All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 16, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:32
December 16, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Uh-oh.
Uh-uh.
Uh-oh.
The Federal Reserve just announced that they're going to raise interest rates a quarter of a point.
That is going to panic.
Wall Street.
Wall Street's been living with free money for so many years.
They have been worried.
If you know where to read, if you know where to look, you can sense that they have felt this was coming for a couple of years now and they are scared to death of it.
And the fact that the interest rate increase has been announced, we just keep a sharp eye on money people because this, to many of them, they interpret this as the end of their run.
It's going to raise mortgages, mortgage rates, going to go up.
Every other kind of loan is going to go up.
But of course, not to worry, my friends, our booming economy will be able to absorb this and any other tinkering the Fed decides to engage in.
And they are saying that this could be just the first of many subsequent interest rate increases.
Many economists, quote-unquote experts, think the Federal Reserve will raise rates at least three or four times next year.
The interest rates at zero is artificial anyway, but it has been a boon.
It's been beneficial to a whole lot of people.
And now it's just going to make money more expensive.
And the people who deal with money are going to panic.
And you just keep a sharp eye.
I hope there's not a whole lot of overreaction.
Right now, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, it was up over 200 earlier.
It's at 148 up now.
So there's not really a Mad Dash panic in that regard.
I hope there isn't.
I hope people don't overreact to this.
Wall Street has been the beneficiary of a bunch of printing of money for a number of years now called quantitative easing.
And that coupled with, in fact, there's even zero, negative zero interest rates in some cases.
And then there's this.
By the way, welcome back.
Great to have you here, folks.
Rush Limbaugh, the final busy broadcast hour today.
The staff of Senator Richard Burr, chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee, is looking into whether Ted Cruz disclosed classified information about the USA Freedom Act in the debate last night.
Kidding me.
This is made to order precisely the kind of thing I have been talking about today.
Richard Burr, a Republican, is going to go after Ted Cruz after all of the shenanigans this administration and Hillary Clinton have been engaged in.
We're now going to target Ted Cruz for revealing classified information in the debate last night.
Well, this should be worth a few more points to Cruz.
I mean, here comes the establishment targeting the guy.
Republican primary voters will flock to Cruz as a result.
I mean, well, no.
I mean, it's one thing to do it.
It's another thing to announce that you're doing it.
Okay, you think he released classified data?
Do an investigation.
No, no, no.
That's not the point.
They are announcing that they think he did and they're looking into it.
This is meant to do harm.
And remember, the establishment has decided that Rubio is next up after Jeb.
This is a sad thing.
I mean, people were laughing at it, but it was kind of sad thing last night.
Drudge had this story that what was the story?
I forget not what it was.
It was so few people showed up at a Jeb watch party.
There were more people somewhere that a Jeb would nobody showed up.
Oh, that's right.
There were more people on stage last night than showed up at the Jeb Bush debate watch party in Florida.
Have you seen Obama's latest approval numbers?
And this is one of the best kept secrets going with all the focus on the Republicans.
NBC Wall Street Journal, Obama falls to 43% approval as terror has become the new number one issue.
The latest NBC News Wall Street Journal poll reveals that following the San Bernardino massacre, 70% of Americans now believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction.
70%.
Only 43% approve of Obama's job performance as president.
71% of Americans say that the shootings and random acts of violence that took place this year in Charleston, South Carolina, in Oregon, Colorado, San Bernardino, are now a permanent part of American life.
The new norm.
And they associate it with the administration of Barack Obama.
And who can blame him, people, for doing it?
It's exactly the case.
There was no ISIS before Obama got into office.
There had not been domestic terror attacks until Obama got into office.
Domestic terrorism, national security have more than doubled this year.
Now are the top issue for 40% of Americans.
The next nearest categories in terms of issues of more importance, greatest importance, job creation, economic growth, deficit, government spending.
Wait, where's climate change?
Hang on just a second.
There's no climate change here.
Oh, that's right.
They just fixed it.
I'm sorry.
They solved it.
What am I thinking?
I'm sorry.
I forgot.
The NBC Wall Street Journal survey found a continuing partisan divide in the poll.
58% of Republican primary voters say national security terrorism is their top concern.
Only 26% of Democrat primary voters say it's their top priority.
Democrats by 33%.
Republicans by 12% say the economy and jobs is their top issue.
But either way, Obama's in trouble and Hillary has promised to continue his policies.
So the poll says that as a result of these negative trends, Obama's disapproval rating has risen by 11 points, now up to 51% disapproval.
Wolf Blitzer, has Wolf Blitzer mentioned that Wolf hasn't mentioned this, has he?
You remember all that breaking news for six hours in a row when Bush's numbers hit around 30?
Meanwhile, there's this from the Democrats from the Politico.
Two senior Democrat lawmakers are asking their colleagues to bring a Muslim American guest to the State of the Union in protest of Trump's recent proposal.
And guess who says that multiculturalism is a sham?
Angela Merkel, the premier chancellor of Germany, whose refugee policy has attracted praise from all over the world.
She was even Times person of the year because she single-handedly is destroying her country.
Yeah, I mean that.
Why would time get...
Germany's, what, a white country, right?
They're a white Aryan nation, you name it.
And Angela Merkel is importing what?
A bunch of people of color forever to change Germany.
Damn right.
To the American left, she's a champion, champion.
And now that it's happened, now that she's brought in all of these different people from all these different parts of the world and all these different cultures, now she is saying in a speech that multiculturalism is a sham.
You know, it's a sad thing, though.
It takes ruining things for these idiots to realize.
I mean, anybody with a brain could have told her before she did this what was going to happen.
But no, she had to go ahead and do it.
And then only after she's done it can she see the disaster she created.
It took ruining Europe to create this, or to come to this conclusion.
Here again, the New York Times, this bears repeating.
The threat that closed the Los Angeles schools yesterday is now being treated as a hoax.
Law enforcement and school officials said the emails to both New York and Los Angeles originated in Frankfurt, Germany, or at least were rooted through there and appeared to have come from the same sender.
Now, the New York people, they're all bragging today.
The New York, hey, we weren't fooled.
We never ever treated that email as a serious threat.
We always knew it was a hoax.
People in L.A. fell for it.
We in New York didn't fall for it.
But here's the real point of this.
And this, I think, is a huge point.
The authorities have concluded that it was a hoax because the author of the threatening email did not capitalize the name of Allah.
So, in other words, the authorities concluded this was a hoax because the emails did not come from a truly devout Muslim.
Now, what does that tell you when we are constantly told that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam?
That Islam is the religion of peace, that Islam opposes terrorism, Islam is united with us against terrorism, there's no such jihad, militant Islamism, all this stuff.
That's not Islam, and don't anybody confuse that.
Those are not Muslims doing that.
And yet, experts now admit they shouldn't have done this.
You know what they've done by admitting this?
They have let us know that they agree with us, but because they're afraid of some sort of backlash or panic, they're out there telling us, no, there's nothing to fear from Islam.
There's nothing to fear from Muslims.
No, no, no, no, no.
You're a bigot if you think that there is.
It's a religion of peace and all that.
They really know that's caca.
I mean, if they're going to sit there and say that an email is obviously a hoax because it was not sent by a devout Muslim, which means only devout Muslims do terror because Allah was not capitalized, it means that whoever sent this really doesn't have proper respect for Allah, and that person could thus not be a Muslim.
What do you mean?
What if it was a typo?
Even if it was a typo, whoever sent it didn't care enough to proofread it to make sure that the proper respect was noted.
I think this is a big deal.
I don't, well, I shouldn't say I haven't seen it made a big deal anywhere.
It may well be.
But folks, this goes back to what I was saying earlier.
You know, people talking and asking questions about Trump demanding we understand this or Trump explain this.
And I think the real focus is the establishment.
They're the ones that need to be answering some questions.
I mean, the question, what explains what they're doing, is more relevant about the establishment than Trump.
And the establishment has been trying to tell us that what we're seeing is not what we're seeing.
That Islamic terrorism, no, it's not that.
No, no, no.
Even though we find out that the perpetrators are devout Muslims and they are jihadists, no, there's nothing to see here.
These are lone wolves.
They were radicalized out there.
They were not natural-born Americans and so forth.
And they had a child.
They were engaging in the American dream.
No, no, no, no, no.
This is not what you think it did.
When we know it is.
The point is now, so do they.
For whatever reasons, they are misleading us.
When they tell us that Islam is nonviolent and that Muslims don't do terrorism, they know that they do.
I guess they're afraid to acknowledge what they know for fear that it would cause a backlash or whatever else.
A panic, you name it.
And they are afraid of offending people.
There's no question it's a huge politically correct component here.
But this little story tells us quite a bit.
Meanwhile, ISIS was gloating about the hoax.
Within minutes of the news of the bomb scare in LA, ISIS supporters created a web forum titled Panic in the American Los Angeles.
ISIS supporters took to social media to gloat about the disruption caused by the credible bomb threats made against the LA scroll system on Tuesday.
The threats closed more than 900 scruples across L.A., abruptly sending hundreds of thousands of students home and throwing the city into disarray.
One supporter posted the following: Thanks, God, they are panicked of everything.
The soldiers of the caliphate will look after you until the world will be under the rule of Allah.
And Allah is capitalized in this post.
Another ISIS blogger posted, oh God, never make them safe, put panic in their hearts.
They were reveling in the fact that L.A. fell for the hoax and they were able to totally disrupt the screw-all day.
From the Associated Press, President Barack Obama described immigration on Tuesday as the nation's oldest tradition, part of what makes the country exceptional, as he sought to draw a contrast with those who would seal the borders to people seeking to escape hardships or persecution.
The headline, Obama says immigration, or says immigrants renew America.
U.S. is a welcoming nation.
It's kind of odd, too, isn't it?
Because don't most leftists like Obama like to condemn the arrival of the white man in the new world?
I mean, that wasn't welcomed.
That they don't think made America great.
That, they think, is what's responsible for everything that's wrong here is white Europeans arriving on our shores.
Obama was speaking at the National Archives Museum where immigrants from Iraq, Ethiopia, Uganda, and 22 other nations were sworn in as U.S. citizens.
He spoke from a lectern placed in front of the display of the Constitution.
He said the nation's first refugees were the pilgrims, and that eight signers of the Declaration of Independence were immigrants.
Now, we talked about this yesterday, that Obama is drawing the bunch of Syrian refugees that he's welcoming to the country, and he drew a moral equivalence to the Syrian refugees and the pilgrims.
If you read down to the bottom of the article, you find Obama, he couldn't refrain, he couldn't stop blaming America again.
Quote, Obama also said the United States has often not lived up to its values as a welcoming nation.
He recited the history of slaves and the treatment of immigrants from Ireland, China, and elsewhere as examples.
He said, We betrayed not only our fellow Americans, but our deepest values.
We betrayed these values.
It's happened before.
How quickly we forget.
Right.
And how quickly we forget that Obama himself suspended the Iraqi refugee.
I'm out of time here.
I've got to tell you this.
Coming up in the audio soundbites, the five on Fox yesterday afternoon kind of jumped in my chili.
Over this Ted Cruz business, wondering why Cruz is the only guy I'm seeking to protect.
Why don't I try to protect all the other conservatives from Trump?
Question was asked us.
You'll hear it coming up in due course.
In the meantime, Tom in Houston.
It's great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Senor L. Rushbo.
It's a great honor to be with you.
Thank you, Very.
I've been listening to me since 1996 when I was 13 years old.
Wow.
I'm just another Gringo Kafir millennial working in oil and gas down here in Houston.
I'm a Ted Cruz supporter.
And I'm hoping Ted is listening or somebody in his campus because I have two points to make today.
And I think we'll follow them.
Okay, so Ted took one opportunity to be back at the establishment on deportation.
He quoted what Bill Clinton had done and what George W. had done.
Now, the definition of deportation, you know, according to Philip Bumm in the drive-by media at Washington Compost over there, you know, you can read his article.
It says Ted Cruz gets it very wrong.
However, if you go on and read his article, it gives you numbers on the total numbers of returns and deportations.
It actually proves that Ted is right.
And there is such a thing called self-deportation, according to Philip Bumk.
So that whole scenario right there, it's funny how it's being played out.
But if you look at the numbers, yes, people did leave.
Do they leave because we forced them to or because the government had policies, but they left?
That was one point.
I thought he did very well on that.
He should try to clarify that maybe in the future going forward, but he should continue making that point because it's something that Rubio cannot hit him on.
He cannot hit him on deportation.
Everybody is on board to some degree with border security right now.
And obviously, Rubio has a horrible record on it.
The second point has to do with metadata.
Right, and I've got to stop you there.
I've got to stop only because of the broadcast format clock.
Got a break.
Hang on, Tom.
We will continue on the other side.
Okay, here we are back with Tom in Houston.
Wanted to talk about the metadata argument between Cruz and Rubio last night, I got it, right?
Yes, yes.
So last night, Rubio tried attacking Cruz on the metadata situation.
And, you know, the establishment somehow thinks that metadata is going to keep us safe.
So moronic to think that.
If you look at all these attacks, the jihadists aren't using phones.
They're beyond that.
They moved on.
You know, that's carton buggy stuff.
That's not what the future is.
They're using PlayStation.
They're using WhatsApp.
They're using all these new technologies.
And to think that somehow the NSA recording these phone call numbers is going to prevent a terrorist attack is asina.
It's completely asinine.
Well, I know it was a huge contretant last night, a major, major argument.
And frankly, one of the high points of the debate, if you want to, it was a deeply substantive argument over something that is important, and there are valid reasons on both sides.
Metadata is a curious thing.
There aren't a whole lot of people who credit metadata with being a relevant ingredient to stopping terror.
The value of metadata is being able to assemble the activities of a cell in the aftermath of an attack.
And it is that which then may help you to establish a pattern in looking at other intel that you have prior to an attack.
So it has its role, but you're right.
In the case of the San Bernardino 2, I mean, the folly of what was going on, these people were openly communicating with each other on social media.
And of course, Barack Hussein told us that we can't use their social media because it's a violation of privacy and civil liberties, human rights, whatever cockamame blanket excuses these leftists come up with to protect criminals.
But they were openly bragging.
I mean, the woman was.
The wife was hurt.
Her anger, her vitriol, her intentions, she was blatantly open about it all.
We just weren't allowed, even if we saw it, we weren't allowed to use it.
It's silly.
And that's the kind of thing that Trump is addressing and cruise.
It's stupid, these rules that shackle and handcuff everybody.
But even more than that, you've got a valid point here: metadata is on phone calls, and phones are used less and less for other more easily encrypted communications.
And encryption is that's that's another battleground.
It's being waged even as we speak.
James Comey and the FBI are pleading with Apple and other hardware manufacturers and Silicon Valley and CEO software manufacturers and software writers to please allow federal law enforcement a backdoor into people's devices.
And Apple is saying we can't.
We do not make such openness available to ourselves.
We can't investigate our users.
And Apple, they're going to be a long time falling on this because they are using this as a huge sales tool because the privacy is crucial to people.
They think the NSA is spying on it.
It's amazing.
People, their egos are all over the place.
You wouldn't believe the number of people the NSA has never heard of who believe the NSA is spying on every time they go to the bathroom, every time they're in the bedroom.
They really believe that the NSA or the government is watching them every moment of the day.
And you just don't have the heart to tell them the NSA has probably never heard of you and probably doesn't care.
And they would say, no, no, no, it's spying on everybody.
Spying on everybody.
And it's a big deal to people.
And Apple has tried to capitalize on it.
So they're going to be a long time crumbling on this.
Anyway, we'll have to wait and see how it shakes out.
But it was a major debate focal point last night between Cruz and Rubio.
But again, the value of metadata, remember, it's an after-the-fact kind of value database.
It's really important to tracking what happened and who was involved after the fact.
Now, in the case of the San Bernardino II, the NSA cannot go back more than two years to see who Farouk was calling.
And we know that he was radicalized more than two years ago.
Going forward, the NSA will not even be allowed to collect that metadata.
Email, if you know what metadata is, an email header, which most people hide in their email programs, they want to see it.
It's just a bunch of gibberish to them.
But it's the route that the email took from its origin to you.
But it's nothing but a bunch of numbers, you know, IP addresses and so forth.
People's eyes glaze over when you start talking about it.
The experts who know how to read it can tell you the route any email took.
Okay, quickly, a couple of soundbites here.
I mentioned this, so I got to play it.
This Dana Perino, yesterday afternoon on the five on the Fox News channel, Kimberly Guilfoyle and Dana Perino talking about me, who else?
Guilfoyle says, Dana, what do you think Rush Limbaugh said about Trump and Cruz?
What do you think of it?
I mean, what's going on here, Dana?
I do find it curious that Cruz is the only one that gets the protection of Rush Limbaugh or say you're a conservative.
I mean, Trump has no problem trashing all sorts of conservatives, or people who would self-describe as a conservative.
And I think maybe one of the things is that they're starting to worry, like, oh, maybe Trump isn't as solid conservative as we thought.
We've been talking about him for six months and he's getting up there.
And now they kind of like, oh, wait, well, maybe we like Cruz.
I didn't understand it.
I think it's been unfair to a lot of people, including most of the people that are on that stage for several months.
Holy smokes, do you realize the import of this?
It's unfair that I am only protecting Cruz.
Why haven't I protected?
What she means is, why haven't I protected Jeb?
And why haven't I protected Rubio?
And why haven't I protected Kasich, another great conservative?
And why haven't I?
But no, it's my, why haven't I protected?
It's not fair that I haven't.
And a lot of these are self-described, self-asserted conservatives and so forth.
And her opinion is that now, now maybe, maybe I, you know, have been fooled.
Maybe I'm realizing all of a sudden it's getting way, way too late.
Maybe Trump's not the guy I thought he wasn't.
Oh, no, I'm panicking now.
Well, let's, well, Dana is smart.
Just last week she praised me about something.
I forget what it was.
Wasn't this something else?
Anyway, we have the answer to this.
But for the answer, we go to CNN.
Gloria Borger actually answers Dana Perino last night on the lead with Jacob Tapper, says, you know, took shots at Ted Cruz.
Trump did unprompted.
Obviously, town meeting went after him for opposing ethanol, went after him other things.
It's an interesting situation you're in when Donald Trump is heralding his temperament.
Rush Limbaugh was the person who really pointed this out, saying, why do you attack Cruz as being a maniac for not being able to get along with other Republican senators, right?
That means he's anti-establishment, and that's what conservatives want.
So why did you attack him that way?
Because then Cruz can go back at you and say, wait a minute, uh-uh, I'm the real conservative here.
Do you want me to get along with those establishment Republicans?
Translate that for you.
What Gloria Borger is opining there is that as far as I'm concerned, it's either Trump or Cruz.
She thinks I've made up my mind.
It's one of the two, and that that's why I'm offering protection for both.
So that's, you know, it's kind of like I'm here.
I'm hearing all these people talk about me.
I'm here.
I'm in the room.
I'm in the audience.
It's fascinating.
Here's, oh, this is Bob in Spokane.
You're next, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
48th Assault Helicopter Company, Blue Star Dittos.
Great to have you here, sir.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Hey, for those who don't understand Trump's appeal or his support, it was on full display at the top of last hour on a sound bite from our new Speaker of the House, who was touting what a wonderful job they did back there in D.C. because they passed some bill and nobody got what they wanted.
You know, it would be like me coming to you, you're the president, I'm your general, and telling you the war's going great and nobody's winning.
You know, or this football coach going in and say, you know, fire up the team, let's get out there and tie one for the gipper.
Bob, this is an excellent point.
You are making an excellent point.
And you know as well as I do what this means.
This, because I heard the same thing, and I saw the soundbite on the news at the top of the hour, and I saw the graphic and the closed captioning.
And that is Ryan say, hey, this is a great deal because nobody's happy, which we are supposed to interpret as meaning everybody compromised.
And that's what we should be happy about.
Everybody compromised, everybody gave some ground, and we've got a deal, and everybody is unhappy.
And you're right, that's exactly what Trump is saying: a mess.
We're in this to win.
America needs to win.
We're not in this to get lousy deals.
And we certainly don't want to stand around here and brag about it.
We don't want to brag about getting lousy deals.
We don't want to herald lousy deals.
And we don't want to hoist them up as our objective.
But see, the Beltway types, they really believe this business that all of you out there want this kind of compromise.
And the greatest example of compromise is when both sides are unhappy.
I don't know.
Unhappy is unhappy.
And I don't know anybody who wants to be other than the psychologically screwed up who are happily unhappy.
I can't relate to it, but the shrinks tell me it exists.
It's a great point, Bob.
I appreciate it.
That's it.
We are out of time for today.
Thank you so much.
Really appreciate you being here, folks.
And we will be back tomorrow, revved and ready to rock on.
Right on.
▲
Export Selection