All Episodes
Previous Next
June 21, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:02
June 21, 2016, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ha!
How are you?
Welcome back.
Great to have you.
Folks, there's other things going on out there.
And I tell you, the time is just zipping by here.
And we've done enough Hillary sound bites.
You get a flavor for it.
We showed you what Trump's tweets he was tweeting during the speech.
We shared those with you.
We've analyzed the polling data today.
And we've come to the proper conclusion on that.
We've got a lot of phone calls in, and there's more to come.
I touched on Brexit a little bit.
I want to spend a little bit more time on that, and then I want to get to the stack of stuff's got nothing to do with any of this, where this the Chicago Sun-Times columnist tried to show how uh uh worthless the background check aspect of getting a gun is and how it totally backfired at a guy in just one of the most juicy stories you'll ever ever come across.
And there's some other things out there too.
Um I mentioned that uh uh this is related to it, the Kim Kardashian series of tweets on background checks on it's all pointless.
The reason I'm not a Kim Car whatever follower, but I got a guy whose daughter is, and he keeps me up speed by sending me this stuff, and it's relevant because whether you like it or not, Kim Kardashian apparently is an opinion maker with a certain segment of the population.
And they're young, easily impressionable, and they end up hero worship and celebrity worship, and they end up buying into this and they grow up thinking it, and nobody ever corrects them, and they end up as adults being totally ill-informed and misinformed and helping to uh skew this country in in bad directions.
So we'll tackle that a little bit.
But the you know, the Brexit's an international issue.
We don't spend a lot of time on international issues here unless they specifically relate.
Because we just don't have the time.
But and and Brexit is one of these things that few people are going to take the time to delve in into on their own.
If they know anything about it, it's what they've heard said in little commentary slices on uh on television.
But the Brexit vote is Thursday, and it's much bigger than you think it is.
The potential impact is much bigger than you think of it, and not just for Europe, but I don't know about the whole world, but it clearly will have residual impact here, because many of the issues that are being debated and will be voted on are identical here.
And the central issue is when you boil it all down, is it's emigration and money.
And money is it, really, first, second, and third is so much money, so much power at stake here by the elites, the establishment in Europe, the Western European,
the the typical Western European socialist, which is considered who is considered to be the most sophisticated aerudite, uh well-bred uh this perfect people.
And they have set themselves up in charge of Europe under the guise of unifying Europe to make it as competitive as, say, the United States.
The whole European Union got got put together for many reasons, but one of the reasons was that Europe actually it kind of happened because of observation.
I first time I went to Europe, I came home, and I realized the United States, we've been around time I had made the trip, 225 years, 200 years, whatever.
And I just come home from countries that have been there thousands of years.
And I asked myself, how how come it is that we are so far ahead in technology, in hygiene, in just basic day-to-day human service.
How are we so far ahead of cultures And societies that have been around for thousands of years.
And that's when I first began to actually ponder what I consider to be an economically and politically serious questions.
And the answers to those questions are quite telling.
How is it possible?
We're not better people.
We all have the same DNA.
I mean, we're not any better, and exceptionalism and so forth.
We're not any better than a European, an Italian, a Greek, or whatever.
Wow, why did we so just zoom past everything?
There aren't any individual European nations that are superpowers.
And they've been around much longer than we have by factors of five and ten years, centuries.
And one of the answers to the question, when I would ask it of a European on subsequent trips, well, look.
Look at the United States if it were not united.
Let's say that every state was its own nation.
And every nation had its own trade deals and had its own president, had its own former government.
Some of them were socialists, some of them were communists, some of them were capitalist.
Some of them are run well, some of them not.
Let's say that you couldn't trade.
Let's say Missouri and Arizona disagreed, wouldn't trade with each other, California, New York, New York, but that's what we're faced with here in Europe.
You all are united.
You have one government, you have one system, you're one people, you have states, and you have state power, you have federalism, but we are individual nation states.
And they thought, the European Union people thought there was a great opportunity, the uniters thought there was a great opportunity to line their pockets and really gain a lot of power by uniting Europe and making it appear to be the United States of Europe.
And of course, they did it.
And the elites run it.
The European Union is in Brussels.
And it's it's just it's it's it's well, it hasn't turned out like they dreamed that it would.
But there's so much power and money involved here by the elites, that the smart money over there says there's no way the elites are going to let Great Britain exit the European Union.
That would destroy it.
Great Britain seceding from the European Union, going back to a sovereign nation, not part of the EU would destroy the EU, and the elites do not want that because they that would mean devastating things to them personally.
They would lose a lot of people, not not citizens of Great Britain, but a lot of leaders, a lot of the establishment over there would lose so much.
So they're going to use whatever power they have to rig it any way they can.
But when you when you if you wade through all of it, the reason Brexit even exists is immigration.
The reason Great Britain has even proposed exiting the European Union is immigration.
Immigration is in the process of erasing national identities in Europe.
By design and on purpose.
This is what some people instinctively know, other people don't realize.
Same thing happening here.
But some people haven't figured out what the ultimate objective of this is here.
But it is happening much more rapidly in Europe, and you can see the devastation that is being caused by it.
Virtual national identities are being watered down and overwhelmed and overpopulated and overcome numerically by immigrants.
And the similarities, just like our federal government is forcing states to do things they don't want to do regarding immigration.
So the European Union is requiring its member nations to be accommodating in ways they Don't want to be.
And what the European Union is actually attempting.
And you've heard John Kerry talk about a borderless world.
You've heard some liberal elites in this country speak longingly of that day in the future when there are no borders.
John Lennon sang about it in the song Imagine.
They literally dream one day there will not be any nations.
There will not be any borders.
It's just going to be a global thing run by a global elite.
And everything will remain where it is, but there won't be any dividing lines.
We will all be united.
And we'll all be in utopia, and it'll all be wonderful.
But if Great Britain gets out of the European Union, then the European Union tanks.
And then other countries are going to fall out too.
It's going to be a domino thing.
It will not just be the great Brits getting out.
That'll be stage one.
If they successfully, if this vote Thursday happens and they exit, it's going to cause other nation states to get out of the European Union.
And all those people who set it up to benefit themselves, the elites, the establishment of Western Europe, are going to be huge, huge losers.
And it's interesting to note, folks, that all of the elites, the entire establishment, the media, all elected officials, all government types in the European Union are practically united in their opposition to Brexit.
But it's close.
The vote is close because the people of Great Britain are sick of living with the results of a large governing body of people who aren't even Brits making decisions for their country.
Well, yeah, it has some members in the European Union.
It's got some representatives there, but it's got representatives from all kinds of European countries.
These nations that joined the European Union, I think, did so in a misguided way.
In fact, Margaret Thatcher warned of this way, way back.
I was sent a story from Front Page Magazine today David Horowitz's website.
The EU referendum and Thatcher's vision is the title of the piece.
Now this, the author didn't print out.
I apologize for that, but it's at Front Page Magazine.
It's something weird about Apple has the Safari website, has a program called Reader, and when you print, it doesn't print the author.
It's a bug.
And if you don't make a note of it, then you don't get it.
Anyway, begins this way.
Last year I attended the annual lecture of the Margaret Thatcher Center in London.
I got a lot of surprised looks from other guests when I told them I made the long three-day trip solely to attend this series of lectures.
Maybe it was out of the ordinary, but I had my reasons, chief among them the fact that I'm a historian, a perspective that informs me of how starved for great statesmanship the whole world is today.
The only current world-class statesman I can think of is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and he is a big Thatcherite.
It is through this circle of Thatcher fans that I have gained and maintained great friends on the other side of the Atlantic and have watched with great interest as they set out to fight for a leave vote in this week's EU referendum.
And since the spirit of Lady Thatcher hangs over my every interaction with the UK, I felt it worthwhile to revisit an interview that Lady Thatcher gave Forbes magazine in October of 1992 dealing with this very topic.
Her wisdom was precious.
Here's what she said in 1992 in the Forbes interview about this whole mess.
Nations feel comfortable in their own nationhood.
Pride enables you to do things your otherwise might not be able to do.
Europe should be each group in its own national identity.
Don't try to extinguish that, which is exactly what the EU is trying to do.
If you try to push people into a mold, you're going to create resentment, and you're creating it now.
The Maastricht Treaty was a treaty which went totally in the wrong direction.
It was a treaty which took us from being an economic community with a kind of common market as our objective to trying to create a European Union with citizenship of that union as the objective.
She worried that 80% of Britain's economic decisions would be made in Brussels, and she was right.
What is it about some of these people who enjoy the freedoms of democracy who enjoy the elected representatives being accountable to the people?
Why do they want to substitute bureaucracy for freedom?
What's the matter?
What happened to them?
I will tell you that European Commission loves its powers.
Power for the sake of power.
It's not what we fought for.
We fought for democracy, freedom, and justice.
We just re-elected our parliament.
What for?
Is Parliament just going to be a talking show now?
Remember, this is 1992.
She said that centralized international schemes like single currencies were doomed to fail because, quote, we're all at different levels of development of our economies.
That's another thing.
They tried to Europe, well, they did.
They unified all these different nations.
They got rid of individual currencies, replaced it with the Euro, but they combined economies that were totally distinct.
The European Union is one of the reasons, not the sole reason, one of the reasons Greece is in the mess that it's in.
International schemes doomed to fail because we're all at different levels of development of our economies.
Massive extra subsidies from the rest of us for them, or massive movements of immigration from their countries to ours, both would cause resentment and not produce harmonious development.
We should each of us be proud to be separate countries, cooperating together.
Why unify?
Everything she predicted that would go wrong in 1992, she was right about.
everything.
She believed in a European common market as a trading bloc.
She actually thought that it wouldn't work.
She thought that it won't do.
It's not big enough minded.
What she thought Europe needed is a two-continent free trade area that would take in Eastern Europe and embrace North Africa, uh, North America, including Mexico.
It would then be the backup, the political backup for NATO as the as the defense unit.
Anyway, it goes on everything she predicted.
She warned people about in 1992 that would go wrong by becoming members of the European Union.
She was dead right about.
And now the people of Great Britain want out.
And the vote is Thursday.
And the elites in the European Union are going to do everything they can to make sure that vote fails, not because they're interested in the British people, like elites and the establishment everywhere.
It's all about maintaining what they have and perhaps even growing it.
We'll be back.
Here we go back to the phones to Janet in Shiloh, Illinois.
Great to have you.
Hi.
Hi, Russ.
Thank you for taking my call.
You bet.
I want to I wanted to alert your attention to yesterday, the Washington Post reported that the Orlando shooter was a Hillary supporter.
And so we're faced with the reality that a Hillary supporter what targeted a gay nightclub went in, shot it up, killing 49 gays and injuring 53 more while praising Allah.
I want to suggest that had it been a Trump, the Washington Post had reported that the tr a Trump supporter had gone in, targeted a gay nightclub, gone in, shot up and killed 49 gays, injuring 53 more while praising God.
Trump would have had to drop out of the race everywhere.
Except no, wait, wait, you know, that's a you're you're making a couple of really good points here, Janet.
In your analogy, that doesn't happen.
And this is very important to remember.
There is homophobia everywhere, but only in militant Islam and in nations run by Sharia law are there organized efforts to kill them, to punish them.
What you described just doesn't happen.
There are Christians who are anti-gay.
There are Jewish people that are anti-gay, but there is no worldwide network that runs around committing mass murder.
There are not, you can't name for me a single Christian preacher.
You cannot name for me a single Jewish rabbi who makes sermons or otherwise inspires people to go on worldwide missions to kill gays, women, infidels, or what have you.
But you can't you can't say that about Islam.
Islam does.
Islam has imams that are encouraging that very thing.
A man, a legend, a way of life at 800 decibels, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
In fact, there's a piece here in the in the Daily Beast, going back to Janet, our last caller, it's by James Kirchek.
Why are prominent liberals closeting the motivations of the radical Islamic murderer who targeted gays?
A moral majority never had a terrorist wing.
The jihadis have dozens of them.
So why are so many prominent Western liberals so loath to acknowledge and discuss this obvious difference?
And it's a it's a good point.
You know, her analogy was if it had turned out, if it had been discovered that Omar Martin was a Trump supporter, that would have been the end of Trump.
Trump would still be interrogated.
That's all anybody would be asking Trump about.
Why do you think Omar Martin, who shot and killed 50 gays, supports you?
What has he heard you say that made you think, made him think that you were his candidate?
This guy, friend of his says he was gonna vote for Hillary.
It's a registered Democrat.
And of course, we throw that out.
Not only that, in Barack Obama's world, here you have a guy, a registered Democrat, a militant Islamic terrorist who shoots up a gay nightclub, and it becomes the fault of the Republican Party in the NRA.
And then you take a camera and you go to the streets of Brooklyn and you do man on the street interviews with your average ordinary Brooklynite, and you ask them, who do you think is largely responsible?
And they tell you they're Republicans, because their refusal to help ban guns.
It's maddening.
But she's exactly right.
If it had been discovered that this guy, you know, had toyed with joining the Tea Party, which is the first thing they look at, the media, or if this guy was a big Trump supporter, or if he loved talk radio, oh, they would love.
You know, folks, that'd be orgasm city if they could find out one of these guys, a big talk radio listener.
They've been looking for that for 27 years.
They've been hoping and praying.
And every time we find out these guys that do this kind of thing are either registered Democrats or that somehow linked to them, vote for them or what have you, but they're not conservative Republicans.
And in this piece by James Kirchek at The Daily Beast, here's a pull quote.
Of course there are Christian and Jewish anti-gay bigots, but there's no worldwide network of Christians and Jews spurred on by clerics and suborned by states, indoctrinating their flock in eliminating homophobia or eliminist eliminationist homophobia recruiting people to murder gays.
The same sadly cannot be said about Islam, the official religion of dozens of countries that legally prescribe homosexuality, some by penalty of death.
In the wake of the Orlando shooting, many liberals are pointing to the near-simultaneous case of James Wesley Howell, a white man apprehended by the cops before he could shoot up the LA gay pride celebration as evidence of how homophobia isn't especially endemic with Islamic cultures.
But there were no large-scale Christian ideological movements and religious leaders, never mind a would-be revolutionary state motivating and backing the guy.
He was a genuine lone wolf.
Because they are incapable of distinguishing murderous Islamist homophobia homophobia from high school bullying.
Many gay liberals have lashed out at Republican politicians who've offered condolences to the Orlando victims, accusing them of having forfeited any right to express solidarity by dint of their past opposition to same-sex marriage.
And he's right, that's exactly how it works.
If you oppose same-sex marriage, you cannot in any way be in solidary with gays, even after they're shot and killed.
It's exclusionary.
As far as the left and gay activists are concerned.
In fact, some have gone so far as to blame American Christian conservatives rather than Islamist fanatics for the actions of Omar Mateen.
The New York Times has led the PAC campaigning to replace Islam with Christianity as the most threatening area of religious homophobia.
A remarkable editorial about the massacre that didn't once mention the words Islam or Muslim saw fit to condemn Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish.
On live TV, there was CNN anchor Anderson Cooper.
You know, we didn't talk about this, but this is outrageous, too.
Anderson Cooper grilling Pam Bondi, the Florida attorney general, over her past legal defense of a state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage.
He grilled her and accused her of being in solidarity with the people that shot up gays because she upheld the Florida Constitution prohibiting gay marriage.
That was portrayed as gay bias, homophobia, standing up for her state's constitution.
And this is how it all works.
And this is how these people end up forcing Nimrod, small-minded low information people, into believing that the Republican Party and conservatives are the people that really harbor this hate when they don't.
And of course, here's another manifestation of it.
This silly notion that if there had just been gun control, that Mateen wouldn't have been able to do what he did.
This boggles my mind.
There were four gun control measures that were being debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate, which is always happens.
Every time there's a shooting disaster, a mass massacre like this, the Democrats get into gear and use the opportunity, take the opportunity of the event to try to get more gun control.
And every sponsor, there were four different bills.
Every sponsor admitted that his bill would not have stopped Mateen from getting the gun that he used.
But it didn't matter.
Because the purpose of gun control is not stop Mateen.
You know why?
Gun control can't stop criminals.
The law does not stop criminals.
The law does not deter all potential criminals.
If it did, we wouldn't have any.
If the law deterred crime, we wouldn't have any crime.
The purpose of law is not solely to deter people from committing crime.
It's how society defines itself.
In areas of right and wrong and morality, it's how society agrees to punish people that violate various laws.
But the law is not there To prevent criminal behavior because nobody would be stupid enough to think that alone would do it.
That's why gun control laws are silly, folks.
They're not gonna stop anybody who intends to criminally use a gun.
There's gonna be a black market.
You can't ban all guns from a country this big.
You couldn't get rid of all of them, no matter what you do.
Even if you confiscated every gun, if you were able and you couldn't even do this.
If you went door to door and demanded that everybody in every house, every apartment, every condo over business, turn over their gun to you, and if they did it, which wouldn't happen, you still wouldn't get rid of every gun in this country.
That's what's silly.
Therefore, the purpose of gun control is not to take guns or keep guns out of the hands of criminals, folks.
The purpose of gun control is to take guns away from the law abiding.
That's all it is.
It's never admitted to.
It's disguised as stopping crime, protecting your children, keeping our schools safe.
That's bogus caca.
There isn't a single law on the books that would have stopped Mateen from getting his gun.
There's not a single law that would have prevented him from doing what he did when he got a gun.
Not a single law.
Doesn't mean that journalists are not stupid fools.
Journalists are out there now doing story after story how easy it is to get a gun.
How easy it is for criminals and the law abiding to go get a gun.
And we're supposed to infer that it's so easy, no wonder people are caught getting involved in mass shootings.
Well, a guy named Steinberg at the Chicago Sun Times decided to write a column about how easy it is to get a gun, and about how worthless the background check aspect of gun control is.
And wait till you hear what happened to him.
I'm not going to have time to read much of this guy's column.
His name is Neil Steinberg.
Neil Steinberg writing for the Chicago Sun Times would be Taraskined by guns, but a reporter, no.
See, he didn't pass the background check.
This and it's it's just classic.
The column is it's it's nonsensical because the guy starts out, he ends up totally exposed as a fraud and ends up blaming the system for it.
So he's one of these reporters who goes to a gun store on the premise that anybody can get a gun, and the background check is a mere formality, and they can get any gun they want, and the background check doesn't really count.
Everybody gets passed, everybody gets their money, and the guy walks out with a gun and go murder as many people he wants.
Whatever kind of gun he wants to buy.
So this guy goes in to a gun store in De Plain in uh Illinois, Maxson shooter's supplies.
He went in there on uh on Wednesday of last week to purchase his first assault rifle.
And the first thing he learned is that there's no such thing.
They told him there was no, but he didn't believe them.
He said he'd never owned a gun before.
With the horror of Sunday's Orlando massacre still echoing, even the pleasant summer day took on a grim aspect, the sweetness of fragile life flashing by as I headed into the valley of death.
Earlier in my editor's office, I had ticked off the reasons for me uh not to buy a gun.
It was a journalist's stunt, done repeatedly, supporting an industry I despise.
But as I tell people, I just work here.
I don't own the place.
And my qualms melted as I dug into the issue.
I had trouble even figuring out whether bringing an assault rifle to Chicago's legal.
The internet was contradictory.
The Chicago Corporation Council's office punted me on to that black hole of silence, Bill McCaffrey.
I found that Illinois has a 24-hour waiting period between buying and taking possession of a gun.
Unearthing that fact alone made the exercise seem worthwhile.
I was learning something.
He goes on to talk about the process.
Anyway, here's what happened.
He went in to buy his assault rifle.
And he goes through the process, disguising it as how he's learning things.
And his the gun store called him within 24 hours and said, I'm sorry, but we can't sell you the gun.
You didn't pass the background check, and he wants to know why.
And the gun store says, we don't have to tell you.
We're not required by law to tell you.
But they knew he was a reporter.
He didn't pass the gap background check.
You want to know why?
It was discovered that he has issues with alcohol and spousal abuse, or something of the sort.
It was discovered that he was a risk.
So they wouldn't.
He didn't pass the background check.
He wasn't allowed to come back and get the gun.
And he ended up portraying this.
See, I'm an innocent guy.
I'm a totally innocent guy, a reporter.
He didn't want to put it in the column, but his editors made him.
He didn't want to include it.
He thought that was not relevant.
His editors made him put that piece of information in his column, and he goes off blaming the system.
Look, a terrorist can go in, a known terrorist going to get a gun, and I'm a decent law-abiding guy, and I couldn't pass the background check.
Okay.
Of course, he doesn't see because he's a closed-minded leftist.
He doesn't see the utter irony in what happened to him.
He goes in to expose the entire background check apparatus as fraudulent and worthless, and it uncovers that he is unfit for a gun.
And he ends up attacking the system.
When he ought to have walked out of there, you know what?
I'm wrong.
This system works.
He should have walked out of there realizing, you know what I learned something I didn't know.
The background check is not an automatic.
It's not something that's just set up to fool everybody into thinking they're really looking into people's backgrounds.
Because this guy walks in thinking anybody in the world can go in and buy a submachine gun if they want to.
And it turns out.
We'll link to the piece, we'll link to the column at Rush Limbaugh.com.
You really need to read the whole thing, particularly near the end when he admits that he didn't pass the background check because of these.
He says that's not the real reason.
The real reason I didn't gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark.
Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence, except for the week or two after massacres.
So the guy totally doesn't get it.
Exhibits his total closed-mindedness.
It's quite an informative piece.
Now, the Sun-Times reporter thought he was turned down not because of his admitted alcohol abuse and admitted spousal abuse.
No, they turned him down because he was a reporter.
And they didn't want a reporter to learn how easy it is they give everybody else's guns.
Have a great day, folks.
▲
Export Selection