perfectly legitimate reason.
Here's Scotty, Red Bluffs, California, as we head back to the phones.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you here.
Hello.
Great to talk to you, Rush.
I'll get right to my point.
Yeah.
These latest attack ads from the Kasich Super PAC, as well as any others, are a perfect illustration of just how out of touch the GOP is with their base.
Every time Trump gets a bump from any of these attacks, they're not recognizing exactly who we are.
People who resonate with Trump will never be voting for Kasich or Jeb Bush, and the fact that they still don't recognize that scares the living hell out of me.
It does, but they're, you know, they have to be smart enough to know this.
My point is these are really not dumb people.
I mean, they may be wrong in a lot of things.
And they may be uh insensitive or unaware, but they're not dumb.
They have to know that they are alienating these people.
It's it's it's fascinating.
You go back to the the first days of the Jeb Bush campaign.
What did he say?
He was very clear, proudly said he was going to win the nomination without the base.
So from the early days, the Bush campaign was fearless in pretty much characterizing the base as as a bunch of uh well, I don't know, cooks or what have you, but clearly he didn't want to win with them.
The badge of honor was going to be to win despite them and without them.
There's a there's a genuine adversarial relationship.
It isn't new, folks, but it keeps intensifying.
I mean, the adversarial relationship was plain as day back in the 70s when Reagan was attempting to become the Republican nominee, and the establishment Republicans of that day had similar animus to Reagan, and they did their best to discredit Reagan with his supporters.
Back in the day, they joined a bunch of Democrats in the media trying to portray Reagan as dangerous with his finger poised at a nuclear weapons button, the launch button.
And I think it uh it's it's becoming more and more irrational.
Trump is not.
What's fascinating about this is, as compared to Reagan, compared to Reagan, Trump is not a conservative.
And the bulk of Trump's support is not the Republican base.
As we mentioned yesterday, if you look at the demographics, at least as expressed by polling data, the bulk of Trump's support is what we all have been led to believe the Republican Party wants.
Blue-collar people, uh, moderates, and independents.
I mean, there's the fact that they don't control Trump, and the real thing is they don't have any money invested.
And as such, they have no say so over what he does at all.
Ha.
Welcome back, my friends.
Rush Limbaugh, paying attention all the time here at the EIB Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
This is funny, Ben Carson.
The um, I guess you said the conventional wisdom in the drive-by media is that Ben Carson's stupid.
Don't doubt me, they think that he politically is just stupid.
They listen to him talk, they measure the tone in which he speaks and the speed at which he speaks, and uh the soft spoken technique that he uses, and they really have concluded that while he may be a great neurosurgeon for children, that doesn't impress them much because in their world, in the world of politics, he's an idiot.
They think that he's stupid, and they're not afraid to imply it.
They assume it constantly, and he just pulled one over on them.
Ben Carson claims that of all the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson is the one who impresses him the most, partly because of the way he tried to craft our Constitution.
He said this over the weekend.
It was in an interview on Sunday on C-SPAN, part of the road to the White House series.
Ben Carson said he was impressed by a lot of the founding fathers, but he had a special feeling for Thomas Jefferson.
I'm particularly impressed with Thomas Jefferson, who seemed to have very deep insight into the way that people would react and tried to craft our constitution in a way that it would control people's national tendencies and control the natural growth of the government.
Now, the politico in writing about this followed those quotes with this.
The problem, Jefferson crafted the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, writes Politico.
In fact, Carson noted Jefferson's absence in his book, A More Perfect Union, writing that he was missing in action during the birth of the Constitution as he was serving abroad as ambassador to France.
Politico says that Carson's latest gaffe comes after a week in which he used an analogy likening Syrian refugees to dogs, and had his foreign policy acumen questioned by advisors to his own campaign.
But guess what?
Ben Carson turned out to be right.
Thomas Jefferson did craft the Constitution from France.
Jefferson loved France, by the way.
He loved going.
Jefferson was a big wine connoisseur, among many other things.
Perhaps some of you have uh seen the movie or heard of the movie Jefferson in Paris.
He uh he loved it there.
But what politico didn't know that Ben Carson did know, and they're running, oh, there's Carson, boy, making a big fool of himself once again.
See, this guy does, he's not in our league.
Ben Carson thinks Jefferson wrote the guess.
Jefferson wasn't even there.
Ben Carson didn't even know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
And all of the dry pie media critics just launched into poor old Carson, pointing out that Jefferson wasn't even in America when the Constitution was written.
He was in France.
What a dope Carson is.
How'd this guy ever pass the medical test to be a surgeon?
Except this.
And credit to USA Today for digging this up.
It's an interesting historical footnote to the Constitutional Convention.
At the time, there was, of course, no email, there was no overnight express, no fax machines, there was no such thing as anything approaching instant messaging.
You know, sometimes I I often think, what would the early Americans think if they were to be transported to the present day and see airplanes flying and rockets launched and satellites circling the earth and instant communications.
I do.
I want I wonder what if just an immediate appearance in the present day.
Can you imagine the shock?
Can you imagine the disbelief?
At any rate, back in the early days of America, of course, there was no instant communications.
But there was, there were things which were the forerunners of email social media.
They were called letters.
You may have heard of them.
This is where people sat down at tables and desks and they grabbed a piece of paper and a pen.
And they wrote the date at the top and said, Dear whoever they were sending it to, and then with their hand, if you can believe this, they actually started making words out of letters, individual letters.
And then they wrote, some people wrote front and back of the page, some people wrote the front page only and grabbed another page.
Some people wrote short letters, some people wrote long letters, but this is how they communicated back.
They wrote letters.
And I realize that many of you do not know what one of those is, but that's all they had.
That's why there is so much abundant writing from those days.
Because that's all there was no telephone, there was no televis there was no way to communicate.
So it was all handwritten letters.
And let's say the U.S. minister in France, he would write one of these letters, and then he would give the letter, these pieces of paper with words written on them, to the ship captains who were going back and forth across the Atlantic Ocean from, say, Philadelphia to France and back and so forth.
And then when the ship landed, and other overland carriers would grab these pieces of paper, these letters, and they would put them in the saddlebags of horses, and then they would deliver them to whoever the author of letter intended.
And what they found was that Thomas Jefferson was writing all kinds of letters from France to the Constitutional Convention, and they were sending him letters, and so he was participating in the writing of the Constitution while he was in France with these things called letters that were put on boats that went over the ocean and into horses and saddlebags where they were delivered to the recipients.
It could take months for these things to go back and forth, given the length of time it would take back then to sail across the Atlantic Ocean, if they made it alive.
But the point is Carson was right, and the drive-bys mocking him and laughing at him and making fun of him had no idea.
Thomas Jefferson was writing these letters.
And you know who was replying to them?
George Washington and James Madison, who were among the most important framers of the Constitution.
So here's this crazy thing.
Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and others were discussing how the Constitution should be written while Jefferson was in Paris.
After the Constitutional Convention was over, Jefferson had this other idea called a Bill of Rights.
You know that was Jefferson's.
The drive-bys didn't.
No, no, the experts at Politico and C-SPAN or wherever else laughing and mocking Ben Carson.
Jefferson?
No, no, Mr. Garson.
He only had something to do with the declaration, but he couldn't have done anything with independent Constitution because he wasn't there.
When the Constitution Convention was over, Thomas Jefferson had this other idea called a Bill of Rights, which you've heard of.
It's the first ten amendments to the Constitution, and they, you know what they spell out for those of you who may not have been taught this, some of you in the audience.
Do you know what the Bill of Rights is?
I know what a lot of people who don't know what it is think it is.
They think that's where it's okay to have an abortion, and they think the Bill of Rights it's in there where they can smoke weed and whatever they want to do, that's where it is.
That's my rights in there.
That's the Bill of Right.
No, no, no, no.
No.
I mean, you're close, but no cigar.
The Bill of Rights, another testament to the exceptionalism of America.
The Bill of Rights, the first ten changes, or additions, if you will, did one thing.
And without any argument and no debate, they limited the power of the government.
They limited the reach of the government.
There were specific limits designed to keep the federal government small and inobtrusive and out of people's way.
The Bill of Rights were written to affirm the premise, the entire Constitution, and that is that it was the freedom and liberty of the people of the United States, which was the organizing principle of our country.
Not the empowering of a big government and a king and his court, but rather individuals and their liberty and freedom.
And Thomas Jefferson did that.
And that's why, by the way, Ben Carson has such a great admiration for him.
And the drive-bys didn't even know.
The educated drive-by didn't even know.
An excellent role model for the youths of America, Rush Limbaugh.
On the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Here's Michael Peoria, Arizona.
You're next.
It's great to have you on the program.
Hey Rush, thanks for taking my call today.
Appreciate it.
You bet.
Thank you, sir.
You know, personally, I was uh a Trump supporter, and uh learned about him and what he's done in the past, what he said in the past, and what he says now are two different things.
Uh wanted to a question, and then if he could explain something.
I'm worried about he's whining about this is unfair, that's unfair, this is unfair, the GOP people are coming after him, and this is unfair.
And I'm worried that, and you can help me out, he signed the paper stating he wouldn't vote as independent.
Can he change his mind on that?
Because I'm starting to think that him and Hillary and Bill sit down for a long talk at a dinner time and wants him to run and then create a whole bunch of co controversy and run as an independent.
Uh, but he signed that paper.
That's what I'm worried about.
He's in it just to mess up the whole political party.
Okay, so you are asking me if I think it's possible that Trump had a powwow with the Clintons in which it was discussed Trump would run, siphon a lot of votes, and if he had to go third party in order to secure the election for Hillary and the Clintons with whom he's actually close.
Is that what you're asking me?
Uh yes, and I know he signed the paper.
Can he still do it or no?
He would have to drop out.
Logan do whatever he wants to do.
That that look, here's what he's doing.
No, no, no, no.
The papers can do it.
He's Donald Trump, he can do whatever he wants to do.
He said that he signed a pledge that if he did not win, he would support the Republican nominee.
That's what he said.
But now he's saying that part of the deal was that they would not try to sabotage his campaign.
And that they are.
And they're treating him unfairly, and they are attacking him.
And he said that wasn't part of the original deal.
This is when Rince Prebis went to his Trump Tower office and uh and struck the deal.
And so now Trump, Trump is saying that they're attacking him, and it's the media that is saying Trump could change his mind, Michael.
Trump has not, to my knowledge, I mean, I've unless there's a story out there I've missed, Trump has not specifically said he would renounce the deal.
He's just complained about the way he's being treated.
And that this was not part of the deal.
And the media has taken it from there, suggesting Trump could change his mind.
And the whole idea of Trump going third party.
Here's an example.
I happen to have this in my formerly nicotine stained fingers right here at the Hill.com.
Trump resurfaces idea of third party run.
Donald Trump is again raising the possibility that he might run for president as a third party candidate, suggesting the GOP's not meeting its end of their loyalty deal.
Responding to reports that independent super PACs are planning attack ads against him.
The billionaire Republican frontrunner tweeted on Monday, quote, the Wall Street Journal reports the GOP getting ready to treat me unfairly.
Big spending planned against me.
That wasn't the deal.
That's all Trump has said, Michael.
If the drive-by's hoping that it means he would go third party.
Asked what reports Trump was referring to, his campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said in a telephone interview, it was a reference to plans by a super PAC supporting Governor Kasich to run a two and a half million dollar campaign against Trump.
Trump's tweet excavates a problem.
The RNC thought that it had buried three months ago.
Republican officials feared earlier in the year that Trump would run as an independent candidate in the general, which could vacuum votes away from the Republican nominee and ultimately hand the White House to Hillary Clinton.
RNC chairman Rince Prebis convinced Trump to sign a loyalty pledge that he would support the party's eventual nominee.
And when the frontrunner did so, on September 3rd, the party thought the issue was over.
Trump said at the time, I see no circumstances in which I would tear up that pledge.
Asked what Trump meant by his tweet Monday, Lewandowski said he just wants to be treated fairly.
But if Republicans are going to attack him, then maybe he doesn't think he's being treated fairly.
It's the second time in two days that Trump is publicly toyed with abandoning the pledge.
Look, I you may think I'm being too precise here.
And some of you might think that I'm even stretching things to defend Trump, none of which is the case.
This is media, folks.
I'm telling you, this is this is this is pretty close to what the media did with Trump's supposed Muslim registry comments.
He never said them.
But you know everybody by now thinks that he did.
From the AP from a couple days ago, Trump won't rule out independent run for president.
And from the article it says, asked on this week, George Stephanopoulos, whether he would consider a third-party run for or if uh GOP opponents try to take you out.
Trump said, well, I'll see what happens.
I have to be treated fairly.
If I'm treated fairly, I'm fine.
He hasn't said it yet, Michael.
He hasn't said he's he's not gone the blackmail route yet.
The media is is, and the headline gets it, Trump resurfaces no media resurfacing idea of Trump.
Third party run.
The GOP has to know that if he goes third party, they're finished.
They have to know that.
The thing is, they might say it'd be worth it to lose if it got rid of Trump and his supporters.
I I wouldn't discount that, folks, given what the It is the fastest three hours in media.
And two of them are in the can, and we've got to take another obscene profit break here to Tom.
▲
Export Selection