All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 17, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:13
August 17, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Music expressed by the hosts on this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be staying.
I may end up being the last voice standing here, folks.
800 282-2882 if you want to.
If you want to be on the program that's a little private joke there between Mr. Snerdley and me.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882 and a new email address.
L Rushbow at EIB net U.S. Okay, so the news keeps pouring in in ways I was not expecting.
Transgender rules for homosexual shelters spark fire storm.
USDA granting money to lesbians who want to become farmers.
And so now there's this uh interesting support document here.
Same-sex couples.
This is businessinsider.com.
Same-sex couples are more likely to have college degrees than opposite sex couples.
See how that works.
Gay couples are smarter.
Gay couples are more sophisticated.
Gay couples are more reasonable.
Gay couples are more hip.
Gay couples are where it's at.
Gay couples are more likely to have college degrees than opposite sex couples.
Now the sentence actually says same sex versus opposite, not homosexual versus heterosexual.
That's part of the new terminology as well.
Same-sex couples more likely to have college degrees than opposite sex couples.
Interestingly, while married opposite sex couples are more likely than unmarried couples to have bachelor's degrees.
The opposite is the case for gay couples.
Gay couples also have higher incomes than straight couples.
Did you know that?
Married gay couples.
See what you straight people have been missing out on.
Married gay couples with an average household income of about 115,000 make slightly more money than unmarried gay couples, whose average is 111,223.
For straight couples, the gap between married and unmarried couples much higher.
Married straight couples make 101,000 per year on average.
So that means that married gay couples make 14,000 a year more on average now than married straight couples.
Seems like gay couples are doing pretty well out there.
Doesn't seem like they're the victim of much discrimination out there.
Maybe it's the single gay and lesbian people who are being discriminated against.
And by the way, when it comes to lesbians, they do pretty well too.
In a survey of 29 studies published in January 2015, the University of Washington found an average earnings premium of 9% for lesbians over heterosexual women.
This is incredible news.
Same-sex couples are more likely to be more educated in opposite sex couples.
Same-sex couples earn much more money, and lesbians also earn more than straight women.
All this under the headline, here's some of the demographic and economic characteristics of America's gay couples.
Folks, I'm telling you, the full court press is on.
It's just not bad.
No matter where you turn, you can't escape this fact.
If you are conservative Republican, straight and white, you are yesterday.
You are so yesterday, you are so irrelevant, you are so unnecessary.
That seems to be the tone of much of the hip reporting as it's taking place today.
In other kind of oddball news, this is uh out of uh Baltimore from the U.S. Daily Caller.
Sources say that a Baltimore police lieutenant has been suspended after sending an email that referred to protesters Of the Black Lives Matter movement as thugs.
Lieutenant Victor Gearhart, a police union leader, sent the email out to the entire force, reports Baltimore CBS Eyeball News in the email.
Lieutenant Victor Gearhart warns the police force to expect more bad behavior from protesters.
He writes that the protesting might distract them from killing each other.
He says by now you've seen that the thugs from Black Lives Matter and other similar groups have attempted to disrupt the State for Turtle Order of Police Convention being held at the Hyatt Regency.
So he's been suspended for writing that.
Baltimore police lieutenant suspended after calling Black Lives Matter protesters thugs.
Well, let's let's resume the audio sound bites, and we're gonna go back to last night on the five on the Fox News Channel.
They were discussing Black Lives Matter.
And me.
Co-host Juan Williams starts it all off playing a clip from this program.
Let me ask Dana to respond to Rush Limbaugh.
Here's Rush Limbaugh.
Black Lives Matter plans to shut down Graceland this week.
Elvis Presley's Graceland Week, apparently.
People show up, and the coalition of concerned citizens, I think Black Lives Matter is almost approaching unionized gang status now.
They're rabble rousers, and they're gonna go into an event that's always peaceful and try to cause trouble.
Well, Dana, the Black Lives Matter is not in Milwaukee, but Rush seems to think this is like uh a contagion.
See, see how this works.
So they've got their little show here, and they play a clip for me, and then they go to the Dana Dana Perino, I think she occupies the school teacher seat.
You know, you've got the round table in that show, and you've got the kids, and she's she reminds me of the teacher in that setting, the school marb, if you will.
She's the one that's casting the the glances, either approving or disparaging as each of the kids make their comments on that show.
Just my characteristic.
It's not an insult, it's just a it's an observation.
So anyway, Juan Williams, after playing that clip for me, then goes to Dana Perino and asks for her to react to it.
I don't think that that's unreasonable necessarily, especially because of social media.
This problem is not going to be solved on talk radio or on cable news, but that really diving deep into these communities is what could solve it.
No value system can be in place if the focus is always on survival.
So that's like Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
I think it actually gets down to that basic level.
Because we can talk about it on cable news, but we're actually not doing anything to help solve it.
Well, now that's fascinating to me.
Because she could say that about anything they talk about.
She could say that about the presidential race.
She could say that about.
Well, pick a subject.
Pick a subject that she could say, well, you know, it isn't going to be solved here on the five.
I mean, we can talk about all day long.
It isn't going to be solved here on our show.
It isn't going to be solved on the Fox News channel.
It isn't going to be solved on cable news.
It isn't going to be solved on talk radio.
So it's interesting that in this instance she chooses to point out that the problem is not going to be solved on their round table.
She doesn't disagree with me, by the way.
She says, I don't think that's unreasonable necessarily.
Meaning my comment.
Now she doesn't disagree, but then she says we're not going to solve this problem on talk radio.
Which is true.
I mean, that's nobody's laboring under disillusionment on that, I don't think.
Anyway, the answer to this is political.
The answer to this is ideological.
You know what this is almost like?
You know how the regime will not identify terrorists.
They won't even use the word terrorism, and the regime clearly will not ever use the words militant Islamic terrorism or anything related to it.
By the same token, I think a bunch of people on our side of the aisle are in the process of being intimidated To the point that they will not correctly identify these leftist protest groups as being something other than protest groups.
These are not protests.
When five cops are shot, eleven cops are targeted.
When act action like that, or Milwaukee, or take your favorite example, these are not protests, these are riots.
These are planned strategic timed riots.
And they're usually tied to not a specific event, but to a cause.
But if we're not going to be honest about what this is, if we're not going to be honest, we were not honest about Occupy Wall Street.
The Tea Party, I can't tell you how it shook people up.
The Tea Party is amazing.
The Tea Party was truly one of the only organic developments in politics in recent history.
The Tea Party had no leader.
It didn't have a single voice that was motivating it, mobilizing it, inspiring it.
All of that was done by Barack Obama.
And primarily two things Obamacare and amnesty.
And maybe throw in spending.
Those three things caused people who had never before been politically active, other than voting, to come out of their homes and start joining protest marches, attending town halls, harassing and interrogating I don't mean harassing, but participating in town halls, demanding answers from elected officials.
They were predominantly Republican and conservative.
It had never happened before, and it scared everybody.
It scared Washington.
It scared Washington establishment types of both parties.
It scared them to death, precisely because there wasn't a leader they could demonize to destroy it.
It was the essence, it was the epitome of grassroots.
So they created Occupy Wall Street.
They literally manufactured Occupy Wall Street with donor money and tried to make it look organic.
They tried to make Occupy Wall Street appear to be something that rose up in opposition to the Tea Party.
No such thing happened.
Not organically.
They created it.
They manufactured it.
They funded it.
They chose the leaders.
They planned the strategy.
They orchestrated much of what Occupy Wall Street did.
It was not a protest movement.
It was an agitation squad of the left, the progressive movement, the Democrat Party, and its purpose was to take out the Tea Party.
Its purpose was to give the media a show.
Its purpose was to steer the media to the direction of Occupy Wall Street so they could focus on it as larger than the Tea Party and organic.
It was a mechanism created whereby the Tea Party could be denigrated, marginalized, or what have you.
But the Tea Party was genuine.
Occupy Wall Street wasn't.
Occupy Wall Street flittered away after it had served its purpose.
They simply pulled up stakes, they stopped the funding, and it went away.
The Tea Party never did coalesce around a single leader.
What happened to the Tea Party was also sad to say, what happened to the Tea Party was a bunch of groups sprang up attempting to represent themselves as Tea Party,
and they started seeking donations to spread the Tea Party gospel, to do the Tea Party work.
And as such, people were excited by the Tea Party.
They donated to these groups.
Where are the groups now?
I mean, you don't even hear about them.
And you don't hear about the Tea Party much.
And so Black Lives Matter is simply the child, if you will, of Occupy Wall Street.
The left started this group, defined however you wish, but it wasn't organic and it wasn't made up of average citizens that'd never been involved in politics before.
These were renamobs that were bought and paid for, and they were given marching orders.
And Black Lives Matter sprung into gear, primarily with George Soros money.
George Soros' objective is to agitate and vibrate the United States into a crumbling state of disrepair.
Black Lives Matter is one of the many organizations he funds to do this.
And now they've just collected a 100 million dollar donation from the Ford Foundation and the Borealis Philanthropy, proving that they are part of the left wing, the progressive movement agitation squad for lack of a better term.
But if we're not going to be honest about this, you know, Dana Perina says, well, we're not going to solve this and talk.
Nobody said we were.
But we're not going to solve it either if we don't properly identify it.
And if people continue to get away with misrepresenting what Black Lives Matter is, Black Lives Matter is not organic.
It didn't spring up because people are mad over what happened in Ferguson or in Baltimore.
This was created.
As I say, the child of Occupy Wall Street, and it serves a purpose.
It's made to look like it's organic.
The Democrats working with the media have the ability to characterize anything any way they want it.
It is political.
Black lives matter is political and it is ideological.
And it is part of liberalism.
It is exactly the kind of thing you get with liberalism.
And it isn't new.
The SDS, students of Democrats Society, you name it, all of the Black Panthers, or whether underground.
No matter how those groups started, they were all embraced by the Democrat Party.
Or liberalism or what have you.
Quick timeout, my friends, we'll be back.
We will continue after this.
Your phone calls are coming next.
I saw this.
Wonkett.
Whoever runs the Wonket site now.
Uh it was started by one uh young woman who now went on to Time Magazine.
I don't know who runs Wonket.
Anyway, whoever runs that website, they've just published a post in the last 12 hours.
You know what?
We believe Bill Clinton actually raped Juanita Brondrick.
We actually think he did.
But they say, that was rape as it was defined back then.
That would not be rape today.
And besides, he hasn't done it since.
And he's a good guy.
So no sweat.
That's essentially what they say.
Yeah, he probably did rape her.
Yeah, yeah.
But it's not rape as we would call it today.
It was just alpha male sex.
Back then when Clinton did that.
And he hasn't done it since.
So he's a good guy, so so he he doesn't matter.
It was a long time ago.
And that's the official.
That was a lockdown.
A bunch of stories, a bunch of websites have picked that up.
This was a Daily Caller picked it up.
Yeah, I saw that last night.
Okay, Michael in Cleveland, you're next as we go to the phones.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hi.
Hey, Russia.
Uh, thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
I just wanted to point something out that may be a slight inaccuracy uh at the beginning of your show.
Um you said that the left was inaccurately characterizing farmers as rich and white, and that they wanted to infiltrate the last area of conservatism.
And I just wanted to make an observation.
I was out in Iowa visiting some family members, and I did see most of the farmers were rich.
They were white, and most of them were liberal.
I mean, Iowa went for Obama twice, so they may have already been able to get into the last fashion of conservative.
Now wait a minute.
Iowa's specific is that's ethanol, and that's a that's a uh a federal subsidy, you know, gasoline additive.
That's corn.
Yes.
And there is no ideology when it comes to corn.
They want the subsidy.
They want the federal government to require the use of ethanol.
That means corn is going to always be priced high.
The people I had in mind, the family farm, though the guys you're talking about are rich comparatively.
Some of them are even corporate.
But I'm talking about the family farm in a place like Kansas or Wyoming or anywhere you find them.
Outside of the ethanol example.
I mean, I'd we'd have to take more phone calls on this, but I'm I'm pretty safe in saying that most farmers, individual, family farm kind of people, do not consider themselves rich.
Not as that term is conveniently thrown around.
Now, the agriculture business produces a lot of wealth.
And there is, you know, big agriculture like Archer Daniels, Midland and so forth.
I mean, there's huge money in it, and corporate farming is a whole different thing from the family farm.
But this story is really about the federal government, USDA, dangling huge amounts of federal money to lesbians to go out and become farmers.
That's the real thrust of the story.
Why would that be happening?
What could be the reason for that?
And it's it's abundantly obvious what you think of the livestock.
I mean, there's any number of um.
Okay, so there's Hillary.
She's in Cleveland.
The networks are carrying her speech, and she's saying that we need to start a national infrastructure bank to rebuild roadways.
Now I know, folks, my reaction is the same as yours.
Tell me if this isn't it.
Why don't people realize Obama promised to do that in 2009 with the stimulus bill, and it hasn't happened.
We spent nearly a trillion dollars in that stimulus, around $800 billion.
It was for roads, bridges, school repair.
And here's Hillary campaigning for president eight years later claiming we need to rebuild roads, bridges, and schools.
We need to rebuild the infrastructure.
And you're asking, why don't people realize they're being lied to?
Why don't people realize that this stuff needs to be fixed?
Because with Democrats in control is why it deteriorates.
I'm with you.
I don't know.
I think people here, let's admit who we're talking about.
We're talking about the low information crowd.
We're talking about people that don't pay close attention all the time, and all they hear is the intentions.
And they may not remember.
They may have heard Clinton or Obama promise it, and they may have thought it was great, and they may have thought the stimulus was fabulous.
And they probably think that Obama's gotten started on it.
But that we need more work to do because they trust the intentions of these people.
That's where we have gotten snookered.
They trust their intentions.
These Democrats are never judged on the basis of their results.
But everything they've tried has bombed.
There isn't any economic recovery.
There isn't massive job creation.
Obamacare is falling apart, but that happens to be by design.
Obamacare is right on schedule, folks.
Democrats are not going to be hurt by this.
You would think, just to illustrate a point here.
We had the story yesterday that, and by the way, Brian and Tampa, hang on.
I'm getting to you next.
I really want to talk to you, so don't get impatient here.
Just hang with me for a second.
We had the story yesterday of Aetna, big crony uh health insurance company, got in bed with Obama for Obamacare, pulling out of 11 exchanges.
They have lost 400 million dollars in Obamacare.
They're getting out.
They're abandoning it.
This is got and and Kaiser Permanente, Blue Cross Blue Shield, they're all pulling out.
Obamacare is said to be, even in the mainstream media, on its last legs.
It is in dire straits.
Where are the Democrats on TV defending it?
Where is Schumer?
Where's Pelosi?
Where's Harry Reid?
Where's Obama?
Where are they telling people not to worry that it's still going to work?
They're not even concerned about it, are they?
The very people that gave us Obamacare are not even bothered by this news, are they?
Why?
Because it's the design.
Let me predict what you're going to hear.
And it isn't going to be very long, and it may even be part of Hillary's campaign before she's through.
Well, we tried market-based solutions.
We tried working with the insurance companies.
But you see, the insurance companies did nothing but raise prices.
Exactly what happens when government doesn't control them, she will say.
She will blame these corporations for being greedy, not Obama.
She won't blame Obama or herself.
She'll insist that the premium should have come down $2,500, that you should have been able to keep your doctor.
That was part of the original plan.
But these companies, why they just ran out of control.
And we weren't able to stop them.
And so what they will tell people is that they gave market-based solutions a shot when there is nothing market-based about Obamacare from the get-go.
There's not a single thing market-based about when you are required by law to purchase health insurance, there's no such thing as market-based economics involved.
It's not definitionally possible.
But even beyond that, the degree to which the federal government's involved in every aspect, there's no market-based aspect of Obamacare.
It's total top-down command and control.
But the circumstances everybody's forced to play, the insurance companies and the consumers, there's no way it can work as designed by design.
The design features, Mrs. Clinton shortly saying in public, we tried our market-based solutions.
We listened to the critics, and we let the market dominate Obamacare, and we see how the market failed as it usually does, and they're going to make the pitch for single payer.
as the solution.
That's why you're not seeing any panic on the Democrat side over all these companies pulling out of the exchanges.
It's why you're not seeing any panic whatsoever about the rising prices and people's inability to pay it It's all by design.
I can take you back to 2010 when this is being debated, and I could get tapes from my show back then or transcripts, and I can point out how I said everything that's happening now was going to happen, because I know liberalism, and I know what they intended with this, because Obama even said so in 2007.
Speaking to the employees International Union, SEIU.
He promised them.
He said we can't do single payer right off the bat.
The American people won't put up for it.
It may take us a few years.
They've got to be, they're going to be gradually steered into it.
And the gradual steering is what's been happening since he signed Obamacare into law.
And my point is, the low information crowd, you're thinking, why don't they blame the Democrats?
Why don't they, why don't they understand that Democrats lied to them?
My contention is because they trust the Democrats' intentions.
They will sit out, well, Obama wanted it to work.
He wanted premiums to come down.
He wanted me to be able to get cheaper health insurance.
He wanted the uninsured to be insured.
I could see how you took it hurt him that it didn't work.
But he tried, at least he tried.
And the same reaction.
Whenever any government boondoggle fails, well, at least they tried.
They just they trust their intentions.
You're never supposed to judge them by their results.
Great society failure.
Obama economic recovery, failure.
Obamacare, failure.
Obama stimulus package, failure.
Obama wind energy, solar energy subsidies program, failures.
Every damn one of them failure, except from his perspective, massive successes.
Because in each one, he can say, we tried market-based solutions.
We tried to make market dominant in our in our programs, and you just see the market because the inherent greed Or whatever excuse they will give failed.
Thereby justifying the adored and the loved federal government to come in and fix it for everybody.
Ignoring the fact that we're in the messes that we're in precisely because of incompetent, bumbling fools running the federal government, such as this crowd.
Why more people don't see it?
There's a bunch of reasons.
But in many cases, many of them don't want to see it.
Just like it's like Dana Perino on that on that Fox show when she said, Well, look, she was asked by Juan Williams to respond to what I said about Black Lives Matter being almost now a quasi union gang operation.
Well, we're not gonna solve this here on the five.
We're not gonna solve this and talk radio.
We're not gonna solve this on cable news.
You could say that about anything they discuss.
Pick your topic, they do a discussion sec segment on the five, but you're not gonna solve anything.
John McLaughlin just died, 30 years McLachlan Group didn't solve a thing, not the purpose of the program.
The purpose of the five on the Fox industry, not to solve anything.
So why say well we're not gonna solve it here.
My contention is that's just a convenient way to avoid discussing it.
When you don't want to talk about it, for whatever reason, just say, hey, you know, we're not gonna solve this here.
It's not what we do.
Because you could say that about everything they discuss.
And not just I'm just talking about cable anywhere, not just Fox, CNN, MSNBC.
But I don't think anybody's under the impression that that's where things get solved in the first place.
Anyway, uh Brian in Tampa's got a great question coming up, if he holds on.
I think he will.
We'll get to it right after this obscene profit timeout.
Hillary Clinton's infrastructure bank is nothing more than a sophisticated Monday laundering operation, just as Obama's.
We're gonna fix the roads and the bridges and we're gonna rebuild school.
It was a money laundering scandal, a scheme, and Hillary seemingly wants to repeat it.
And I'll explain it for those of you who have forgotten it.
But here's Brian in Tampa.
I'm glad you called Brian.
I appreciate your patience in holding on as well.
You bet Rush, hey, uh an EIB, or I should say EIB loyalist ever since September 1988.
So giga ditto from Man, oh man, you're lifer.
You're a lifer.
You betcha, uh, from Florida's West Coast.
I never want parole, Rush.
I am a lifer.
Uh from Florida's West Coast, where we're still anxiously awaiting hearing from the Justice Brothers on Black Lives Matter.
But in the meantime, we at least have your fantastic impression of Hillary Rodham, and you do a terrific Savannah Guthrie as well.
I don't know anybody else doing Savannah Guthrie, so roll on Rush.
Hey, you've been telling us for decades now.
Don't panic.
I'll tell you when to panic.
Well, what I want to know is what form should that panic take, and also what your criteria are for invoking this pandemonium.
All right, now, Brian, you are a clever and funny guy, and some might even describe you as flippant.
Not I, but but some people listening might be.
I'm gonna take your your your question seriously because I do get this now and then.
Now, you don't mind me taking it seriously, do you?
That's the only way I would want you to.
Okay, because if you want to get witty, please do.
Yeah, here's okay.
But what I hear you saying is, you know what I thought he said?
I can't tell you what I thought he said.
When he said, if you want to get witty, please do.
I thought he said something began with an L instead of witty.
I'm thinking, holy smokes, what but nevertheless, people ask me, what you're asking me is Rush, you have always told us when it's time to panic.
Is it time to panic?
That's essentially what you're asking, right?
No, I want to know how I look, I'm not a prepper, but I want to be prepared for this.
I want to know what form the panic should take.
Guide us, please.
In other words, you want to know what to do once you have panicked, what what that actually will mean in terms of your behavior.
You betcha.
All right.
Well, that adds a new perspective to this.
But the time to panic, the reason that that I'm intrigued by this is I actually, I'm aware I've said this over the years, and oftentimes I said it uh in a jocular fashion, but I also meant it.
And people knew that I meant it.
And many people think it's time to panic.
That we're there, that we are at the tipping point.
And I get the question sometimes off the air.
We haven't had a caller with this question in a while.
But I have uh knowing that that that I have created this expectation, I have been pondering how I would answer this.
And my answer is I it it it would appear that it's time to panic, but I don't think that it is.
If panic means conceding that we've lost then I'm not there.
And I think many people, and I don't mean this presidential race, I mean the country I uh I've always assumed that when people heard me say, I'll tell you when it's time to panic that many of them might have thought I'll tell you when I think we've lost the country meaning there's no point in fighting on so rush you tell us when we've reached that point because then we've got to obviously change the way we live look
at things and I don't think it's that time at least I'm not ready to concede that we've lost the country I don't know because of my makeup that I will ever actually get to a point where I want to stand down and just let them have it.
I don't know that I'm ever going to get to the point where I say to myself you know what folks we don't have any hope now.
The only hope we've got is that this whole thing falls apart and implodes on everybody and everybody's miserable everybody loses everything and we start anew that I I we're not near that yet.
Some people think we are, but I don't.
Because I actually believe, I really do, I'm Reagan-esque in this.
I think that immorality, on a large scale, will ultimately implode on itself.
Now, Reagan offered that belief about communism and spirituality.
specifically the Soviet Union he was adamant that something as immoral and heinous as Soviet communism could survive at some point it would destroy itself because it would eat itself alive it it it would it would it would destroy the food chain i.emorality
They see immorality as a ticket to great wealth.
They see immorality as a fast route to fame.
It seems that the more immoral, the more outrageous, the more outside accepted norms a thing is or a person is, the more notoriety it gets and the more notoriety it gets, the more fame attaches and then the bigger curiosity it becomes and the greater its audience.
And rather than facing universal condemnation, this behavior, this immorality, whatever it is, could be the way a government operates or an individual, is fueled.
And I don't deny that either.
I just, at some point, and I believe this my whole life and I've specifically believed it during the whole life of this program, that at some point all of this that is going wrong, wrong is is is is going to backfire or implode.
Now I don't mean in and of itself there It's going to take little nods, pushes, shoves here, this is what we're doing.
And you on occasion.
But in terms of reaching the point where, okay, folks, time to panic, meaning we've lost it, the country's finished as you and I know it.
It's time to stop wasting energy trying to fix it.
We're not there.
Now, the behavioral patterns that should accompany a panic.
The panic, if you think, hey, we better all get serious, or we're gonna lose this.
That may be, we may be at that, whether we are at that point, whether panic is what's called for is another thing.
But the behavioral aspects of that, well, that's easy.
But I'm out of time at the at the moment.
But we will continue with this if you just hang in there.
We got some sound bites of Trump's speech last night in Milwaukee, really worth hearing because his campaign moves gave the media an excuse not to talk about it.
And I want you to hear some of it.
▲
Export Selection