All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 7, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:21
December 7, 2015, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Right here.
Everything's fine.
A little late.
A little delay, never heard anybody.
Greetings, my friends.
Great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh and broadcast excellence.
Another full week of here on the EIB network of the Limbo Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882, the email address Lrushbo at EIB net.com.
So I'm fiddling around over the weekend dilly-dallying doing some things.
Didn't get to play golf because the courses would not allow carts.
We've had so much rain down here, no carts, no carts, no golf for me.
You know, I refuse to ruin a round of golf by having to walk it.
So now the statement is why ruin a good walk by playing golf is the other way around for me.
So anyway, I'm uh I haven't played with it much, but I decided to go and open the Apple News app, which is, for those of you familiar with it, a flipboard-like um app.
It's basically an RSS feed made to look like uh magazine, news articles and so forth.
And I saw this thing, and actually where it was, it was it was in the for lack of a better word, the notification center of my iPhone is where it was actually on the search page.
It doesn't matter where it was.
The story was MSNBC reporting that Donald Trump had been shouted and protested off the stage Friday night in Raleigh.
Now, this was Saturday and I was looking at this.
And I said, I've seen this nowhere else.
What the heck is this?
So I went scouring, I went looking.
I couldn't find anywhere where it was reported that Trump had been shouted down, humiliated and embarrassed and forced off the stage at a campaign event.
And it turns out the reason I couldn't find it anywhere is because it never happened.
It didn't happen.
There were protesters and so forth, but they were as usual at a Trump event.
They were drowned out, they were overrun and dominated by by Trump supporters.
It was a crowd of seven to ten thousand.
This guy is drawing general campaign size crowds to his events.
Not one of them has been shut down.
That story that was that was uh that I found on the Apple search page didn't last long.
Uh a couple hours I went back and it was gone.
But it just goes to show you how how literal drivel and bilge can end up in the drive-by media.
I didn't ask Cookie for any of this, but CNN has a Saturday show.
What?
Oh, yeah, I'm gonna but I'm gonna get to the Trump the Obama speech.
I'm gonna handle this in 30 seconds, so I mean it's what a waste of time.
Anyway, uh so I I uh was was looking at this and I was trying to figure out, you know, how how this all happened.
And then I find out that Trump's campaign manager or one of his spokesmen or something, I think it was a woman, was was on Saturdays or Sundays, I don't know what's the Sunday, CNN's media introspective show.
You know, all these networks have a half-hour show on themselves, where they report what they did the last week and what they got right and what they got wrong, but basically how they never get anything wrong because when it is wrong, it's always in the service of the better or what have you.
Anyway, Trump's female spokesman, I think it was a female, made mincemeat of the CNN host Brian Stelter, uh, and mentioned this MSNBC story.
He she was making the point that there's the double standard in the media is all over the place, and he couldn't get off the fact that Trump said thousands protested or cheered after 9-11.
Um my point here is that the media just totally made it up.
It was not true.
It didn't even come close to being true.
It ended up being disseminated somewhat.
I don't think it was widely disseminated.
It was a Saturday or Sunday when it happened, mostly Saturday, Saturday night.
Wasn't up long enough.
But it's just another in an endless and a long line of illustrations of the media and journalistic malpractice.
Now the Obama speech.
Well, no, because I was shocked when I saw it when I see the story Trump shouted down, forced to leave stage.
I mean, that would be big if that actually happened.
That's why I I thought it was such a big deal.
Turns out it was a totally bogus.
When Trump did leave the stage, it was to spend time signing autographs and chatting with people for an hour.
It wasn't even close to being true.
Now, Obama's speech last night, what have you heard?
If you've spent some time in the media listening to analysts and commentators talk about Obama's Oval Office speech, you probably heard a couple things.
That he stood behind a podium rather than sitting at his desk, and everybody wondering why did he do that?
Who knows?
It was obviously for some optics reason.
And the next thing, even from liberal friendly sectors of the media, you've heard people say that there wasn't anything new here.
Obama didn't do anything new.
I mean, he he finally called Fort Hood terrorism rather than domestic violence.
Aside from that, there was nothing new.
There was no strategy, there was no new strategy, there was no we're going to get these guys, there's nothing like that at all.
So what was the purpose?
Ladies and gentlemen, look, I I'm going to put this in perspective for you as briefly and uh powerfully and as poignantly as I can by reminding you of something.
Way back during the early days of Obamacare, going all the way back to 2010, when those of us who took the time to read it, read it, we noted that there was no way it was going to work.
There was no way it could work.
And that its objective was to wipe out the private sector health insurance market, leaving people only one place to go, i.e.
the federal government.
That has been the purpose of Obamacare since the beginning.
It's designed to not work.
We are in the midst, how many how many places have you seen this exchange or that co-op or whatever is bombing out and failing?
And then we saw the United Health CEO say, I'm sorry, I tried, but I'm pulling out, I can't any longer afford this.
That was last week, and you know, that kind of ticked me off because it was known that this was going to happen.
It was just cronyism that forced a lot of these hospital and insurance company CEOs to sidle up with Obama on Obamacare.
But we had the quotes from Obama about how he's talking to his SEIU buddies.
We played all these soundbites during the 2008 campaign, that his real objective was single payer, but the American people weren't ready for it, that it was going to take 10, maybe 15 years to get there.
We couldn't do it overnight.
We can't do it overnight, the president said, and he laid out a strategy whereby the people will actually demand it.
Well, how's that happen?
How do people who live in a capitalist country demand the greatest act of socialism ever?
Well, it takes a lot of work to make what happens in the private sector fail.
So the first thing you do is you take over the health insurance market under the guise of lowering prices, including premiums and deductibles and copies, and then you lie to people and tell them they get to keep their doctor if they like him and it or her, and they get to keep the insurance plan if they like it, and then all of a sudden none of that happens.
Prices skyrocket.
You don't get to keep your plan.
The exchanges are unaffordable.
The website, healthcare.gov, does not work.
I mean, it's amazing.
All of it was a mess.
My point all along was that was the design.
Because the real objective was not to fix the health care system.
The real objective was to take it over.
Much like Fast and Furious was an effort to get the American people so riled up that they would demand further gun control.
Fast and Furious didn't work.
But what it Was, if you recall, the Obama administration facilitated the sale of American weapons, American gun stores that would then be allowed to cross the border into Mexico and eventually end up in the hands of drug cartels who would then use those weapons and kill people and wound people and create mayhem.
And it was supposed to be that the American people would then find out those were guns sold at American gun stores, like any other gun is, and look at what happened.
American guns in the hands of drug cartel kingpins, and they're murdering people and killing people.
And the reaction the American people was supposed to be stop it.
We need more gun control.
We need the government to move in and prevent this from happening.
Same thing with health care.
The design of Obamacare was for it all to implode on itself as it is doing.
Not so that it can be written rewritten and done right, no, so that the American people will clamor for the government to fix it.
Now, all the while on Obamacare, Obama is employing the limbaugh theorem.
He's over there as though he's got nothing to do with this.
He designed a great health care overhaul.
He designed his great bill, and now what's happening?
These evil greedy SOBs in the private sector are destroying it just as Obama knew they would, and he's powerless to do anything to stop it.
He's trying, he's really hoping the American people don't get ripped off like this, but that's what capitalism is, and that's what our private sector is.
So while he designs a system along with the Democrat Party, they're all in on this.
For Obamacare to fail, he's over there acting like he has nothing to do with it, and he's just as mad at all these private sector people as you are.
And eventually people are going to supposed to throw up their hands, total frustration, and demand that it be fixed, because that's what always happens.
The government devises a program.
The program doesn't work or is mangled badly, and the American people demand that the people who broke it fix it.
Well, the fact that there was nothing new in the speech last night except that it was from a podium, the fact that there was no new strategy, the fact that there was...
I mean, Obama spent more time last night talking about anti-Muslim bigotry than he did criticizing terrorism.
Look, folks, I'm I'm sorry to tell you, but the the whole this is this is Obamacare and Fast and Furious tried again.
These attacks, such as San Bernardino, and all in the future, are going to be used by this administration to somehow enact even greater gun control measures.
That's what this is all about.
That's why there's not much to say about this speech last night.
The speech is not designed to rally you against ISIS.
I mean, I couldn't believe the way Obama was talking about this.
Talking about we're gonna defeat ISIS like we did, okay.
Now those are paraphrased.
Here, grab some bite number one, I'll show you what I mean.
This is this is uh last Wednesday.
This is not in the speech last night, but this is the mindset that led into it.
CBS evening news last night, correspondent Nora O'Donnell interviewing Obama.
She said the FBI now has active investigations into ISIS sympathizers in all 50 states.
You've had more terrorism-related arrests in one year since September 2001.
Do you think Americans are living in a bit of fear that Paris could come here?
This is Wednesday.
Now don't forget, going into Thanksgiving, this president told us there was nothing on the horizon.
We had nothing to fear.
There were no eminent ISIS attacks, zilch zero not it.
Remember?
No chatter, no nothing.
Now I want you to listen to what he says and listen to his prepositions and listen to his possessives.
In this bite, it's just 21 seconds.
ISIL is not going to pose an existential threat to us.
They are a dangerous organization like Al Qaeda was.
But we have Hardened our defenses, our homeland has never been more protected by more effective intelligence and law enforcement professionals at every level than they are now.
Okay.
So last Wednesday night, ISIL.
You know, here's the difference.
ISIS stands for uh the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant.
Now, why would he call it ISIL instead of ISIS?
Well, a Levant is more than Syria.
Levant is the whole region.
And I think it's not an accident that he calls it ISIL, and I think it's not an accident that he wants to be using an abbreviation, including the term Levant, because it's the whole region, because I just think so.
I'll leave it at that.
I think there's a desire to show respect, if you will, for what's going on over there, and ISIS is not complete, but ISIL is the Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant.
It's more than Syria.
Yes, it's a whole region.
Anyway, ISIL is not going to pose an existential threat to us.
Well, even when he said it, it was BS.
They do.
They are a dangerous organization like Al-Qaeda was.
That's what stood out to me in this bite.
Al-Qaeda was.
Al-Qaeda is no more.
Al-Qaeda has been tamed.
Al-Qaeda's not a factor anymore.
Oh, really?
So this is nothing more than a continuation of the political posturing that preceded and was part of the Democrat Convention in 2012.
That Obama, by killing bin Laden, had vanquished ISIS.
Or sorry, Al-Qaeda.
That it's in the rear view mirror.
No more Al-Qaeda.
We beat them.
We beat them.
They surrendered.
We got bin Laden.
It's over.
And now ISIS all brand new and it's like something else is going to be brand new when we take care of ISIL and so forth.
But Al-Qaeda's not dead.
Al-Qaeda's not past tense.
There is no was.
Al-Qaeda's a very big is.
So this is pure political posturing, and it's it's disingenuous.
It isn't true.
We've hardened our defenses.
Look, this is key, folks.
We've hardened our defenses.
Our homeland has never been more protected.
Law enforcement professionals every level.
We have more effective ones than ever before.
And yet this thing still happens, see.
So Obama lays out this case, or we've never been better protected.
We've got Al Qaeda in a rearview mirror.
ISIS, yeah, they're dangerous, but they don't have any way of threatening us.
And then they do what they did in San Bernardino.
And that is supposed you you take Obama saying everything's cool, we don't have a threat, nothing to worry about, then of course we do.
The logical next step is for the American people to demand Obama do something, and in his world, doing something is taking away your guns.
Make no mistake about this, folks.
Now, in further analyzing the president's speech last night, I want to remind you of a very important point that I made last week.
Barack Obama is the United States government at the moment.
The official position of the United States government is that Islam is a religion of peace and is as anti-terror as you and I are, and therefore cannot inspire people like the San Bernardino II.
It is not Islam.
There's no such thing as radical Islam.
It is ISIS and Al-Qaeda and all the others who are using Islam, but they are not Islam, even though they say they are.
They are bastardizing the religion of peace.
This is our official view as a country.
It's our official position as a country.
So Saeed Farouk, and it looks like now the ringleader was the wife.
What they did was not inspired by Islam.
It was by ISIS.
It was ISIS who radicalized them.
Not Islam.
ISIS is not Islam.
ISIS is a bunch of horrible, rotten, mean people terrorizing others.
But that's not what Islam is.
And now they've got this ISIS link that they announced.
That's why all of a sudden they can call it terrorism.
That's why Obama can call it terrorism now, because ISIS is terrorism.
Islam is not.
It's a very important distinction.
And Obama made my point for me in his speech last night, and Mrs. Clinton did yesterday with George Stephanopoulos.
I will explain and illustrate when we get back.
Happy to have you with us.
We kick off a brand new week of broadcast excess.
Very, very important to understand here.
As far as Barack Obama is concerned, and therefore our government, I mean, he is our government right now, there is no violent Islam.
There is no terrorism that comes from Islam.
There is no violence.
It is a religion of peace.
Every act of terror that is committed by groups claiming to be Islamic is not.
They are perverting a great religion, which is a religion of peace.
Here is Obama saying so in his speech last night, and one of the purposes of the speech last night was to separate ISIS from Islam, and he did it right off the bat near the top.
It is clear that the two of them have gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West.
They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs.
So this was an act of terrorism designed to kill innocent people.
Now, before you start thinking that that's a major, major shift in policy, that Obama has finally crossed the bridge and agreed he's done nothing of the sort.
Once the FBI linked these people to ISIS, that cleared the decks for calling it terrorism.
Now the fact of the matter is that this uh the the wife, the San Bernardino II, and himself, he's the father of the of uh of uh Said himself, devoutly religious, more and more radicalized.
She became more radical as she got closer to her religion, not as she got closer to ISIS, she probably never met ISIS.
She might have communicated with them, but in every statement that has been made by their family, these two have been, we've been told that these two became more violent, more radical after they had become more devout in their religion.
They never joined ISIS.
They didn't join Al-Qaeda.
And if I may make a brief departure, this business al-Qaeda was that Obama said in the first soundbite we played, talking about ISIS dangerous organization like Al-Qaeda was, there is no was.
Right after the Paris attack that ISIS carried out, Al-Qaeda carried out an attack in Mali.
More people were killed in Mali, 20 people, than in San Bernardino, 14.
And they are still investigating whether the San Bernardino II made contact with Al-Qaeda elements when they were overseas in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
Don't don't buy this idea that Al-Qaeda's done and over with and finished because Obama got Osama.
This is all part of the same smokescreen that Obama's been tough on terrorism, he's been tough, he's taken him out, it's a limited, got rid of Al-Qaeda.
Bush never did that.
But I got him.
Al Qaeda is a was.
Now we're dealing with ISIL and so forth.
But here's the thing, folks, of many things.
If Islam plays no role in this, As our president tells us, and as Valerie Jarrett tells us, and as Loretta Lynch tells us, and as practically the entire Democrat Party tells us, there's a lot of terrorism in the world.
And if it has nothing to do with Islam, where are Islamic leaders standing up and acting mad about it?
If Islam's being perverted, where are the devout Muslim Islamists standing up expressing their anger over it?
I don't know about you.
But if worldwide terrorism was being carried out by a bunch of people calling themselves Christians, I am pretty confident that mainstream Christianity would stand up and denounce it and join the hunt to track them down and get rid of them as soon as anybody else was trying to.
I know what what Obama was well, moderate uh moderate they're in danger, too.
I mean, more Muslims are killed by Islam.
Understand that, but if this religion of peace is being so perverted, if it's being so defamed with all this terrorism done in its name, why doesn't somebody stand up and denounce it?
Why aren't a whole lot of somebody standing up and denouncing it?
And the answer, well, the question answers itself.
But it's clear that the San Bernardino II were radicalized not by ISIS, not radical.
They were radicalized by becoming deeper and deeper believers of their religion.
Now, why does this matter?
What is the big deal?
What what why why is, you know, people say Obama refuses to utter the term radical Islam?
Why does he not do it?
Why is what does it matter?
I'll tell you why it matters.
And and in so doing, uh, ladies and gentlemen, I want to play for you a couple of sound bites of Mrs. Clinton who was on with George Stephanopoulos.
Which is funny.
I mean, here the boss goes on TV with the employee, Hillary the boss, Stephanopoulos the employee.
Stephanopoulos was always in a Clinton war room back when Bill was president.
Now he's been reassigned from the war room to ABC.
So he's a faux journalist, actually a Democrat Party hack, and the boss shows up for an interview on his Sunday morning show called This Week.
Stephanopoulos said, you have been reluctant to say that we're fighting radical Islam.
And I wonder why not.
Isn't it a mistake not to say it plain that the violence is being pushed by radical elements in the faith?
Well, that's a different thing.
Radical elements who use a dangerous and distorted view of Islam to promote their jihadist ambitions.
I'm fine with that.
I say it all the time.
Really?
That's a different thing.
Radical elements who use a dangerous and distorted view of Islam to promote their jihadist ambitions.
I'm fine with that.
I say it all the time, except that she doesn't.
She doesn't say radical Islam.
Here's Obama, grab audio soundbite number three.
Here is him making the distinction.
It is clear that the two of them have gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West.
See?
They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs.
So this was an act of terrorism designed to kill innocent people.
Wait a minute.
How's gun control going to get rid of pipe bombs?
How's more gun control going to get rid of pipe bombs and IEDs or whatever else they were concocting in there?
And furthermore, did you know that ISIS is only targeting America and the West?
That'd be fun to tell the people in Syria.
What do you want to tell the people of Iraq ISIS is doing?
They're attacking everybody who's not Islamic.
They are attacking and wiping out infidels.
It is in the book.
Stephanopoulos says, so what's the problem with radical Islam, Mrs. C. That sounds like we are declaring war against a religion.
And that to me is number one wrong.
Even though the qualifier radical is there?
No, because look, you know enough about religion.
You've studied it, and there are radicals, people who believe all kinds of things in every religion in the world.
I don't want to do that because number one, it doesn't do justice to the vast numbers of Muslims in our own country and around the world who are peaceful uh people.
No.
If you're a law-abiding, peace-lapping Muslim, you need to be with us against those who are distorting uh Islam.
Right, fine.
Where are they?
Now, why do the words radical Islam matter?
You just heard Mrs. Clinton there trying to throw water on the idea that there is what they're trying to do.
She's trying to throw water on the idea, and Obama did the same thing.
You want to snuff out any belief that there is a belief within Islam that could give rise to Saeed Farouk and his wife.
The last thing they want you to think is that Islam has anything in it that would inspire and motivate the San Bernardino II to do what they did.
Therefore, they cannot call Islam radical, and they never will, because for whatever reason, they don't want to think it is, or else they do know that it is, but don't want you to know that they know, and so they continue to obfuscate the whole thing.
So she falls back on the idea that Islam has no blame here.
Islam has nothing to do with anything that happened at San Bernardino or in Paris, either time, that there are instead radical people who are using Islam.
And that's why they won't use the term radical Islam.
Ian Tuttle, who uh wrote on this at National Review Online, the corner blog, said that even if this kind of explanation were plausible, which it is, that the explanation that there's nothing radical in Islam, it's exposed by Hillary's own description of the terrorists' ambition as jihadists.
Where does jihad come from?
Jihad is an Islamic concept.
It's not something ISIS made up or Al-Qaeda made up.
Jihad is an Islamic concept.
Terrorists cannot have jihadist ambitions, and then use Islam to explain that the Islam comes first.
Islam is what inspires all of this.
And our Democrat Party refuses to go there.
They just won't hear of it.
And who knows why we can speculate why uh the way they vote uh or they have deep problems with America, that they've I shudder to think what it is, but it's dangerous, regardless.
We are a great nation at risk in a dangerous world made even more dangerous by virtue of who our current leadership is.
As is evidenced by that speech last night, this administration still does not see the threat the way you and every other American does.
And I will maintain to you.
I'll say it again, that I think all these outbreaks, domestic terror, whatever you want to call it.
I think, you know, Wayne Lapierre, let me go out at this.
Wayne Lapierre, the NRA, way back in the 90s, in the mid to late and I forget when, but he was on This Week, Sunday ABC show.
And he said that he believed Bill Clinton was comfortable with a certain amount of domestic violence because it it helped them in their gun control efforts.
That's all I'm saying here about Obama.
I think they're comfortable with a certain degree of violence, because everybody knows they've made no secret of the fact that what they really want to do here is get your guns out of your hands, that you are the problem.
Not ISIS, not Islam, well, not Islam and not Muslims.
You are the problem.
The law-abiding people of this country and your guns, you are the problem.
And that messianic Jew who was arguing politics was Said for heap, people like that are the problem.
The radical right-wingers, they're the problem.
We got to get guns out of their hands.
Anyway, I take a break here a little long.
we'll come back and get started with some phone calls after Sorry, after this, wrong, but don't go away, folks.
Serving humanity simply by showing up.
Mary in Plymouth, Minnesota.
You're up first today.
It's great to have you.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
It's an honor to be on with you.
I have been listening to your program since I was in a curse, so this is amazing.
Well, thank you very much.
Yes.
So, okay, here's my point.
Um, the White House narrative continues to be that there is no evidence to suggest that the San Bernardino terrorists were connected to a broader group like ISIS or Al Qaeda.
Okay.
So now consider his comment from last night, as you've just been discussing.
He says, no, this isn't Islam.
These are just thugs calling themselves ISIS or Al Qaeda.
Okay, so take those two statements to their logical end.
Doesn't that mean that there's nothing left but Islam in the case of San Bernardino?
Well, I I think you have a point.
I this here's here's the thing.
I think the best way to understand the left on on all of this.
Um the liberal, as you and I know him, doesn't understand religion, period.
You can look at the way they impugn Christians.
You can look at the way they impugn evangelicals and so forth.
I don't I don't think your average liberal thinks religion is legitimate.
I don't think that they assign it much weight in having an effect on the way people live and on the things they believe.
I think they look at religions as just another club that people belong to.
But it doesn't go much deeper than that.
They don't, because they don't.
I mean, they they don't they eschew religion for the most part.
They denounce it, they don't believe in it, they think it's a bunch of crazy things.
If if anything is a religion, it's their ideology, liberalism or environmentalism, uh something of the sort.
But there is no, for as far as the the broad-based left is concerned, you know, God is that's a dangerous concept, too.
And they don't really go very far in expressing belief in God.
So religions to them are nothing more than a collection of like-minded people who, in the case of Christians, are a bunch of wacko.
Gun nut.
Pro-wifers.
They haven't the slightest understanding, nor do they care to understand that religion is a source of strength and faith and is a guidepost for things like morality at right and wrong, good versus evil.
And so they don't go very deep.
And that's that's why they are able to denounce Christianity and to say what they say about Islam.
Because it really isn't that big a deal.
It's just it's just a bunch of people that think the same way, getting together once a week or however often, and expressing their beliefs and whatever it is they have in common.
But the true deeply personal characteristics of religion totally escape liberals, and that's why it scares them.
They'll never be able to control somebody's religious views.
That frightens them terribly.
Anyway, I got that quick time out here, my friend.
Sit tight.
We will be back and continue after this.
Don't go away.
No, no, I'll tell you why this matters, why the left's view on religion matters.
If it isn't deep, if it's just a club, and there's just a bunch of like-minded people getting together or something, it can't possibly be the root cause of something like what Sari or Saeed Farouk did.
Islam can't be blamed because religions do not have this effect on people.
They they they're not deeply held, they're not formative in any way, and that's the left's overall view of religion.
So it has to be something workplace violence or outside influence of guys like ISIS or whatever, but it can't be the religion.
▲
Export Selection