All Episodes
Previous Next
June 17, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:30
June 17, 2016, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And I want to add something else about the law and stopping acts of terror.
Gun control law, gun ban law, this law, that law, in order to stop acts of I want to add one thing to it.
Greetings, my friends, it's Friday on the EIB network.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Yes, sir, Bob.
Two big broadcast hours to go.
We'll get to the phones in this hour.
Some really crucial points I wanted to uh make sure I got to as the program began.
Open it up to the phones as we head into this hour.
The telephone numbers 800 282-2882, the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
If Obama, if the President of the United States is serious about using the law to stop acts of terror such as what happened in the gay bar in Orlando, then he had better try to change Sharia law, because that's the only law those people listen to.
They don't care about U.S. law, and no criminal does.
Let me go through it one more time.
It's not complicated.
By definition, the law is not going to stop people who intend to violate it.
You can write any law you want, and all it is is a piece of paper.
Without respect for the law, the rule of law, and a common understanding of the glue that keeps civil society together.
Laws are meaningless, except in how they define a society.
Same thing with morality.
Morality is how a society defines itself, defines what's right and wrong.
The law is a coequal player in this.
The law also meets out what we do to people who break the law, that we as a society via our elected representatives agree with and agree to.
But the law might deter some, but it doesn't deter everybody.
By definition, there's crime every day.
People are violating the law every day.
There is not a single law that could have been written in the United States Congress, signed by the president, would have stopped Mateen.
By definition, he was going to get a gun or whatever else he needed wherever he had to.
If there were no guns available in the United States, he would have still been able to get one.
Because there's always going to be a black market for everything that's proscribed as illegal, be it a product or a service, a product or a behavior.
You can pass laws banning everything.
You can pass laws prohibiting this or that.
People are going to break the law every day and they're going to find a way to do it.
President Obama wants us to believe that the reason this happened is that there are guns in the second amendment, and the Republicans have not been strict enough in passing more meaningful gun control.
It's irrelevant.
It has nothing to do with it would not have meant one iota in stopping this.
By definition.
The law does not stop criminals.
The law does not stop people who break it.
The law is not a magic wand.
The law has far greater purposes.
In defining a society, in defining a culture, in handing out punishment for people who violate it.
But the people who violate it are not controlled by it.
But of course, this is not going to stop the Democrats or Obama because the only thing these single-minded people care about is the advancement of their political agenda, the all-encompassing quest for power, coupled with the elimination of any opposition.
And to them the opposition is the GOP and conservatives.
The opposition is not ISIS.
The opposition is not Al-Qaeda.
The opposition is not militant terrorism.
Obama won't even talk about it.
But if he's Serious.
And I still throw that out this out as a challenge if he is serious about using the law.
Then he's focusing on the wrong law.
These people do not respect the United States Constitution.
They do not respect the United States code.
They answer to Sharia.
If Obama is serious about changing the law in ways that would prevent things like this, he better go talk to the imams.
He better head off to Egypt and find a grand sheikh that's responsible for interpreting Sharia all over the world and have a talk with him.
And say you've got to get rid of this part of Sharia that allows your people to start wantingly murdering ours.
But he's never going to do that.
Somebody who has gone on record saying the most beautiful sound in the world is the morning call to prayer in Islam.
Somebody who's gone on record as saying people shall not profit.
What was it?
He said we find exact quote that he said it is the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
So I don't think we're going to have Obama calling up the grand Sheikh or the Grand Imam and saying, hey, Bud, you know your Sharia.
It's causing us problems.
He's not going to do that.
Because the people in charge of Sharia have the most beautiful sound in the world, Obama.
Morning call of prayer.
I'm look, you want to use the law here, you better use the right one.
I'm telling everybody, if you want to use the law to start try to stop San Bernardino to try to stop the Fort Hood massacre, you want to use the law to try to stop what happened at the gay bar in Orlando.
You're using the wrong law.
You're focusing on the wrong country.
You need to change Sharia.
And I don't mean to be flippant here, but don't try it.
You don't have a prayer.
But I'm just saying that's where all of this behavior is dictated.
That's where all of this dictator uh behavior is proscribed.
And yet we're being told that it's U.S. law causing this to happen.
U.S. law or the lack of strict gun control is making these terror attacks easier.
Obama says it defies logic.
It defies the most illogical thing in the world to think that other people with a gun in the bar could have stopped the gun.
No, it is the epitome of logic.
How are these people stopped?
Armed individuals, usually the police.
But we hate them too, don't we?
Yeah.
We can't trust the police.
We're going to try to put the police in jail.
We're going to have Obama and his attorney general.
We're going to monitor local police departments, put them under U.S. supervision.
We're going to demilitarize them, which means we're going to take away their body armor.
We're going to take away their SWAT teams.
We are going to emasculate this country.
We are going under Obama to proceed in transforming this country into disarming the police, weakening the police, weakening the FBI under the belief that the police and the FBI and the U.S. military are the problems in the world.
That's who's leading us today.
The sad thing is, and I don't know what the percentage is, but it's if it's not 50, it's damn close percent of the people of this country do not have the slightest idea what I'm talking about right now and think that I'm the extremist.
Like I said in the previous hour, I don't care what you think of social media, and I don't care what you think of the people that comment there, but they are real people.
And they are insane, and they are enraged, and they are unstable, and they are everywhere.
And I'm telling you, they are not mad at Al-Qaeda.
They are not mad at ISIS.
They are not mad at Mateen.
Mateen Is a victim just like they are.
They are a victim of this country.
These angry, irrational looney tunes on social media, be it people who are commenting or originally posting, these people think they're victims of this country too.
They have been taught that.
They feel a connection to a guy like Omar Mateen.
But they clearly are not angry at him.
A lot of people, yeah, Rush, don't read the comments.
You can't think this is lunar.
You can't ignore this stuff.
These people vote, and they are huge in number, and they're taking over every social media app you can find from Twitter to fake book to LinkedIn, whatever the hell it is, they dominate.
People say, well, but they're so insane.
Nobody pays any attention to them.
I don't care whether you pay attention to them or not.
You can't ignore numbers.
But what about Russia?
You've even said that the people attacking you are ten people made to look like 10,000.
Yes, that's true.
The stop rush movement, we found the ten people using an algorithm at Twitter to send out emails making in and then Twitter posts making it look like they were 10,000, 15,000 people.
Totally bogus.
But not all are that way.
And even if they are, even if it is 10 people made to, if let's say it's no more than a million people being made to look like 150 million.
They're still affecting business, commerce, liberty, freedom.
And I'm just telling you, they're not angry.
They're not angry at Obama.
They're not angry at the Democrats, they're not angry at Al-Qaeda, they're not angry at ISIS.
They hate us.
They hate Christians, the more devout, the bigger the hate.
They hate conservatives.
It's real and it's concentrated.
Now I mentioned previous hour that we now have two generations whose minds have been totally perverted, polluted, and destroyed by the American public education system, and in particular the history curriculum.
Breitbart has a story on how this has happened as left appeases Muslims.
Public schools are teaching students to hate America.
Public schools teaching students to hate America as the left appeases Muslims with religious literacy training.
This is all about a curriculum, a history text that has been written by somebody by the name of Howard Zinn.
Now Howard Zinn runs what is called the Zinn Education Project.
It is a radical, radical bunch of insane lunatic leftists.
And there is a project at the Zinn Educational Project, a people's history of Muslims in the United States, what school textbooks and the media miss.
And this program is teaching your high school student, your junior high or middle school student, and they've been doing this for two generations.
A vision of Muslims as an integral part of the fabric of the progressive movement in the U.S. with a presence in every social justice struggle along the way.
So your kids have been taught that there is a moral equivalence between Martin Luther King and today's Muslims.
A moral equivalent between today's aggrieved gays and lesbians and Muslims.
They're all victims of an evil and ill-formed United States of America.
Let me read to you from Howard Zinn.
This is a text from a textbook that many schools are using here and have been for a while, two generations, on the founding of America.
And this comes from Mike Gonzalez at the Daily Signal.
Zinn's history set the stage for the grievance mongering that passes for history classes today and is still widely used.
Zinn's work has sold over two million copies since it was first published in 1980.
It continues to sell over a hundred thousand copies a year because it is required reading at many of our high schools and colleges.
It's a lot of young minds.
Two million copies, a hundred thousand copies a year.
Here is how the founding of America is portrayed in the primary history textbook at way too many schools in this country.
Quote, "Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next 200 years.
They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, that they could take over land, profits, and political power from favorites of the British Empire.
In the process, they can hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new privileged leadership.
It goes on to describe that how this manifested itself was that a bunch of rich white people essentially took over the colonies, stole them from the British under the guise of liberty and freedom and all that happy nonsense in the Constitution is nothing more than a trick for the already wealthy rich white people to set up a country that they owned for themselves and their descendants.
And in the process, they had to make sure that people of color and gays and lesbians were relegated to second and tertiary status.
They fooled everybody into thinking that they were divinely inspired by God when they were nothing but a bunch of capitalist pigs.
Okay, so your kids exposed to this is what your kids taught about.
This is why we do the Rush Revere books, by the way.
Kid grows up learning this, probably comes home and tells you about it.
You laugh and say, no, little Johnny, no, no, no, no.
And you think nothing more you think.
There's no way.
This is somehow way out, weird thing, and but they're back at it the next day, then the next grade, then the next level of school, all the way to college.
They just amplify on all of this.
Progressives are concerned about reports of Muslim students feeling marginalized and discriminated against after the shooting massacre in Orlando, but there is little concern that for years students in the U.S. have been taught to dislike their country, and that's where we are.
That's exactly where we are.
And you see it, demonstrated on social media every day.
I think it's long past the time we can ignore it.
Back in just a second.
By the way, Howard Zinn's history of America is front and center and the gift shop of the New York Historical Society.
The New York Historical Society is deluged with school kids on a daily basis.
And right there is Howard Zinn's book.
Remember John Silber, the former president of uh Boston, it was not Boston College, Boston University, said he had done a study of all American history textbooks.
He was appalled at what he found.
This goes back to the 90s.
He said the single longest reference he could find to Abraham Lincoln was two paragraphs.
That was Howard Zinn.
Would you like to hear how Ronaldus Magnus is portrayed?
I'm just going to tell you, in the proposed California 11th grade curriculum, No problem.
Ronald Reagan is presented this way.
Reagan was a leader who appealed to social conservatives, a segment of the population characterized as opposing safety net programs.
That is it.
That is how Reagan is taught one or two paragraphs on Abraham Lincoln.
Try this from the Washington Post.
Remember now what Zinn does and what what this curriculum is doing is linking every aggrieved minority group, linking them together as having common identities, being being discriminated against by the vast white elitist majority.
And Muslims have been included here as members of the aggrieved.
Wildly discriminated against by a vastly unfair white America.
Washington Post reports the following quote.
At one point, while about two dozen hostages were in the bathroom inside the gay club.
Carter said that the gunman Mateen asked if there were any black people in the room.
When he was told yes, the shooter said, you know, I don't have a problem with black people.
This is about my country.
You guys suffered enough.
He didn't want to kill any black people, even if they were gay.
Born in America, who knows if this guy ran into the Howard Zinn curriculum, but I wouldn't be surprised based on that quote.
And why is that quote there?
They're trying to humanize this guy.
He's a great guy.
He didn't want to shoot blacks.
Okay, we're going to get to the phones here in uh in just a second.
The only thing is, most of them have been on on hull for an hour and a half are going to be talking about things I talked about an hour and a half ago, and you say, wait a minute, what's that about?
But that's just that's the way.
Uh when I did diarrhea of the mouth, I mean, people end up on hold for a long time, and they stayed there.
So I promise, I just want to make one more point, expand on a point, and we're coming to the phones.
I want to read this Washington Post quote again.
It talks about a guy named Carter.
He's a witness, it doesn't matter who he is.
He just don't want you stopping paying attention to me when you hear a name.
Here's the Carter, ignore it.
Washington Post, quote, at one point, while about two dozen hostages were in the bathroom inside the gay nightclub, Carter said the gunman asked if there were any black people in the room.
When one man said yes, the shooter said, you know, I don't have a problem with black people.
Carter recalled during a news conference.
She said that he added, This is about my country.
You guys suffered enough looking at black people.
Well, he's obviously been taught that he's got something in common with black people.
They've both been discriminated against.
He loves America.
Now what's the Post doing here?
They're trying to humanize this guy.
They're trying to say, you know what, this guy's not nearly as bad as Christians or conservatives.
Why he didn't want to kill any blacks.
He's a great guy.
He might be misunderstood.
They are trying to humanize a mass murderer in the drive-by media.
Here's the next line in the Washington Post article.
These comments further add to the uncertainty regarding what may have inspired the gunman.
So maybe, you know what, since he was willing, he tried to spare African Americans.
Maybe why?
Maybe he had a more justifiable purpose than we originally thought.
He was trying to spare a minority.
He only wanted to hit the white gays.
That's unwritten.
The implication is clear.
And so the guy's less of a monster now.
Because he had sympathy for blacks and hoped that none of them had been caught in his fire.
And this incident has been completely ignored by the rest of the drive-bys, even though it was said at a news conference.
The drive-bys didn't want to move off their original narrative that Omar was not only a homophobe, that he was he was a racist.
But the Post said, wait a minute, maybe he wasn't, maybe one of the racist.
Maybe he's not nearly as bad as we thought of first.
They're still conflicted.
It's bad enough he wanted to kill gays, but it's mitigated by the fact that he didn't want to kill blacks.
You see how convoluted not even the Washington Post understands humanity.
They're trying to humanize this guy based on this silly notion that we are different because of our skin color.
It's it's sick.
And who writes for the Washington Post?
Where do they come from?
Who educated them?
They come out of the Howard Zinn school of America sucks.
From the days it was founded.
That's what every institution that people have grown up relying on, thinking you can trust it.
Doesn't care what it is.
Some government bureaucracy, some institution of the media, wherever.
People have grown up with implicit trust, law enforcement, you name it.
It's all gone.
There's doubt about everything now.
And this is not accidental.
Like I say, if Obama really wanted to use the law to stop acts of militant terrorism, he would get hold of the architects of Sharia as the American president and say, you know, you guys, you're gonna have to moderate this.
This is not good.
It's not right.
It wouldn't go anywhere, but that's American president.
Reagan wouldn't have a meeting, he wouldn't have a summit.
He'd give him a warning and then or Bush, give him a warning, and then whatever would happen.
Because you don't allow the innocent murder of American city.
You just don't permit it.
But we do.
Innocent Americans are murdered.
I don't care.
Gay, straight, black, white, Martian, innocent Americans are murdered, and what happens?
An entire political party and an amendment to the U.S. Constitution gets blamed.
And implicit in that is, well, what do you expect's gonna happen?
You got these Republicans out there, we'll change the law and it won't get rid of God.
What do you expect's gonna happen?
So it's like, okay.
I remember Wayne Lapierre once was on the ABC Sunday show this week with David Brinkley, and he said, you know, I think President Clinton is comfortable with a certain level of violence because it helps him advance his agenda.
And I remember this is 1990.
They did.
Uh the the the media ever lost their minds over that.
And I thought when I heard a hoa you talk about dropping a bomb on a TV show.
You say something like that back in 1993 or four, whatever it was, that a Democrat president is comfortable with a certain level of violence.
What what what are we gonna do?
Every time we have a mass murder, we're gonna go to the memorial and we're gonna grade the president's performance of the memorial to determine whether or not we're being effective in dealing with it.
Even in this case, whatever it is, it's about Obama.
How did Obama do at the memorial?
Did Obama come off well?
Will Obama's poll numbers go up?
Did he really reach people to the hell that there are 53 people dead?
Nobody cares about them, like nobody cared about the four dead in Benghazi.
All the media cared about how did Obama do?
Think he did better than Trump would have done?
Think Obama had the right amount of empathy here.
Do you like the way Obama really jammed a Republicans of the second amendment?
Wasn't that great?
That's what they're saying.
This is how we honor 53 dead, innocent people had nothing to do with their deaths.
They just were in the wrong place at the wrong time when a bigot decided to take them out, and all of a sudden we're judging the aftermath as to whether or not Obama's an effective president for crying out loud.
Jonathan in San Clemente, California.
I'm gonna take a break.
I need to go to the calls and need some assistance.
Jonathan Takeover, how are you?
What's up?
What's going on?
Great Rush.
How are you doing?
I'm actually I'm I'm doing pretty well.
I'm all stressed out listening to you on the phone here.
You're getting me all pumped up.
Didn't mean to do that.
I mean, you I'm sure.
Don't be stressed.
I'm so lucky to be on the phone with you.
You know, I didn't have to try, I didn't have to dial the number, nothing.
I just got through.
Isn't it amazing?
amazing?
Well, what did you call about?
So I think we're left really with one conclusion after we've seen these terrorist attacks.
I mean, we see uh starting with, I think with Fort Hood, and maybe even before that, and we had Boston, San Bernardino, now Orlando.
Uh as the things that we find out after the fact, we are left with the conclusion that our leaders want these things to happen.
This is exactly what the liberal America last elitists want to happen in our country.
This is payback.
Are you sure you want to say it that way?
I yeah, I'm positive.
Okay.
I have no doubt in my mind that this is exactly what they want to have happen to us, because this is payback for the lucky, you know, uh uh constitution believing.
Why does the left want a bunch of gay people murdered?
Just what you were saying just a little bit ago.
It furthers their agenda.
It's unfortunate that it had to happen at uh a gay nightclub.
I think they look at it that way.
But you know what?
If this helps uh if this helps repeal the second amendment and take guns away from those Bible thumping Christians, then you know See, this is this is why this is well now look.
There's no question that there is vile hatred for Christians.
Irrational hatred for Christians, irrational hatred for people who attempt to publicly live by a moral code.
There's no question it's hatred.
But it's why Wayne Lampier was very precise in what he said.
He said, I think the president's comfortable with a certain level of violence.
That's a big difference in saying Bill Clinton wants it to happen.
When you say they want it to happen, you're almost you're almost indicting them as co-conspirators.
And I don't I I'm that's if anybody thinks I'm saying that I'm not.
I'm saying that if you go back to Rahm Emanuel, never let a crisis go to whatever happens, turn it into your advantage to advance your political agenda.
I don't have any question that that's taking place.
And you can't even argue with me about that.
53, whatever it is, gay Americans forget gay Americans murdered cold blood in a nightclub in Orlando.
And what is the common reaction?
Republicans and Christians are responsible, and we've got to get rid of the Second Amendment.
If that's not the advancement of a political engine, I don't know what the hell is.
Obama didn't call anybody in Florida for days until he was pressured into it.
And then when he finally goes to Orlando, you listen to the comments he makes, and it's again furthering the Democrat Party agenda.
It is taking advantage of truly hellish things that happen to people.
But that's different than saying they're behind it.
I don't that's not you couldn't make that.
You couldn't prove that or link it in any way.
You might want to say they're not unhappy that it happens.
Uh or that when it does happen, they're eyes light up with the possibility of opportunity and so forth.
I don't think there's any arguing with that.
In any way.
You can try.
You call here and try it, but I guarantee you're gonna get skunked if you do.
Uh let me find it.
Here it is.
Two things have happened in the last two days that that made me curious.
Things I haven't yet discussed.
Well, one of them, we uh remember yesterday I made a big deal of it.
The CIA director goes on TV, well, he appeared before a Senate committee and totally threw Obama overboard on ISIS.
Obama the day before saying that we got him uh under control.
Obama's uh saying that the ISIS has never been uh in worse shape, That we're bombing this and we're bombing that, we're taking out their oil infrastructure, and they've never been weaker, and they're retreating and doing this and that and the other thing.
And the next day, the CIA director goes before the Senate says the exact opposite on everything.
He says they're stronger than ever.
We have been ineffective and stop.
It was dramatic, folks.
It really the drive-by's didn't focus on it, obviously, but it was dramatic.
John Brennan literally contradicted everything his president said.
And then I saw this last night.
And I had to read this from three or four different sources to understand it because the writing is so confusing.
This version is from the Wall Street Journal.
U.S. State Department officials call for strikes against Syria's Assad.
Dozens of State Department officials signed confidential document protesting Obama administration policy, urge regime change.
Now, the first version of this was so convoluted I had to eventually find this.
The upshot of this is there are 51 or 52 people in the State Department who are dramatically opposed to the fact that we're just letting Assad run roughshod in Syria that we're not doing anything to stop him.
And they all wrote and signed a confidential document stating their disagreement with Obama and the administration and demanding that we take out Assad and Damascus as the only way we're ever going to be able to deal a serious blow to ISIS.
Now one of the reasons we're not is because supposedly we don't want to anger Putin and Putin's trying to take ISIS out too.
We don't want to supersede Putin, but that's all a distraction.
So what do we have here?
In two days, we have the CIA director saying under oath, something completely different than what the president said about the condition of ISIS.
The next day, 52 people in State, and these are not your average card-carrying conservatives in the State Department understand.
These are progressive leftists.
And 52 of them have had it.
And they sign a conference that's leaked, obviously one of them leaked it, stating that our current policy is a waste.
It's ineffective, irrelevant, and we need to take out Assad, and we need to take out Damascus.
So I'm asking myself, now what you know, when with this bunch, the first thing you say is, okay, what is the deceit?
Why would Obama order this kind of thing to happen?
Then you deal with that, so okay, maybe that's not what happened here.
So the next possibility, why the revolt?
I mean, it's been seven and a half years, this stuff hasn't happened.
You don't have this, they haven't been anybody come out, for example, and say that Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East sidling up the Muslim Brotherhood was disastrous.
There hadn't been anybody come out and say, oh my God, what we've done to health care is an absolute, we've ruined it.
No, none of that.
But now when it comes to ISIS, we've got the CIA and elements in the State Department now publicly disagreeing with, and whatever else you want to say Obama on this.
My original thought was is there a revolt going on here?
And if so, what could be the explanation for it?
And then I had to grab hold of myself.
So wait a minute, it's not that.
It's not, it's there's no revolt going on.
Not in the sense that you probably understand it.
I finally figured out these are all Hillary people.
I don't know about Brennan, but I wouldn't be surprised.
These are all Hillary people who are doing everything they can to separate Hillary from Obama and this disastrous policies of his involving ISIS.
Because I think the Hillary campaign can clearly see Hillary campaign does not want to run for office, having to echo what these clowns at the regime are saying.
Hillary does not want to have to run against Christians.
She doesn't want to have to, she don't want to blame the Second Amendment for this.
She's I I guarantee you, well, I can't guarantee you, I am surmising that what this actually is is Clinton people trying to separate her from what they see as very potentially damaging, disastrous, incompetent, immature, irrelevant Obama.
Foreign policy.
That's the explanation.
It has to be.
All right, now I gotta work hard in the next hour to get phones in.
We've only taken one phone call.
That was not the intention today, but I'm gonna fix it.
I promise.
People have been on hold.
I I look, folks, I really appreciate that.
I I uh I know it's a lot to ask, and I don't I don't take it for granted.
It's just that I I get these compulsions here to see what I gotta tell you, gotta tell you, gotta get that done, gotta get that done.
And I keep um putting off going to the phones.
But I gotta use discipline and fix it, so I'll do that.
We still have lots of exciting stuff to uh to get to in the unrelated stack.
There's some fascinating stuff out there, and I've got to stand up.
My butt is sore.
I've been sitting here since uh, what is it?
I haven't gotten up since 10 o'clock.
So that's how focused I have been.
Richard Nixon said, you know, you write a book, the key, you need an iron butt.
And that's for damn sure.
So we'll be back here.
▲
Export Selection