All Episodes
Previous Next
May 19, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:45
May 19, 2016, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
It's predictable.
It's like clockwork.
Here we are obsessing on which bathrooms people identify with on a day-to-day basis.
We're wringing our hands over it.
We got a 70-year-old Harvard professor gloating over the left's winning the culture war, claiming that the real Nazis today are American conservatives.
And American conservatives today need to be treated like the Nazis retreated after we defeated them in World War II.
And while all that's going on, we have people wondering whether or not militant Islamists blew up the Egypt airplane and hoping and hoping it isn't so so that we can just say it was possible airspace violence.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
Rush Limbaugh here behind the Golden EIB microphone, not making any of that up.
A 70-year-old Harvard professor, a relic from the 1960s, an Uber leftist, claims that the culture wars are over, as evidenced by transgender bathrooms, gay marriage, all these other things.
Conservatives are the losers.
They are the modern equivalent of the Nazis and need to be treated like the Nazis retreated after World War II.
I told you, and this guy, part of his attack is against Christianity.
That's what determines conservatism and why they hate it and so forth, as I mentioned yesterday.
And then we have Egypt Air, another 66 souls lost.
For the longest time, only Trump would call it terrorism.
Everybody else was wringing their hands until Egyptian authorities have made it clear that they believe it is terrorism.
According to NBC News, authorities are saying there were three air marshals on board that Egypt air flight, which makes this even more disturbing.
But for the longest time, no, we can't call it terrorism.
No, we can't go.
No, we must not be hasty.
No, we must not prejudge.
No, we must be careful.
No, we must be moderate here.
What everybody knows, these airplanes do not fall out of the sky anymore.
Either a pilot takes them down like a suicide mission like they think happened that Malaysian flight, or this, that airplanes just don't fall out of the sky.
Both engines don't just quit.
When's the last time you've heard of that happening?
It just doesn't happen.
So, and then there's this, there's ISIS.
ISIS executes 25 people by dissolving them in nitric acid, UK Daily Mail.
ISIS has executed 25 people in Mosul, Mosul, however you wish to pronounce it, northern Iraq, by lowering them in a vat of nitric acid, according to several local news reports.
Keep in mind, according to a Harvard professor, American conservatives are the modern Nazis.
The 25 executed by being lowered into a vat of nitric acid have been accused of spying on ISIS on behalf of Iraqi government security forces.
According to witnesses, the 25 alleged spies have been tied together with a rope and lowered into a large basin containing nitric acid until they were essentially dissolved.
And note that nobody, nobody on the left will refer to ISIS as the modern equivalent of the Nazis, even though there is a direct link.
There is an historical direct link, militant Islam, to Nazism.
Folks, a couple things here before we get to the hard news of the day.
There's a new poll out, and it finds in the Washington Post of all places.
This is going to devastate the hand-wringers on the left.
Nine in ten Native Americans, there'll be Indians for those of you in Rio Linda.
Nine in ten Native Americans say they're not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team's mind.
What national movement?
I'd submit to you there is no national movement.
There's a media narrative, but there is no national movement.
When's the last time you ran into anybody in any walk of life when you're at the mall, when you're at the movies, when you're out to dinner?
When has anybody brought up the subject of the name of the Washington Redskins and has been truly offended by it and is on a crusade to get it changed?
Nobody.
There is no national movement.
It's a concocted media narrative.
It's part of the daily soap opera.
Led by the drive-by leftists in the sports media and joined, of course, by their brethren in the news media.
There is no national.
And this illustrates it.
Survey of 504 people across every state and the district reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll, which is 12 years ago, by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the exact same result.
A 14-year-old poll identical to this poll.
90% of Native Americans are not offended by the Redskins' name.
I saw something the other day.
If you want to change the name and get rid of what's really offensive about it, just call them the Redskins and boot Washington.
Did you see that?
It's one of those, excuse me, somebody sent me that in a, it was an email thing.
And, you know, I've referenced this a couple times, never got to the details.
I grabbed it from the archive stack.
Hang on, folks.
There, I got it.
I had something.
Never mind.
I just, but I got it.
The racist trees of our national parks.
Front page magazine, trees are America's newest racist symbol.
Ready for this?
What do you think this is about?
No, what do you think?
Just take a stab here, folks, in the dark.
The racist trees are our national parks.
Trees are America's newest racist.
Again, to who?
Who thinks trees are racist?
Trees are America's newest racist.
Who thinks this?
I would submit to you, nobody thinks it.
Somebody with a fax machine and a logo sent out some thing that you're offended by, and the drive-bys pick it up because it fits a narrative they've already established.
Okay, ready?
You can't think of why a tree would be racist.
Oh, wait till you hear this then.
If you're really dumbfounded.
This is not a joke.
Mickey Fern, as opposed to Mickey Birch.
Mickey Fern, the National Park Service Deputy Director for Communications and Community Assistance.
What a title.
What a job.
The National Park Service Deputy Director, means he's assistant for communications and community assistance, made headlines when he claimed that black people do not visit national parks because of the trees.
The trees remind them of their slave ancestors being lynched by their masters.
Jellystone, the first national park, was created in 1872 in Wyoming.
Slavery was over by then.
No one had ever been lynching slaves around Old Faithful anyway, but false claims of racism die very hard.
Now, Al C. Hastings, an impeached judge and a coalition of minority groups, is demanding increased inclusiveness at national parks.
And high on their list is the claim that African Americans have felt unwelcome and even fearful in federal parklands during our nation's history because of the horrors of lynching.
Now, why is it only trees in our national parks where there wasn't ever any racism or slavery?
Why is it only trees in our national parks remind African Americans of their ancestors being lynched?
Why doesn't every tree remind them of that?
You African Americans in the audience, and I know that there's a Boku bunch of you out there, I'm telling you, I bet you not a single one of you has the slightest reaction like when you see a tree.
You talk about a constructed media narrative.
What do national parks have to do with lynching?
Well, many national parks have trees, and you can't have a lynching without a tree.
People were hung from trees.
It's racial guilt by association.
Trees are racist down to their roots.
That's the L C Hastings group.
Cut all the trees down?
Maybe there aren't even, there aren't any trees in inner city, right?
I see that many people thought that's what was going to be racist about it.
Well, I know the tree grows in a hard.
There are trees, but not like there are out in the suburbs, and not like there are in the national parks.
But this story goes back all the way to May 6th.
I've been holding it that long.
It's almost two weeks old.
Of course it's insulting.
But here's the way this works.
You have your average American getting up every day, going to work, living his or her life, and then all of a sudden hears that there's a movement out there that trees in the national parks are racist because they remind people of lynching, and they think there's a movement going on and they better join up.
This is a totally concocted, non-existent event or thing.
Classic example of a media narrative.
Now, Ed Randell, the former governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Randell stepped in it, but he still doesn't know why.
Ed Rendell really, really stepped in it, but he doesn't know why.
Now, what Ed Rendell did, and keep in mind, ladies and gentlemen, my original 35 Undeniable Truths of Life, written, created in 1987, number 24, feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of American culture.
And people think that that's a statement designed to outrage and anger, and it isn't.
It's an attempt to actually explain to people one of the many reasons why militant feminism in the modern era got going.
All you have to do is listen to the leaders, the creators of the modern movement of feminism, and it's clear what it was that had ticked them off and upset them.
It may have been impolitic to say it, but I said it.
And I've been defending it ever since.
Anybody who actually wants to listen and learn.
So with that in mind, we go to Ed Randell.
He was, where was he?
It was an interview with the Washington Post.
And they were discussing Trump's chances, how Trump was going to do with women.
By the way, Rasmussen poll, Trump is up five over Hillary now.
And the Democrats are getting, and by the way, speaking of that, the left, the drive-by left, the much of the elected political left, they are really turning on Crazy Bernie yesterday and today.
They are turning, they're getting fed up with Bernie, and they're about ready to toss him overboard.
It's gone on too long.
It's gone on too far.
Crazy Bernie was never supposed to get this close, and he was never supposed to cause riots at the Democrat convention.
He was never supposed to cause Diane Feinstein to go out there and say, oh, this reminds her of 1968.
She doesn't want to repeat a 68 Chicago Convention riots and so forth.
They lost in a landslide, and then four years later lost again in the landslide, 1972.
Don't want to be part of that.
The Democrat Party's in heap big trouble.
Anyway, Fast Eddie, the former, governor of Pennsylvania, was he mayor of Philadelphia at one time, too?
He was.
He's a big Hillaryite, and he used to be a constant fixture with Chris Matthews on PMS NBC.
He was practically a nightly guest out there.
In fact, Ed Randell, I think, is a seasoned ticket holder of the Eagles.
And back when they played at the vet, he's one of the guys who threw snowballs at Santa Claus or threw snowballs at opposing players from his seats in the middle tier.
He's a big, big guy.
He's a hulk of a guy.
And anyway, in an interview with the Washington Post talking about Trump's electoral chances, and he said, look, will he have some appeal to working-class Democrats in Levittown or Bristol?
Sure.
But for every one, he'll lose one and a half, two Republican women.
Trump's comments like you can't be a 10 if you're flat-chested.
That'll come back to haunt him.
There are probably more ugly women in America than attractive women, and Hillary will carry ugly women over Trump.
Now, the thing is, Fast Eddie, he stepped in it because he supposedly misspoke here.
You're not supposed to talk about the attributes of women.
The problem for Fast Eddie, the reason why he's in trouble is he accidentally swerved into the truth here about something.
Well, let me take a break and you pond off.
I'll explain this.
There's an explanation for everything.
Hang in there, Big Top.
Be back right after this.
Don't go away.
Okay, let me ask you a question.
In your memory, do famous, well-known Democrats ever get in trouble for lying?
They do not.
Bill Clinton never got in trouble for lying.
Obama doesn't get in trouble for lying.
Jonathan Gruber, who lied to everybody about health care, didn't get in trouble for that.
When did he get in trouble?
When he told the truth about that he had lied.
Democrat Ben Rhodes, Ben Rhodes did not get in trouble for lying to the American people and the media about the Iranian arms deal.
He got in trouble when he ultimately told the truth that he had lied.
Democrats never get in trouble when they lie, but they always get in trouble when they tell the truth.
And now we add Ed Rendell to the roster.
Any Democrat you want, Ben Rhodes, Jonathan Gruber, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, they never get in trouble when they lie.
It is only when they accidentally utter the truth that people on their side get mad at them.
And why is that?
Because when they tell the truth, they are unmasking and stripping away the camouflage that is liberalism in the Democrat Party.
Remember now, Democrats can rarely be upfront honest about their policy intentions, their ideological intentions and desires.
If they were, nobody would vote for them.
Certainly, not a majority.
A majority of people would not elect them.
They have to lie.
They have to cover and misdirect, cover up what they actually believe.
Well, here's Ed Rendell, and he's talking to the Washington Post, and he thinks that he is in safe confines because he's talking about Trump.
And Trump is in the news for a New York Times story about supposed mean things or borish things, sexist things that he has said about women.
So Fast Eddie thinks he's in safe companies with the Washington Post, and he makes the mistake of uttering the truth.
When it, from his perspective now, I'm not talking about an undeniable universal truth.
I'm talking from his perspective as a prominent Democrat.
When Ed Rendell said there are probably more ugly women in America than attractive women, and therefore people, these ugly women are going to be righteously indignant over the way Trump talks to these women and talks about them.
And Fast Eddie was feeling safe and confident in pointing out what he believes, that this army of ugly women is going to side with the Democrat Party.
Why does Fast Eddie think that?
I'm trying to walk you through this so you don't get mad at me here.
Fast Eddie uttered what he believes to be is the truth.
Fast Eddie thinks that the Democrat Party has a connection with the unattractive, with the victims, with the unfortunate, misfortunate, the downtrodden, or whatever.
Now we can add to it, he thinks Hillary has a special connection with the flat-chested, the cheated-on, and the forgotten.
And he's in trouble because he happened to swerve into telling the truth about the way the Democrats look at people.
Remember, folks, Democrats never get in trouble for lying.
You can look it up.
You can go back and consult your own memory.
They never get, they're applauded for it.
In fact, some cases, they're applauded for how well they do it.
They never get in trouble when they lie.
The fur flies when they admit that they've lied.
In other words, when they tell the truth is when all hell breaks loose on their side.
Dave Weigel wrote the story in the Washington Post in which Fast Eddie said that the ugly women of America far outnumber attractive women, and ugly women are far more likely to support Hillary.
Why do you think that is?
Why do you think Fast Eddie thinks that?
Realize nobody but Fast Eddie said anything here.
Why does Ed Rindell think, A, that a majority of women in America are unattractive?
You think Fast Eddie, if he's got an invitation to go on TV, would rather go on Fox News one night or MSNBC or CNN.
Take your pick.
Why does Fast Eddie think so many women in America are unattractive?
And Fast Eddie's a ranking member of the Democratic Party.
You don't think they look at people this way?
They most certainly do.
The Democrat Party looks at everybody and judges them by virtue of what they see on the surface.
They judge them on skin color.
That's the first thing they notice about people.
Skin color, then they go to gender, then they sexual orientation, then now sexual preference, and whatever else to the Democrats are.
Fast Eddie said it.
I didn't.
Nobody else did.
Why does Fast Eddie think that so many American women are unattractive?
And further, why does Fast Eddie believe that the vast majority of the ugly women population is going to vote for Hillary?
What's the connection?
You tell me.
But I'm telling you, you can answer that question if you will honestly examine how Democrats judge people, how they categorize people, how they look at people, and how they size them up as potential voters, and then how they approach them.
And then if you remember, feminism, Undeniable Truth of Life number 24, feminism created to allow unattractive women easier access.
It all adds up.
And all I'm doing is pointing it out.
So Fast Eddie's in trouble.
Not for lying about something.
No, he's in trouble because he told the truth as far as what Democrats think and liberals think.
And that's what you're never supposed to betray or reveal those things.
Otherwise, the party will get in trouble.
The veil will be lifted and people might find out the truth about these people.
That's the risk that you run by telling the truth.
So Democrats are rewarded and categorized on their ability and creativity and cleverness in lying.
Don't doubt me.
It is in argument.
As I said, Dave Weigel, the Washington Post, wrote the story, and he's out now trying to defend Fast Eddie.
He was joking.
Come on, he was joking.
It was a joke.
It was a joke.
Okay.
Well, we'll see how it flies.
What we know now is there's the story that Fast Eddie's in Hillary's doghouse, which means testicle lockbox.
So that's Bill, and then that's Fast Eddie Rindell now in Hillary's testicle lockbox.
And then back to a story we had yesterday.
Didn't get to it.
The New York Times on Tuesday warned Donald Trump in an actual news story, the New York Times warned Donald Trump to steer clear of any of the Clinton scandals.
Don't go anywhere near any of them.
Don't go to Whitewater.
Don't go to Lewinsky.
Don't go to Bill Clinton's affairs.
Don't go anywhere near any of those Clinton scandals at times trying to help Trump here by telling Trump that if he does that, it will backfire on him.
That's the New York Times trying to be helpful to Donald Trump.
Patrick Healy in the New York Times says, Donald Trump, Donald Trump plans to throw Bill Clinton's infidelities in Hillary Clinton's face on live TV during the presidential debates this fall, questioning whether she enabled Clinton's behavior and sought to discredit the women involved.
Mr. Trump will try to hold her accountable for security lapses at the American consulate in Benghazi and for the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens there.
And Trump intends to portray Mrs. Clinton as fundamentally corrupt, invoking everything from her Cattle Futures trades in the late 70s to the federal investigation into her email practices as Secretary of State.
Another goal is to win over skeptical Republicans.
It's nothing unites the party quite like castigating the Clintons.
For Mrs. Clinton, the coming battle is something of a paradox.
She has decades of experience and qualifications, but it may not be merit that wins her the presidency.
It may be how she handles the humiliations inflicted by Trump.
The story goes on to warn Trump that if he goes anywhere near any of these things, that it'll backfire on him and it will probably irreparably harm his campaign.
That was yesterday morning in the New York Times.
So let's go to the audio soundbites.
Last night on the Fox News channel, Sean Hannity showed this exchange took place.
What about what Clinton's done?
How big an issue should that be in the campaign?
For example, I looked at the New York Times.
Are they going to interview Juanita Broderick?
Are they going to interview Paula Jones?
Are they going to interview Kathleen Willey?
In one case, it's about exposure.
In another case, it's about groping and fondling and touching against a woman's will and rape and rape.
Big settlements, massive settlements, $850,000 for Paula Jones.
Lots of other things.
And impeachment for lying, smearing, besmirched man.
He was losing your law license.
You know, he lost his law license.
Okay.
Couldn't practice law.
And you don't read about this on Clinton.
No, no.
So he went there.
He mentioned a rape word.
Everybody knew it was going to happen because they leaked the details of the interview that Hannity had with Trump.
But on the same day, the New York Times warns Trump, don't go there.
Don't do it.
Don't go anywhere near the Clinton scandals.
Trump might be the first, I don't know, the first Republican politician to ever bring up a charge by Juanita Broderick that Bill Clinton raped her.
So he clearly didn't listen to what the New York Times said.
Do you think the New York Times is trying to help Trump?
Do you think the New York Times was warning Trump to stay away from any scandals just to help him to make sure that he didn't shoot himself in the foot and damage his campaign?
You think the New York Times wanted Trump to avoid this so that he could maybe win the election against Mrs. Clinton?
We don't think that, do we?
So why would the New York Times advise Trump stay away from these scandals on the basis it could backfire if they don't want him to win?
If they want Trump to lose, then why are they trying to help him?
Well, they're not.
In the bottom line, they're not trying to help him.
This is the protective shield around the Clintons that the drive-by media has erected, defended, protected since 1993, 1994.
And they were trying to intimidate Trump, maybe some of his supporters.
I don't think they can intimidate Trump.
I think they're trying to intimidate some of his supporters to maybe talk to him.
And caution wiser counsel.
Don't go there, Mr. Trump.
It's a potential quicksand.
You don't want to get stuck in there.
And Trump obviously has other plans.
Trump put out his list of Supreme Court potential Supreme Court nominees, 11 names.
Snirdly, did you know one of the names on the list?
What's her name?
Gloria Sykes?
I'm not sure the first name.
She's the wife of Charlie Sykes, the talk show host in Milwaukee, who led the conservative talk radio assault on Trump in Wisconsin.
So Trump has chosen his ex-wife, has put his ex-wife on his list of 11 potential Supreme Court nominees.
But, you know, I've read a bunch of different conservative blogs on this.
You can find, I think in some of the conservative think tanks, you find some people upset that he didn't pick from prominent judges and jurists that they would have picked.
From Ivy League schools, yeah.
But aside from a few people in the think tanks, apparently across the conservative sphere out there, there was universal applause for this list that Trump put together.
And it's epitomized here by Dr. Krauthammer last night on special report with Brett Baer.
I think it'll have a dramatic effect in doing that.
The one thing holding back people who've resisted supporting Trump, or at least the major thing, is the fear of what a Clinton presidency would do to the Supreme Court and how it would change it for a generation.
Now you get a list of 11 who are quite sterling.
Three of them clerked for Justice Thomas, two of them for Justice Kalia.
The six federal judges, all appointed by George W., which means they are conservative and they are relatively young.
So this is a future-looking list.
Dr. Krauthammer, excited about the list.
Other conservatives, Summit National Review were as well.
As I say, some of the think tanks, I can't think of them off the top of my head, but some of the think tanks were upset that some of the older jurists that they think are really good, Patrick Kavanaugh's one, but some of the jurists that they like actually have voted to sustain parts of Obamacare.
And so others in the conservative movement said, it's a good thing Trump did not, we don't need anybody else in the court that thinks Obamacare is okay, no matter what else they are.
We don't need anybody else that thinks that.
And they pointed out, as Dr. Kraunhammer did here, that all these names on Trump's list, they are young.
If they got on the court, they'd be there for decades, which is a factor given their lifetime appointments.
Did you see this on Drudge yesterday?
Average person spends 0.45% of life having sex.
That is, if the life expectancy is, what, 75, it means that the average person spends 117 days of their 75 years having sex, which adds up to 0.45%, not even one half of 1%.
You would never, you would never know that if you routinely read social media.
If you spend time on FakeBook, if you read what people write about themselves on Facebook and Twitter, and if you go to the movies and if you watch primetime TV or cable TV, if you watch any episodic television, you would think everybody's having sex all the time doing nothing else and that you're missing out, which may be true.
The average person, 0.45, I thought of that and I said, well, hmm, I'm apparently getting an unfair share of somebody else's time because that the noted CBS correspondent Morley Safer has passed away at age 84.
When these things happen, people routinely asked me, did you know Morley Sefer?
Well, I didn't know Morley Sefer, but I had two encounters with him.
One was on the phone where he called me back in my TV show days not to request my appearance on the show, but to quote me about something, somebody else's appearance he was putting together.
He ended up arguing with me about what I thought.
I thought, well, this is strange.
You're calling me to ask me for my input on something you're doing, and he's arguing with me, which was fine.
The other time, it's more noteworthy, I've told the story before.
I was profiled once on 60 Minutes when something got past somebody there, and they ended up profiling me.
And then they had an anniversary celebration dinner, CBS at 30 years or 60 Minutes at 20 years or 50 years at 60, whatever it was.
And it was at the Temple of Dendar exhibit at the Museum on Fifth Avenue in New York.
And I happily accepted.
And I went to this dinner.
And I happened to note that I was seated at the same table as noted Professor Camille Poggin, who, unbeknownst to the people at CBS, was an acquaintance of mine.
We were email correspondents.
We had some things in common and very much enjoyed each other's company in that way, even though she's an ardent feminist and leftist, but she's not, she has very little in common with the everyday modern weirdo wacko leftists that you see either on campus or in the news.
And she admires creativity and art.
She's a professor of the arts.
And I'd spoken to her about her reviews of the works of Madonna and so forth, asking basically how she does her job, you know, how she approaches her job.
Anyway, they seated me at her table expecting fireworks.
The people at 60 Minutes had no idea we knew each other.
And they just expected, here I am, Mr. Conservative Firebrand hates liberals, going to punch him out, walk out, do whatever, make a scene.
And all night long, I didn't know this at first.
All night long, various 60 Minutes people are strolling by our table.
Morley Safer came by once, and Steve Croft came by once, and Ed Bradley walked by a couple times, and Don Hewitt walked by.
And I said, What is this?
And then they would stop and chat with each other.
And when they walked by the table, they had this snarky grins on their faces.
Like, hey, Limbaugh, do you know you've been set up yet?
But it wasn't like that at all.
They were expecting fireworks that never, ever happened.
And I'm sure when the evening was over, they were dumbfounded because I don't know what specifically they expected to happen, but you can bet that seating me at Camille Paglia's table, they thought there was going to be some fireworks, a scene, or something.
And they wanted to be around to see it, which is probably why I was invited in the first place to the thing.
And those are my two experiences.
And he didn't say anything.
None of these guys said anything as they walked by.
They just walked by.
But it became obvious.
They walked by so much that that's how I noticed it.
Every five minutes, one or two of them is walking by looking at a table.
Anyway, Dan in Savannah, Georgia, great to have you on the program.
Sure, you're up first today on the phones.
Welcome.
Yes, thank you, Rush.
An honor.
Listen, your opening monologue, as I'm traveling from I-10 on I-10, see my grandchildren back to Savannah, Georgia, I see lots of trees.
Now, they commented, somebody said that the blacks, citizens of America, were scared of national parks because of trees.
I can promise you, I see a lot of black American citizens out on I-10 traveling right with me, and nobody looks scared.
So I don't get that.
Is it not one of the stupidest things you've ever heard?
Stupidest, absolutely.
And I can be stupid, and I've heard a lot of stupid stuff in my 62 years.
Well, there's an origin for the theory, but I didn't get to this in the story, and I'm running out of time here.
So, Dan, thanks for the call.
I'm glad you referenced this.
The origin of this theory that trees remind African Americans of lynchings and they therefore don't go to national parks originates with Carolyn Finney, an actress.
More details when we come back.
Don't go away here.
Okay, folks, that's it.
Our first busy broadcast hour hosted by me, your highly trained broadcast specialist, El Rushbo, in the can on the way over to the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum, the virtual museum, at rushlimbaugh.com.
▲
Export Selection