All Episodes
Previous Next
June 22, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:19
June 22, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
With talent on loan from God.
I am America's real anchor man, America's truth detector and the doctor of democracy.
All here in one harmless, lovable little fuzzball bundle.
Serving humanity simply by showing up.
Rushlin bought the EIB network, 800 282-2882, if you want to be on the program of the email address.com.
I has a whole stack of stuff I've had.
Oh, yeah, we've got a whole stack of stuff on the jihadist in Orlando that I haven't even gotten to yet.
Let's go some of this other stuff here before we get back to your phones.
Um how do we still have people reacting to uh Trump?
We do, so we'll have some of that.
And we've got um continuing audio sound bites.
There's panic, by the way.
There's panic in the drive-by media.
I told you about the polling for the past two days.
I have been warning you not to pay attention to the way the drive-by's are reporting the polling data.
It's not nearly as bad.
I mean, in fact, it may not be bad at all for Trump by the time you you fully analyze it.
But the proof is in the pudding on the Today Show today, Matt Wower and Savannah Guthrie are uh they're they're shocked and they're concerned by the battleground state polls where Trump is still even with Hillary in Florida, Pennsylvania, close in Ohio.
They can't believe it.
They can't believe it.
They can't believe two things.
They can't believe Trump is still viable.
That they they see all of this talk in the Republican delegate circle about getting rid of Trump.
They see private meetings among the Republican Party trying to get rid of Trump.
They think Hillary is the greatest thing to ever happen to American politics because she's a woman and she's a Democrat.
And and and the fact that she's just not skunking Trump, that she's got all this money, she's raised all this money, she's been spending a lot of it lately, trying to define Trump, trying to marginalize Trump.
Trump doesn't have any money to speak of, uh, certainly not in her league, has not been spending much.
And not only is he not being blown out, he's leading her in some of these battleground polls, and they can't explain it.
They are beside themselves.
They really are, folks.
Panic of settling this speech that happened today.
Let me address something.
I've had a couple of emails today, and I'm I'm I should mention this so that that you don't think I'm trying to sweep anything under the rug here.
I've had emails today from people who say, you sound awfully enthusiastic about this guy.
You know, Trump's not a conservative rush.
You should be out there pushing Ted Cruz with all this talk about getting rid of Trump, it's an opportunity to move and get Ted Cruz back in his nominee.
You're conservative leader, you ought to be leading that movement.
And I said, wait a minute.
Uh I have not misled anybody at any point during this campaign.
From the from the moment the primaries began.
I have been blunt force up front with everybody about the objective here, which is to beat Hillary Clinton.
I don't care with what.
There isn't anything worse.
We can't, folks, we can't withstand culturally, economically, politically.
We can't withstand another four years of what we've just had the last eight, and that's what it would be.
And it would be worse because it would be four more years on top of what are already seven and a half, by that time, eight years of genuine destructive politics from the highest office in the land.
For me, this has always been about one thing, and that's about beating Hillary.
Whoever the nominee of the Republican Party was going to be was going to get my support.
Well, what about what about what about conservatism Russian?
I don't think I've changed a whit here, folks.
Other people have, but for 27 years you've been able to tune in here every day and be confident Of what you're going to get.
And you've been able to be confident that it's being honestly spoken to you.
Do I wish Trump were better at certain things?
Do I wish Trump were more instinctive?
Yeah, of course.
But I think no matter who the nominee was, we were going to have problems.
Some people would have more problems than others given who the nominee was.
But I could go through the list of people that might have been the nominee, and you can I can I can pretty much recite what objectives from various Republicans would be.
But the greatest unifying aspect we have in this race is Hillary Clinton.
Look, I know, folks, within the conservative movement, and even within the Republican Party and the and any other group that's by definition not liberal.
There are all kinds of people worried to death.
That various things are being abandoned here, various concepts, precepts, principles are being abandoned.
And I know that there are people who think that we're going to get slaughtered no matter what we do.
And worse, I know some people who want us to be slaughtered.
There's all kinds of people on our side who think the best lesson that could happen is if Trump gets beaten this huge landslide so that we don't make this mistake anymore.
I've I've heard that philosophy argued one way or the other since the beginning days of this program.
And there's one thing I've learned.
I don't ever see the advantage in losing.
I just haven't been able to find it.
I haven't been able to find victory in losing.
And in this case, defeating Hillary Clinton and everything else that goes along with that is paramount to me.
And I'm by no means confident that it can happen.
But but and I want to be, so I'm looking for hopeful signs that this can happen.
And I do think they're there.
I think she's a weak, weak candidate.
I think she has vulnerabilities left.
She is not loved, she's not adored.
Her negatives, you talk about Trump.
Her negatives are almost as high as his is to the point they cancel each other out.
Thank you.
But my my my my support for defeating Hillary Clinton does is not meant and does not in any way signal that I am what's the term going soft on core beliefs or core principles.
You know, my favorite phrase has become a cliche, but I still like it.
It is what it is.
You have to deal.
I'm the mayor of Realville.
You have to deal with what you have to deal with.
It doesn't do anybody any good to wish things were different, unless you have an opportunity to make them different.
And I don't think that makes much sense right now.
But we shall see.
Back to a story that I mentioned in a tease mere moments ago.
Back in the 1990s, liberal Democrats became unified around the concept that kids were going to have sex and we couldn't stop them.
And so we had to make it safe sex.
They were going to have sex.
We want to, in fact, many factions on the left thought it was cool.
So we had to do everything we could to make it safe.
I even had parents call here saying, yeah, we let our teenagers have sex in a spare bedroom.
It's better than the back of the car rush.
At least we know the bedroom's clean.
Don't know what the back of the car is.
I'm sitting here aghast, my mouth's wide open listening to this.
So they started giving out condoms in school.
I started teaching how to use them, use cucumbers and so forth.
And the and the left, and this happened officially in school boards all over the country, and they said, since we can't stop them, we have got to teach them how to use condoms.
And of course, abstinence was laughed at.
It was just laughed out of the roof.
What do you mean just say no?
Come on, you gotta get it realistic.
You can't tell them no.
They're gonna they're gonna do it, you can't stop them.
We can tell them no on all kinds of stuff, but we can't tell them no on sex.
So I said, well, then why don't we give them a pack of cigarettes and a lighter?
Put that on the uh table next to the bed for when it's all over.
Why would you isn't that part of the experience?
No, we're not gonna let them smoke.
What do you mean you can stop them from smoking?
You're damn right we're not gonna let them smoke.
Smoking is deadly.
Smoking won't kill you.
How are you gonna stop them from smoking?
I mean, that's an actual addiction.
Well, we're not good, we're not gonna promote it, but you are gonna go out and promote, oh yeah, because we can't stop it.
It just became insane.
So anyway, a number of years have gone by now.
And the whole idea has been nuked.
It didn't work.
The National Bureau of Economic Research showed that the distribution of free condoms at high schools seemed to be precisely correlated with a significant increase in teenage pregnancy and an increase in STDs.
And of course, the liberal left is scratching their heads.
How can this be?
Condoms prevent pregnancy, condoms prevent STDs.
We gave them condoms.
How in the world are teen pregnancies and STDs on the rise.
Liberals immediately rushed in to explain away the findings.
Because after all, the idea that the widespread availability of contraception for kids would have a perverse effect would be a blow to what intellectual elites have insisted for more than four decades.
Over at Vox.com.
Sarah Cliff explained that some social conservatives might believe that free condoms encouraged teenagers to engage in riskier behavior than they would have otherwise.
With the condoms available, they could possibly decide to have sex in situations where they otherwise wouldn't.
But then she dismissed such silliness immediately, citing the results of a 1998 study of the sexual behavior of students in a has scroll in Los Angeles.
But the National Bureau of Economic Research study was based on a national data set that included thousands of schools, meaning it's hard to ignore or explain away.
But over at Slate, they suggested, you know, free condoms helped teenagers who were too shy to buy condoms, but reluctant to have sex without them.
Or teenagers who wanted to avoid talking to their parents about sex and so couldn't go see a doctor to get a more effective form of contraception.
These were all the justifications for giving out condoms.
Kids were going to be nervous.
The flaw in this was what?
What is it that produces unwanted pregnancy?
Coitus, intercourse, sex.
What is it that produces STDs?
Dido, same thing.
Why would you want more such activity?
That's what giving away free condoms and showing everybody how to use them with cucumbers did.
It increased promiscuity.
It increased sexual activity.
With that, you are obviously increasing the odds of both pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, and STDs.
Because condoms are not fail-safe.
Thank you.
However, the left make no acknowledgement of the possibility that teenagers might get pregnant more because they might be having sex more.
That never crossed their minds.
They might be having sex more because they're surrounded by adults who say that casual sex is no big deal.
And that's a direct gift from Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton getting Lewinskied in the Oval Office was said to be it's not even sex.
He can't even call that sex, so that became permissible.
That was no big deal.
Nobody's talking condoms there anyway.
We're way back in the beginning days of this program to demonstrate how condoms are...
Misused, I would put a condom on this microphone.
While the microphone was live, I'd stretch it out and slip it on there.
And I said, you this conduct this condom is going to save you from extreme speech.
Will it stop all extreme speech if I put It was silly.
Anything to do to illustrate absurdity by being absurd.
But all they did was distribute the means of increasing the amount of teenage sex under the precept that there's no way we can stop it.
They're going to do it anyway, so we might as well engage in whatever safety measures we get was just absurd.
Anyway, the results are in, and it didn't work.
The distribution, free distribution of condoms and teaching them how to use them has led to more instance of teenage pregnancy and increase in sexually transmitted disease.
Back in a moment, folks.
Back to the phones we go.
This is Pat in Grass Valley, California, not far north of uh it's actually northeast Sacramento.
Great to have you, Pat.
Hello.
Oh, hi.
Hi, Rush.
Yeah, thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
Um I'm calling about the the gentleman um who called last hour to complain about um Trump not sticking to the issues or something like that.
Well, he was concerned that it was too much uh name calling back and forth and we weren't getting substantive and getting the actual issues and gonna determine the future.
Well then he must be getting his his news from um NPR, which I call national propaganda radio, because um if you read Trump's speech, you'll see that it's all policy.
Uh ever he just goes down point by point by point.
Um Hillary's abysmal record uh as as Secretary of State.
He's not pointing to, you know, petty stuff like the Democrats did with um with Romney, you know, carrying a dog on his car.
He's talking about people who died in Benghazi.
He's talking about Hillary's support for the uh the TPP that's gonna uh ruin the economy, make the economy even worse.
Right.
It's about a disastrous foreign policy that's put this country at greater risk.
The foreign policy, the financial policy, uh all of the money that she's taken from uh the the millions, as you pointed out, the millions of dollars that she has earned and Bill has has earned, hundreds of millions of dollars, twenty-one million she's earned in in two years giving speeches that she won't release to the public.
So this this guy should just read Trump's speech and go down and and and look at look at the facts.
And I wish Trump would give this speech every day, because maybe then eventually uh the the the press will start covering some of these points or I don't know how to get the word out there.
You know, I just went to the uh NPR website after you mentioned um, you know, that headline that Trump just gave the speech that Republicans have been waiting twenty years for.
Well, it's very interesting.
You know, that's by Mara Lyerson, who's supposed to be uh, you know, sort of a conservative or sort of a No, no, no, no, no.
Just because she's on Fox, don't think that.
Yeah, well, she's not a good thing.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
There's two stories on it.
And all they do is highlight the rhetoric and they don't point out any of the of the facts.
All of the the all of the money that she got from the Middle East, the jewels from the Sultan of Brunei, the twenty-five million dollars from Saudi Arabia Arabia, and all of the all of the uh all of these countries that that not only uh kill homosexuals, but they torture them.
They kill them in the most unbelievably horrible ways that you can't even discuss on the radio.
Why do you think that doesn't bother the left?
I mean, here they are, they're the big champions of gay marriage, the big champions of gays being treated fairly, the big champions of, you know, here comes a mateen, goes in, shoots up at the gay bar in Orlando, we gotta get the how why do they not mind?
Why does it not concern them that Mrs. Clinton is bought and paid for by countries that kill homosexuals?
I I have been asking myself that question for thirty five years.
I'll tell you what it is.
I study journalism, I worked at the Stanford Daily, I got my degree in journalism, and I was routinely told by everybody, you know, oh you can't say that.
Wait, wait, wait.
This is not we're not talking journalists.
These are Democrats with bylines.
I'm not kidding now.
I'm not sure.
I agree.
No, I agree.
But I'm telling you, I agree.
Pat the answer the answer to question is they don't consider the Saudis an enemy.
The greater threat to gays in America is us as conservatives.
And that that's what they tell everybody.
That's well, you know, uh you have to I I I guess you're right.
But you have to really kind of I mean, that's pretty twisted, if you ask me.
I mean, that's but it is twisted, but but they are glued partisans.
Hillary Clinton is their candidate, the Democrat Party is their party, and it doesn't matter what the specifics are.
It doesn't matter what the policies are.
It doesn't matter the contradictions.
The hypocrisy doesn't matter.
It's just it it all of that like you're upset that she's not at NPR not reporting the specifics of Trump's allegations of Mrs. Clinton being bought and paid for, and maybe even blackmailable now by whoever it is that has given her hundreds of millions of dollars on the cum.
She's destined to be president.
It's in the cards.
It is ordained, and that's what's gonna the details don't matter.
Remember, it's the way journalism journalism is today.
Hillary Clinton, what does she want?
The presidency.
That's the MacGuffin.
That's the story.
Will Hillary Clinton get what she wants?
What will we do to help her get what she wants?
What she wants to do as president is irrelevant.
It's assumed it's going to be good because she's a liberal.
So they're not concerned about that.
Their concerns are keeping us out, defeating us, and making sure that Hillary gets what she wants.
That's journalism today.
Welcome back.
Rush Limbardo cutting edge of societal evolution.
This is from the Conservative Tribune website.
Obama floods America with refugees, and these six diseases just reappeared.
Here's the upshot of the story.
Took centuries for America to nearly eradicate tuberculosis, measles, whooping cough mumps, scarlet fever, and the bubonic plague.
But in one fell swoop, President Barack Hussein O has managed to ensure these diseases make a comeback.
Let's start with TB, using data pulled from various sources, including the Centers for Disease Control and several state-level health departments.
Breitbart contributor Michael Patrick Leahy concluded that TB rose by 1.7% from 2015 after nearly 23 years of steady decline.
Moreover, while the number of active cases among native-born Americans declined from 86 to 2015, it went up among both legal and illegal immigrants.
And with Obama rushing to import poorly screened refugees to the United States, the rate of TB among immigrants is poised to climb even higher.
Leahy cited similar stats for measles and whooping cough, both of which appear to be creeping back into American life as more migrants and refugees from Asia and Africa keep hopping off the boat.
There's no data to show a rise of scarlet fever in America, but he did note that it's begun making a comeback in Asia, including in the Middle East.
And the bubonic plague, sadly, its comeback has already begun.
There were, in fact, 16 reported cases of the plague in the U.S. this past year alone, 40%.
Four of those cases led to death.
And I get I get notes, people commenting to me off the cuff all the time, just expressing shock that Obama's approval numbers are as high as they are.
I I I know I it's it's one of these ongoing frustrations that here we have an economy in the tank.
Here we have a a country that's experiencing a major terror attack at least once a year, with multiple Americans dying.
We have 97.4 million Americans not in the workforce, and many of them are capable and want to be.
Not all of them are, but many of them are.
There is no optimism.
There is, most of the outlook in the future is flatline or negative.
Doom and gloom, pessimistic.
And yet Obama's approval numbers are at 50%.
What are they latest?
53%?
It It doesn't make any sense.
Yeah, the low 50s.
It doesn't make any sense.
At least not when you examine it the way we always have.
The previous examinations of presidential approving data approval numbers and data have always been related to the economy.
And they've always for the most part assumed fairly informed public.
That's what you don't know today.
You don't know how informed the public is what they know versus what they think they know versus what actually is.
But it is a uh a puzzling thing.
Then of course, you know what approval numbers, those are those are polls, and now you're stuck, okay.
So if it doesn't make any sense, but you can't just discount the poll.
That's not how you deal with it.
People have tried that and they've been burned.
Too many examples of polling data being right.
But there's also lots of examples of polling data being dramatically wrong, predominantly pre-election polls.
Here's uh here's Eric in San Diego.
I'm glad you called, sir.
It's great to have you next on the program.
Hello.
I just wanted to uh tell you to tell Trump that uh if he wants to get the millennial vote, he should make it where student loans are forgiven through bankruptcy.
Wait a minute.
Student loans should be forgiven through student.
What a bit, what do you mean bankruptcy?
I didn't I didn't hear all that.
Well, if uh you have a student loan, you can't declare bankruptcy to you know get it for given or to uh get rid of the debt.
It's protected uh somehow.
I don't know exactly how it all works.
But currently, you know, uh you go to school, you get this crazy, crazy debt, you get out of school, you can't get a job, and there's nothing you can do about that debt.
Where if you could just declare bankruptcy to uh you know eliminate your student debt, I think that would be uh it's a much more realistic approach to the free-ish tuition, I guess.
To get the uh millennial vote.
Frankly, this has been something that that I have expected the Democrats to do.
I have been I predicted they would.
I've been I've been kind of fearful that that was going to be a big card that they were gonna play.
And I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary still does it at some point if if it looks like the uh if it looks like the millennials are abandoning the uh the Democrat Party.
Is that live?
I guess Hillary's do so Hillary's in a Raleigh right now doing a speech.
I guess it's a response to Trump.
I don't know, was it a scheduled speech or this uh hastily assembled to respond to schedule speech?
Well, I'm sure we are rolling on it.
I don't know that we're gonna have any sound bites from it today.
But you know, this college education, I'm I'm glad you called about this, Eric, because this is another thing.
This is a big, big bugaboo of mine.
And I think it explains so much about the status of the country and the mindset of the middle class.
Now let's acknowledge some things.
In America, there have been different levels of success from individual to individual, and this is one of the things that has burned socialists and leftists.
It's not fair in their minds that anybody should be doing dramatically better than anybody else, because nobody's really that much better.
It's got to be luck, they say.
It has to be connections, they say.
I mean, why does Citizen X earn a million dollars a year and somebody just as good, just as nice, only make fifty thousand that just isn't fair, and they blame America for it.
And they come in and they tell everybody it isn't fair, and they're gonna equalize this.
And the way they equalize it is start punishing the millionaire Rather than finding ways to elevate the middle class.
But for people who have not been oriented towards socialism and acknowledging these differences, it's always been boiled down to, well, uh, there are no guarantees, but there is a route.
There are things you can do if you want to be successful, however you define it.
If your definition of success includes wealth and if it includes a high income, there are things you can do.
America affords you the opportunity to try, not guaranteed result, but America affords you the opportunity to try, where most countries don't even give you that.
Most countries don't even provide the opportunity.
You're born into a class, and that's how you live, and that's how you die.
But in America, there's always been the promise of upward mobility, and everybody bought into it.
Vast majority of people did, and it wasn't, I mean, there's always been resentment, folks.
There's always been class envy to some degree, but it has never been exploited for political gain like it has been by the Democrats in the last 25 or 30 years.
Uh to the point that people doubt the genuineness and the decency of capitalism and everybody, uh, particularly younger you go on the demographic scale, seem to be signing up for socialism because it's more fair, equalize outcomes, and there's no reason people should have more than others in that right and so forth.
But for the people that didn't want to sign on to that, for the people that wanted to hold on to this idea that there's always a way to improve yourself, for people who wanted to raise their kids with the belief that however you decide define success, you can attain it in America.
Well, one of the ways was a college education.
The college education was always touted and always presented as the great equalizer.
The college education, and we may have been sold a bill of goods, I don't know.
That's for another discussion.
Um the way lobbying works, it's to the university's great benefit if everybody in America wants to send their kids to one.
By the same token, it's a great benefit to people in the real estate business and in the development construction business if everybody thinks they ought to have a house.
So we understand that tax policy is used as social architecture.
Uh we understand that lobbying has made some of these things true.
But the bottom line is education, no matter what kind of games were played with it, has always been touted and understood as one of the key elements to self-improvement.
Education has always been touted, and it's true as one of the greatest things that could happen to somebody, being educated, getting educated, learning, acquiring knowledge for the benefit of the individual as he or she lives and grows older.
There's nothing wrong with it, unless it's garbage in, then that's a whole nother problem.
But just in the generic sense, and the middle class bought into it, and you can trace uh American demographics pre-World War II, post-World War II, and you can see that there was vast upward mobility in the American middle class.
It was huge.
American income, when it's been charted, has always been uh charted in fifths or quintiles.
So you would have one group that group, let's say, makes a hundred thousand dollars or more, then the next group 75 to 100, the next 50 to 75, uh, 25 to 50 and zero to twenty-five, whatever, but those are the arbitrary numbers.
But you have those various quintiles, they would track people in each of those segments as they grew older and track and track their movement.
Did they move into different levels of income?
And how did they do it?
And they found that a college education was one of the fundamental requirements to upward mobility.
And middle class parents became obsessed with their kids going to college, no matter what it cost.
They pursued scholarships, they pursued anything they could to get their kids to school.
And just like health care, at some point the cost of getting educated became so high that the average middle class family could not afford it in their in their annual budget.
They had to find supplemental assistance.
It got so bad because there was never any pressure on universities to keep tuition at an affordable level, just like there's never been any pressure on health care.
Here came the old student loan and the student loan program.
And it enabled more and more people to quote unquote afford college, but that's not what happened.
Here's the upshot of this is all of these middle class families, not just middle class, every, practically every group of Americans, however you qualify them, believed in an education and wanted it for their kids, a college education, minimum four years.
Because of what it meant.
It was the route.
It was the key.
It was the way to achieve dreams.
It was the way and the route to success.
Well, what's it become?
It's become shackles.
The amount of debt the average graduate who has a student loan incurs after graduation, whatever economic benefit a college education was supposed to engender, has been eaten up by the debt.
And who's been in charge of that?
What group of people has been in charge of administering education?
The establishment, the elites.
They have now fixed it so that the one route that American middle class families had for their kids to enjoy success in America has now become an albatross.
And they are fully aware of it.
What is the point of going to school and getting out with a debt of six or more figures that you're going to take the rest of your life paying off, no matter what job you get.
And who is benefiting from this?
Certainly not the student, not the family, not the graduates.
The colleges are benefiting.
The loan agencies are benefiting, which is the government now because they run the program.
So there's middle class distrust of all the best and brightest and the elites who are supposedly running things for the benefit of everybody.
It just isn't working out.
And that's why Trump is doing as well as he is.
Okay, so Hillary says Trump's speech was just more of this vast right wing conspiracy stuff.
It's all it was, and she's now demanding that corporations are not paying their people enough.
They got to start sharing their profits.
That's the way to get wages up.
We'll have uh fully uh fully uh expose A of this tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection