All Episodes
Previous Next
April 22, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:43
April 22, 2016, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh today.
Thank you so much for joining.
Open Line Friday commences, of course.
Very much like to hear from you as well.
Do give a ring when you get the chance.
In case you haven't already heard it, and I'm guessing that many of you haven't because you probably don't care.
And if somebody said it to you, give them a strange look.
Happy Earth Day, everyone.
Happy Earth Day.
Yeah.
Celebrating the Earth and all that it is and all that it could be.
Yeah, I mean, if there was ever a day to break out your Birkenstocks from the 90s, today is the day.
But do you wear socks with them or not?
That's the real question.
That's what's really tough to decipher.
So it is Earth Day.
The first Earth Day, I believe it was 1970.
This stuff all started out as kind of part of the early hippie environmentalist movement stuff with teach-ins.
And you can go back and look at the history of what happened with DDT and the hysteria that banned that.
We still now have malaria in a lot of parts of the world where it could have been eradicated, but it was, you know, some people were worried about the fish and the birds and the pink paradise, which apparently put up a parking lot.
And so we had to take all these steps that now, in retrospect, especially with people seeing that not only do you have to worry about malaria, but there's Zika virus and other things, that Earth Day has been politicized from the very, very beginning.
But in case you didn't think it was politicized enough, today is a day that the Obama administration is using to put one of its big legacy items up on the bulletin board.
President Obama is signing today, or sorry, at the United Nations, rather, you have world leaders who have gathered to put into effect the Paris Agreement.
And you've had at least, according to CBS, 171 world leaders gathered at the UN to sign a sweeping climate agreement that was negotiated last year.
You remember this.
While the world that pays attention to what really matters was much more focused on a recent major terrorist attack, the Obama administration decided to go over to Paris and negotiate this deal on climate, the Paris Agreement in Le Bourgé, France.
Because, I mean, if you're going to go to sit around and talk about how we want to prevent the world from getting one degree warmer in 100 years, not an exaggeration, by the way, or I think it might be two degrees Celsius, something like that, in 100 years.
They're projecting out that far.
These are the fears that drive these people.
As I'm fond of saying, climate change is a religious belief for people who think they're too intelligent for religious belief, right?
It's a form of social signaling.
It's a way of telling people how smart, how evolved, how progressive you are.
It's like walking around with a big t-shirt that says, I recycle, and then hopping in your Prius, which as they do more and more studies on, they find not as good for the creating those batteries in the Prius, not really as good for the environment as the environmentalists, I think, would have hoped.
But back to the Paris Agreement.
This is interesting and very annoying on a number of levels.
Of course, Earth Day, the symbolism, brah, it's Earth Day.
Yeah, man, sign it.
Sign that climate change agreement.
This is supposed to be the culmination of all those efforts from all these countries.
By the way, the countries, this is fascinating.
This is the way I want all of my deals to go from now on, whether professional or if I'm signing a lease on a home or something or at least on an apartment, I want it to be self-imposed and self-regulating.
So, you know, I mean, it's like, well, what do you think you should pay, Buck?
Ah, let's go half the market rate.
What do you think about that?
That's all I can do right now, half market rate.
Okay, but, you know, I suppose that's what you say the market will bear in this case.
And then if I don't pay for a few months, instead of the landlord coming up to me and saying, hey, you know, you owe me the rent that you already knew, remember, a rent that I set for myself.
That's how these climate goals work in this agreement that President Obama is signing or that President Obama has signed.
And it's self-imposed and also self-regulating.
It's a great way to have a deal.
So you decide what the benchmarks are and you get to tell other people or you get to determine whether you're meeting them or not.
But this is supposed to be awesome.
This is supposed to be really, really exciting stuff.
So the Paris Agreement goes into effect today.
It is on Earth Day.
I know you're all super stoked about it.
stoked and this is going to hopefully prevent a that's right it's sorry it is to it is the prevent an increase in global mean temperature I'm reading this off of CBS right now, of more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, which is 2 degrees Celsius.
So 100 years from now, it might be 2 degrees Celsius warmer if we don't act right now on Earth Day for climate change.
And President Obama, President Obama is treating this as though it's a huge victory.
Now, let me just say, even if you were to believe in all the climate change hysteria that's out there, and hashtag science.
I think all of us are sick of people saying, what are you a scientist?
And then you respond, well, are you a scientist?
And, you know, no, I think, what is it?
Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer by trade.
But yeah, sure, climatology, mechanical engineering.
I'm not a scientist, so I can't tell the difference, right?
That's the same thing.
It's, you know, hashtag science.
Even in, what was it, 1947, I think, Orwell in his essay on politics in the English language talked about the words that are much abused, things like, of course, progressive, equality.
Nothing's really changed in that regard.
But science was one of them because you can't argue with science, bro.
And then you say, okay, maybe I can't argue with it.
What are the numbers?
Show me the data.
I go, what do you mean you want to see the data?
All the scientists, 90% of them, think this.
And you go, well, consensus isn't actually science.
Einstein didn't think consensus was science.
From what I understand, as a non-scientist, he was a pretty smart guy.
Einstein seemed to know some stuff.
He didn't think that that was the way that you would approach things.
I'm not sure that that's the way that we should approach things either.
So this deal is going into effect, allegedly.
What's interesting about it, of course, is that the administration, in its constant effort to just treat things differently from how they are, treat things as something other than what they are, they say that this is not a treaty.
And you would say to yourself, wait, wait, hold on a second.
This is, and look, I'm not, just as I'm not a scientist, I'm not actually a member of the U.S. Congress, you know, fortunately for me.
But I'm pretty sure that if you have an internationally binding agreement with financial and legal implications for the United States, that counts as a, I think you bust out the T-word on that one.
Usually, I mean, you can call me crazy, but I think that qualifies as a treaty.
Here's the problem.
Here's the problem.
That would require the Senate to actually go along with it.
The Senate would have to ratify the treaty.
And it is obviously a treaty.
So how does the Obama administration get around this?
They call it an agreement.
This is very, to borrow from our old friend, Mr. Bill Clinton, it's very Clintonian.
I mean, you know, what is?
What is a treaty?
A treaty is a form of agreement, but is an agreement a treaty necessarily?
I don't know.
You tell me.
Who wants a hug?
It's ridiculous.
This is how they skip around a constitutional requirement.
This is how they decide that they're just going to have an executive branch that acts like the legislative branch doesn't really exist.
So here we are, Earth Day.
I guess we're supposed to celebrate.
I'm not really sure how one would celebrate Earth Day particularly.
And I think the more you look into the origins of this and you read, what is it, Silent Spring, and you go back to the origins of this environmentalist activist movement, I'm sure that you'll have, if you have children and school-aged children, they'll all get to maybe engage in some group recycling,
even though, in fact, a lot of the recent data shows that recycling takes up more energy and is more puts more CO2 in the air than was previously thought and perhaps is counterproductive if you in fact believe that CO2, which plants need to survive, is a pollutant.
The EPA certainly does.
The EPA now believes that it has the right to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, which is crazy, but that's what they think because, you know, it's going to make the world melt in 100 years.
This is an exaggeration.
These are the projections.
At 100 years, 2 degrees Celsius.
I'm just reading it off the news sites.
It's what the administration talks about.
And it gets worse than all this, too, because this giant, this giant baccanal of self-congratulation that goes on with many of these world leaders, from the developing world, of course, the countries that sign on to this that aren't going to actually have any changes in their own policies, this is just great because they figure this is at some point a way to get the first world to pay for some of their stuff, right?
Eventually, this is just a massive scheme for the redistribution of wealth.
But in the meantime, they get to watch the first world, the developed world, tie itself in knots over a projection that is not a treaty, but somehow is still going to be an obligation that the U.S. government follows through on.
That would seem to be quite strange.
Usually those kinds of things, you know, the Congress has a say, but not in this case.
President Obama on his list, on his list of essential legacy items.
And so here we are on Earth Day with the President of the United States pushing for this treaty.
I'm sorry, I see.
It just happened.
Because it is a treaty.
I will just say it is a treaty.
It'll slip out like that.
No, this agreement, the Paris agreement.
You'll notice they don't even call it the Paris Treaty.
They don't seem to want to want to let that slip out there because there would be some obligations that come in.
There would be some constitutional issues.
But this administration's disrespect, not just for the separation of powers and not even just for the law, but for the very meaning of words in the law, in the Constitution and elsewhere, that's actually going to be one of the greatest legacies left behind.
That things don't mean what we've always thought they've meant.
That with a pen and a phone, it can all be changed.
And that the Constitution is at best a suggestion box.
And when it comes to saving the planet from CO2, which is now considered a pollutant, if you've got to save the planet, anything is justified.
Remember, a religion for people who think they're too smart for religion, climate change.
Like to go into a break.
I'll be right back.
This is Buck Sexton in for Rush.
Stay with me.
Buck Sexton here, Infra Rush Limbaugh.
You can check out my latest at theblaze.com/slash Buck Sexton.
Please download my podcast there.
You can also follow me on Facebook at facebook.com/slash BuckSexton.
I live tweet and Facebook message when I'm on air in the breaks, obviously.
I couldn't do it and talk at the same time.
That would be a little tough, even for me.
I want to finish up with some Earth Day thoughts, though.
I know I want to sit around and sing songs about how we're going to protect the planet.
And we're all going to be, yay, we're all going to be friends.
It's going to be great.
But we're going to lock up our political opponents because that's what nice people who want to save the earth do.
We're going to engage in massive collusion to try to use Democrat politicians and, in fact, Democrat prosecutors to bring charges of fraud against ExxonMobil.
That just popped up this week.
How many of you heard about that one?
It's a little on the other side of the Earth Day coin, if we will.
The other side of the organic, sustainable produce that you're paying more money for, despite the fact that there's no scientific evidence that I've ever read that organic pesticides are better for you than normal pesticides.
But whatever, brah.
Earth Day, man.
Come on.
It's amazing.
I love it.
So this is not good.
This is scary stuff.
This should feel a little Kafka-esque.
You have state attorneys general, people like Eric Schneiderman, who, according to reports, have been talking to some environmental activists.
And they're like, okay, what can we do here?
I get an idea.
Let's bring maybe even racketeering charges, fraud charges.
What can we do to go after big oil for their lies, their lies about climate change?
They'd also have to prove damages, you would think, in this in some capacity, whether this went civil or perhaps even leaving the door open for a criminal, although not sure they would quite go there.
But as you know, the mere threat of criminal charges often has enough effect on its own.
You don't have to bring the charges.
You just say, you know, we could criminally prosecute you.
Or you could write a check for billions of dollars to the environmental lobby, which is what they want.
The environmentalists want a huge check from Exxon.
The horrible irony here is that ExxonMobil, one of the largest, one of the largest companies in the world, I believe it's the third largest by capitalization in the world, and certainly the top five.
They're going to have they would be forced to write if they lose in court, although they certainly have the resources to fight this.
It really comes down to what they think the lesser of two evils would be from a PR perspective, from the political, from the public relations perspective on this, that they would be writing the checks to sustain the climate change wackos who are suing them in the first place.
And then they'll maybe leave them alone for a little while and they'll spend the money and they'll go on, they'll have lots of fancy conferences.
They'll pay a lot of people to collude with the data in different places and, you know, to hide the decline or to change the numbers or do whatever they have to do to fix the 10-year, the last 10-year projection that was wrong and to make sure that they sort of just Jedi mind trick people into, it was global warming, but it is now climate change.
And in fact, now I'm hearing people say climate disruption, I think, is if you're really one of the cool kids, you don't even call it climate change, you call it climate disruption.
That's another way of putting it.
Climate chaos.
Oh, no.
When people start selling me their beachfront property in Malibu at cut rate prices, then I'm on board.
Then I'll believe that this is coming.
When the shores are eroding so fast that all of a sudden I can get a condo on the beach in South Beach for 10 Gs, then I'll know that this is real.
Until then, thanks, but no thanks.
But this is very serious, though, what the New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and these other AGs are doing.
They're trying to create a case to bring against Exxon that accuses them of fraud, sort of like what they did to the cigarette companies.
And that's even raised as the model here.
So cigarette companies hiding scientific information that would have led people to know that smoking did, in fact, cause cancer, lung cancer, many other types of cancer.
That's equivalent to oil companies allowing us to have an economy and develop into the 20th and 21st century.
Without fossil fuels, we are in the 19th century, right?
Everyone understands.
Even with the energy, even with the stuff we have now, you would be kicked back many, many decades.
Never mind the rest of the world, by the way.
I've been to some places.
You don't see a lot of solar panels in Afghanistan, and I don't think you're going to anytime soon, although I'm sure there's some project with the State Department to install them somewhere.
The Taliban guys probably show up when they see them and say, what is that?
But you're not going to see a lot of that.
And you're also not going to see any honesty from the scientific community about how absolutely chilling it is to not just free expression, but to research, to the expression of free ideas, when you have the criminalization of obviously political differences.
And this has become one of the hallmarks of the left.
I'm always fond of reminding everyone because I just, I can't seem to get it out there enough, at least not for me to be happy with how well known this is.
And this is a bit of a diversion.
You have to excuse me.
I digress.
It's one of the things that I do hanging out with you on the radio.
Look at all the likely Republican candidates for the presidency that had spurious, preposterous borderline to all the way insane investigations opened up against them.
Off the top of my head, Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, criminal investigations of all these possible and, as we know, actual presidential contenders on the Republican side of things.
How many Democrats have had criminal investigations opened of their conduct with no underlying criminality whatsoever?
And people say, oh, Hillary Clinton.
No, no, there's like 100 plus FBI agents looking into this.
I worked with the CIA years ago as an analyst.
Classification issues are very serious.
And if it was a non-Clinton dealing with this, trust me, the person would have a very hard time sleeping given what's going on.
Perhaps we'll get to that in a few minutes.
But the criminalization of political differences is also, I said to you before, the changing of basic words and the erosion of legal principle and the separation of powers in government.
These are the real legacies of the Obama administration.
This is what will be left behind.
But as a part of this as well, using, weaponizing prosecutors' offices across the country for purely political ends is something that this administration has excelled in doing.
Under this administration, it has become effectively normal.
And that's why you have state attorney general, state attorneys general, and other individuals who are working together to try to find a way to shake down oil companies to fund environmentalists to do crap, nonsense research so that when they run out of cash for doing useless work when they could be trying to cure cancer or do something that's worthwhile, guess what they get to do?
Shake down the fossil fuel industry again.
Get those oil companies to write some more checks.
800-282-2882, Buck Sexton Infor Rush.
Open Line Friday is open.
Back in a few.
Indeed, Buck Sexton here, Infor Rush today on the EIB.
Very excited to be hanging out with you for a few hours on this lovely Friday.
Thank you for your time.
You can follow me on Twitter at BuckSexton or go to facebook.com slash BuckSexton.
We can talk.
I actually chat during the show with you.
800-282-2882 Open Line Friday.
It's not an empty promise.
The lines are open, so let's take some calls.
We have Peter in Canada on the line.
Peter, welcome to the Russian Limbaugh Show.
You're speaking to Buck.
When you fill in and stop a rush, it's quite an honor.
Listen, I'll get right to my point.
You know, we're facing the same crap up here.
You know, I really hope the legacy of all this when Iraq gets out is, you know, they're going to start dragging up the East Anglia information.
I think the fact that everybody's got a smartphone nowadays, that this multimedia can help that the whole situation out.
I mean, it's really bad what's going on up here.
We cannot afford anything that's going to throw us off the edge more than we are right now.
Yeah, it's crazy.
Look, science is, as I said before, not about consensus.
You know, it is about consensus, usually?
Fashion.
That's really what all this climate change talk is.
It's an intellectual fashion or fad.
It's something that people buy into, not because they care about the world so much as it says certain things about them as individuals, right?
That they are learned, that they're socially progressive, and they care.
And essentially, they're good people.
It's really just moral exhibitionism.
It feels good, so people buy into it, and it costs them nothing.
At least that's what they think.
It actually costs people a lot if they go through with all this, but it doesn't cost the individual anything.
And it's completely divorced from the reality of decades now of the side that pushes all this stuff being wrong.
You would think that people, you would think that people would, after a time, start to change the way they look at this.
But no, they just double down over.
I mean, go back and watch Al Gore's movie, which he made an absurd amount of money.
I mean, he made like Hillary Clinton speech giving money for an inconvenient truth, like big time money.
And you go back and look at the predictions in there now about the drowning polar bears, the whole thing.
None of this has come to fruition.
None of this was real.
I mean, there's that graphic that he showed of Florida and the state, all this stuff coming underwater.
And if I remember correctly, I mean, I saw the movie once and I've tried not to watch it again, but I've seen clips of it since then, too.
You know, 2020, 2030.
Do you think Florida, does anyone really think Florida is going to be underwater in 2020?
Do they really believe that?
Or 2030?
The whole state?
I don't know.
I don't think so.
I'm not seeing people fleeing for their lives from Florida here.
It's quite nice this time of year.
So I don't know what to say about the lunacy.
I know what's going on up there with this in Canada.
I'm sure it's even a little worse for our Canadian brothers and sisters up north.
Well, actually, we have a lot more people buying into it.
And I think as the information gets out, because we have the same mainstream media up here that you do, but we have only 34 million opposed to what 350 million you have.
But I'm really hoping at this point that they're going to see the left as information, proper facts come out.
And what I think we're starting to see that now with the Donald bringing a lot of stuff to the forefront, I think people are starting to look at things differently now.
All right.
Well, Peter, I think climate change is affecting your cell reception, but thank you for calling in from Canada.
Climate change.
You just blame everything on climate change.
And I was, you know, if I'm late for work, why?
Climate change.
It's all that pollution in the air.
It just makes me sleep, bro.
I just can't get up.
I'm just like, ooh, it makes me woozy.
Sounds a little late, you know?
You can use climate change for whatever you want.
By the way, on the issue of politics as leftist politics as a giant social fad, there is, or in a sort of an intellectual fashion.
There's a lot of ways you could describe it.
There's actually a piece in Vox, which is a very, some of you probably are unfamiliar with it.
Some of you are.
It is a very, very left-wing website.
But somebody on it wrote about how there's a sort of the smugness of liberalism is just completely overwhelming at this point.
And that for so many people, it's just become that they're liberal because they're better than other people.
It's not that they want to help them.
It was, according to this, this is a leftist writer, by the way.
And I'll see if I can pull up this actual piece for you at some point here.
And I'll give you the real title if you wanted to look it up.
Or I'll post it on facebook.com slash bucksext and see a little treat for you, those of you who go there.
But he says it straight up, that the left initially was all about really kind of Marxism in this country, but we never talked.
There was an American Communist Party and labor movements were really about socialism.
But, you know, they will talk about the 40-hour work week and the eight-hour day and minimum wage and child label.
They talk about all that sort of history.
And there was at least a case to be made that the left cared about the poor.
Now the left just buys the poor off to vote for them and really has a disdain for them, which is going to lead us, by the way, shortly into our discussion of all things GOP, Trump, Cruz, et cetera.
But there is a disdain for the working class on the American left now.
And it is from the absolute top on down.
The leftist elites think that people, and this was best exemplified by Obama's comments out in San Francisco, I think it was in 2008, when he said these sort of bitter people cling to their Bibles and their guns.
That's really what the American left now thinks of the working class to say of non-minorities who make from $30,000 to $80,000 or $90,000 a year.
The American left thinks that they're a bunch of chumps.
Thinks that they're not worth fighting for.
Thinks that they're, you know, they'll still put on the prechance.
Oh, labor unions.
Yeah.
Unions have been getting crushed in recent decades.
Unions are on the way out.
And now they realize, why do you need a labor union?
All you need is to have Democrats in control of the state government, and they'll set wage laws and they'll do all the stuff that unions used to do anyway.
You just need a progressive government.
They'll just regulate everything.
And now you have public sector unions, which even the, you know, even FDR, even the earliest union proponents were saying, well, I mean, we can't do that.
That's crazy, right?
You're going to negotiate with the government employees.
You're going to negotiate with the government for what they're allowed to make.
I mean, this is insane.
But I digress.
Ray in Livermore, California.
You are on the Rush Limbaugh show.
You are speaking to Buck.
What is up, sir?
Hey, Buck, it's great to have you on board.
A lot of people are celebrating Earth Day today.
There's many people who are busy trying to save the planet.
I would just like to remind those people that the planet is actually trying to kill us.
And I can give a few examples here.
Earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, hailstorms, floods, lightning strikes, active volcanoes, ocean waves sweeping people off to sea, sandstorms, scorching heat, Arctic cold.
I would contend that the Earth has killed more people than ISIS has.
And it's a serious threat to us.
And I would just like to remind those folks who are busy trying to save a planet that is trying to kill them.
Ray, I can say that you've kind of blown my mind.
I don't really, this is a first for me.
So like Mother Earth is engaged in some conspiracy to eliminate all of it.
Well, if I want to just actually continue on with this thread for a little bit, and Ray, thank you for calling in.
No, no, actually, if you look at National Geographic even has figures on this, over 90% of all the species that have existed on the planet, according to National Geographic, have all died.
Species die-off is a continuous phenomenon.
Planet Earth and other species and disease and changing climate, nature is very powerful.
I know a very wise man who always tells me biology wins.
It's also true to say that nature wins.
So, yeah, in a sense, this is important.
This is also why I say we should just kill all the mosquitoes.
I know people say, what about the birds?
You have this notion of keystone species.
If one species goes away, all the others will die.
I think we could live without mosquitoes.
They're trying to create genetically modified mosquitoes in Florida that will kill off all the, because people are freaked out about Zika because they were freaked out about DDT back in the day, and now we still have mosquito problems.
But anyway, species die-off is a very real thing, says a non-scientist who just likes to read things, which would be me.
But over 90% of us, and there have been certain periods, too.
I can't remember them off the top of my head because, you know, hashtag not a scientist.
But there have been certain periods where we've lost vast, vast numbers of species.
Yeah, I mean, the Earth is not actively trying to murder us.
That I don't think is fair.
It is true, though, that civilization is really the struggle against the natural challenges of existence, right?
So, you know, we're going to live, you know, Mr. Snurdy, we're going to live probably well into our hundreds.
You know, we're doing well here.
You know what I mean?
We're a well-preserved group into our hundreds.
Yes, that's right.
That's right.
And food is way better now than it's ever been in the past.
There's more and more and more out there for all of us, despite the sort of Malthusian affect of many of the scientists out there who think that, you know, what is it, Ehrlich and the oh, the Whole Foods cake?
I might have to talk about that a little bit.
We'll see.
The Ehrlich with the population bomb, though.
It's just Malthus retread because Malthus was like, look, very straightforward math.
We produce X amount of food.
We have this many people.
They're growing this way over this period of time.
Hashtag science.
We found out how to grow more food.
Who could have thought of such a thing?
Supply and demand.
It's amazing.
It's the only thing you really need to know from economics, and the rest of it is all kind of mumbo-jumbo.
All right, let's take, oh, people want to talk.
Oh, wait, no, one more Earth Day, and then we'll get into some.
Oh, no.
We want to get into Trump.
I was going to say, okay.
Trump, Trump, Trump.
Here we go.
Someone wants to talk, Trump.
It's open line Friday.
Let's do it.
We have Dan in, is it Coaco, Florida?
Oh, I'm sorry.
Coco, I don't know all the towns, so I didn't know.
Coco, Florida.
Dan, thank you for calling in.
This is Buck.
You're on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Oh, I don't think we have Dan.
So I think we get one more climate.
We get one more Earth Day person.
Stephen in Coldwater, Michigan.
Do we have Steven?
Kind of I write that the day before Earth Day, what appears I believe to be the largest bankruptcy of a green company, Son Edison, just took place yesterday.
$10 billion.
Somehow they got another $300 million line of credit for restructuring, which is probably more good money after bad.
And I'm sure a bunch of that money was government-backed loans for a green energy company.
I'm rather confident of that.
I'll have to look into it.
It sounds a little bit like Solyndro, which I'm old enough to remember Solyndro.
You know, that company that had $500 million of taxpayer backstopped money that went to a company that was making, you know, there's that old joke about how we'll sell at a loss, but we'll make it up on volume.
That was Solyndra's business model.
They were losing money on every unit sold, but if they had enough taxpayer money, maybe they would get into the block eventually, but they did not.
So I thank you, sir, for calling in, Steve, and reminding me about that.
I think we have to go into a break here.
Yeah, we do.
800-282-2882, Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh.
We were having a lot of fun.
Stay with me.
Buck Sexton here in For Rush Limbaugh today.
800-282-2882 open line Friday is a rocking.
So please come and knocking.
The lines are open here.
We're taking calls in a second.
I mentioned a piece on Vox, which is like the nation with a different name.
It's a very left-wing site, but they have a piece, the smug style in American liberalism.
Let me just give you a quick quote from it.
Nothing is more confounding to the smug style of American liberalism than the fact that the average Republican is better educated and has a higher IQ than the average Democrat, that for every overpowered study finding superior liberal open-mindedness and intellect, there is one to suggest Republicans have the better of these qualities.
Some self-effacing analysis from a super left-wing site that has some very interesting insights about how the left has abandoned its roots really of trying to help those sort of trying to help the working man and woman.
Now it's just about trying to pander to minorities and a sort of elitism at the top of professionals and coastal progressives and then using minorities for votes.
And that is the modern Democratic Party.
That's really what it's all about.
And that is how we get the phenomenon of Trumpism, which we are going to discuss now with my friend Mike in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Mike, thank you for calling in.
It's Buck on The Rush Show.
Hey, Buck, thanks for taking my call.
Just wanted to discuss the rhetoric in the media about the electability of one or other candidate and people covalescing around either Trump or Cruz, whichever one it's going to be.
And the rhetoric is even spewed by Hannity because I think Hannity wants to promote Trump and he thinks it would favor him.
But in my opinion, if our candidates cruise, I think the Trumpsters will come on board because the Trumpsters right now, they're Trumpsters.
They don't care about issues.
They just care that it's Donald Trump.
But once they're forced to pay attention to what Ted Cruz believes and thinks, I think they'll jump on board.
But on the other hand, the Cruisers, we know what Trump is.
You know, I'm obviously a cruiser.
Just so I'm clear with everybody listening who may not know, I've come out and said that my preferred candidate is Ted Cruz, but I am never Hillary.
I am not never Trump.
So that's, and I'll get into the never Hillary aspect of things in just a few minutes here.
I wonder, though, my friend Mike down at Pittsburgh, I wonder if Trump supporters, he's really, I think, poisoning the well with all this talk about the stolen delegates.
And there's a lot of nastiness.
That's the kind of thing that, I mean, I think I have a piece even here that there are, yeah, delegates, this is from Politico, delegates face death threats from Trump supporters.
And so they've just gone and talked to all these different delegates who are saying that Trump supporters are leaving them really horrific messages and saying they're going to hurt them and they know they're going to find their families and we're watching you and all this stuff.
I don't know if that's just going to get swept away.
And by the way, I think it goes both ways.
I think that there's going to be a backlash.
If Trump doesn't come out of that convention as the nominee, I believe Trump supporters in large numbers are going to walk.
By the way, if Trump does come out as a nominee, there are a lot of people who, in good faith, have been willing to hear out Trump and have been willing to be as open-minded as they can with all this stuff.
But all it takes is a few Trumpers on social media.
If you're a private person or if you're somebody who's trying to share their thoughts publicly about this stuff, cursing at you and using horrible language and just acting like psychopaths before you're like, you know what?
I'm not into this whole Trump thing.
And I think that's an underestimated factor in all this right now.
I really do.
Comment on the delegate issue and the notion that Trump's promoting it, that Ted's using the system to his advantage and cheating.
That would be like asking Bill Belichick not to run the ball and only pass the ball and use half the game.
Those roles have been in place for 200 years, and Ted Cruz is just using their roles and using them to his advantage.
Well, I mean, you'll notice that one of the big, there were two big takeaways, and Mike, thank you for calling in.
There were two big takeaways from the absolute rout that Donald Trump handed to his two contenders here in New York.
Ben Carson was on, I went and voted, and Ben Carson was still on the ballot, which was kind of a surprise.
Why would Ben Carson still be on the he was on the ballot?
I mean, I always took a photo of it, but I didn't want to make a big deal of it.
I think I was probably in my district in Manhattan, one of like five cruise voters.
So, and I don't even know if that's an exaggeration.
If we broke into triple digits in where I live in Manhattan, that would be, because it went off for Kasich.
He's joking about being the mayor, by the way.
At least he is more conservative than Bill de Blasio, aka Warren Wilhelm Zakaisa.
Did you know this?
His name was Warren Wilhelm, and he changed it.
Yeah, it's true.
Because it sounds so Germanic.
So instead, he went for Bill de Blasio.
Because it's like, hey, Billy de Blasio.
You know what I mean?
He's like a union guy.
He's my buddy, Billy de Blas, the man, instead of Zakaisa, which doesn't get the votes from the unions.
All right, I got to get into a break.
Buck Sexton in for Rush.
Back in a few.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush today.
Got a lot to talk to you about.
We're going to be taking more calls.
This is Open Line Friday, 800-282-2882.
You know what I want to do, though, in the next hour?
I would like to talk a bit about Madame Secretary.
No, not the Taya Leone character, which, by the way, come on, really.
But I would like to talk in the next hour about Hillary Clinton because some of you don't know where I stand on that.
And then we'll get into Trump Cruz nonsense.
So let's establish some Democrat fun first.
▲
Export Selection