All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 9, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:13
September 9, 2016, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I've got so much to do here.
I'm about ready to dispense with the Open Line Friday jingle.
But I can't because it's part of the programming format.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday.
Yeah, there you have the Open Line Friday jingle.
Open Line Friday means callers can talk about whatever they want to talk about.
800, and we try to take more callers than usual, but you just never know.
It depends on how much I have here that I really care about.
Today, there's quite a bit.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
One thing about Hillary Clinton and this last story that I did about how she was sitting down to take the LSATs at Harvard, one of only two women to take the test.
And here came a bunch of bullies making her feel bad and making her feel nervous, threatening her, telling her, look, you don't need to be here.
You're a woman.
You don't need to pass this.
I got to pass this test.
I got to become a lawyer.
If not, they'll send me to Vietnam and I'll die.
Now, we sit here and laugh about it.
And some of the other things that Hillary said.
Folks, I don't want something to be missed here as we react to this stuff and it's genuinely funny.
But one thing that you should not overlook is in Hillary's mind, all these things really did happen.
She is part of the early wing of the modern era of feminists, which are defined by their rage.
I mean, she really does have rage over this.
Whether these things really happened or not, she's told herself enough times that if they specifically didn't happen, that it was still happening nevertheless.
And she's angry, but she's still carrying around chips on her shoulder.
I think much of liberalism is guided by a never-disappearing chip on their shoulder.
They're always mad, angry about some personal affront.
And it's always something that stood in their way.
It's always somebody being mean to them.
It's always somebody discriminating against them.
It's always somebody laughing at them or something along these lines.
And I think she can, I think this is why she's Nurse Ratchet.
I think she, remember Sonia Sotomayor, when she was nominated to the Supreme Court, we did a little background check on her, I mean, and just to learn about her.
And we found out how filled with rage she was at Princeton.
And we found out how particularly early feminists in the modern era used that rage, in fact, to bully institutions into behaving as they wanted to.
So the rage is real.
Sometimes it's acted, but it is nevertheless real.
But the bottom line meaning of it all, I think all this talk about how Hillary needs to warm up, she can't.
She's too perpetually peeved.
Have you ever known people that can't get over it?
You ever known people that they're 50 and they can't stop talking about how they got slighted in college, how somebody made fun of them on their first job or what they carry around with them and it festers.
And it's always effervescing.
And I think that's who she is.
I think as a modern era feminist, I think it's part and parcel of being one, is a certain level of constant rage and anger at being treated unfairly, at being not fully respected for your talents or what have you.
I don't, in fact, have any doubt about this.
So I think that is what explains all this.
And Hillary tells these stories attempting to evoke sympathy as well as spread the rage.
Playing the victim card, playing the gender card, playing all this is designed to make people feel sorry.
We're supposed to elect Hillary because we feel sorry for her.
We're supposed to elect her because she's been so discriminated against.
Why, she even left the White House broke, remember?
It was so bad, this vast right-wing conspiracy, all the things they did.
And at the root of it is undeniable truth of life number 24, my friend.
As crafted and authored by me.
Remember the story?
Georgetown University was going to, what were they going to do?
They were going to Extend, what was it, free admission to descendants of slaves who had worked at Georgetown or had been involved.
It wasn't a blanket free admission policy to any relative or descendant from slaves.
It had to have some tie to Georgetown.
Slaves who'd been, oh yeah, slaves who had been sold by Georgetown.
So if you could prove that you are a descendant of such a slave, they give you free admissions.
Well, there's even more.
Because you know, when you do that, it's never the end of anything.
It just opens up the doors.
From the Daily Caller, Georgetown slave descendants now want a billion-dollar reconciliation fund.
So Georgetown trying to be good libs, trying to be touchy feely.
Look how wonderful we are.
You know, we feel so guilty.
We feel so bad over our involvement in slavery that we are going to extend free admissions and whatever ruined board, whatever they're going to do, to anyone who was descendant of a slave who was bought or sold by Georgetown University back in the day.
Well, instead of being applauded and thanked and praised for doing the right thing, no, that's not, that's not going to get anywhere near covering.
The descendants of slaves sold by Georgetown University are now calling on the SCRUL to create a billion-dollar reconciliation fund only one week after the screw apologized for its role in the slave trade and promised several much cheaper efforts to make up for it.
You see, my friends, in 1838, Georgetown sold off 272 slaves in order to pay its debts.
They sold them for $115,000.
The equivalent is $3 million in today's money.
Now, in recent years, Georgetown has faced demands from activists who want it to atone for its actions, which took place 180 years ago.
Mr. Snurdly just sent me a note.
He says, I am one of those descendants.
Prove that I'm not.
Snerdley wants his take.
He wants his piece of the $1 billion, the $1 billion demand.
And on top of that, they're demanding reparations.
So they want, the descendants want a billion-dollar reconciliation fund.
And Snerdley's claiming that he's one of those descendants.
Friday, a broadcast engineer substitute today also claiming he is one of those descendants, and both Snerdley and Friday are challenging us to prove that they're not.
Well, I can't.
I can't prove that you're not in any way, shape, manner, or form.
So this, we're talking 272 slaves.
So you're going to have to prove that you're the descendant of one of 272 people.
Or maybe not.
Maybe, what will Georgetown do next?
Just pay off to make this go away?
And if they do that, I mean, they did, no, no, they didn't offer.
They didn't offer a billion dollars.
They opened a door.
They opened a door.
You're walking through.
They opened a door.
The descendants are now demanding a billion-dollar reconciliation fund.
Georgetown President John DeGioya, and I'm probably butchering that.
DeGoya, maybe, announced that Georgetown would offer a special admissions preference for any descendants of the 272 slaves that the screw will happen to sell.
He also promised to build an on-campus memorial and rename two buildings, one after a slave sold by the school, another after a woman who founded a local school for black girls.
Now, the advocates demanding the billion dollars say this is not reparations.
That's a whole different thing.
No, no, no, that's to come later.
This is not reparations.
This is a reconciliation fund.
North Korea has banned sarcasm.
Kim Jong-un.
Do you know what?
You've heard that the Norx launched what might have been a real nuke this time.
Did you happen to realize when they launched this nuke?
They launched this nuke right as Barry got out of town.
Obama's in Laos talking about how lazy Americans are.
And he gets on Air Force One, and shortly after he hits the skies and gets out of the area, the Norx, Kim Jong-un, launch a nuke.
Yeah.
And the now they've banned sarcasm.
Satire directed toward the regime will not be forgiven, says a source.
Mass meetings were organized by government to issue these warnings, included in the list of blacklisted phrases is, this is all America's fault.
What, has Obama been there?
Who's saying that?
This is all America's fault.
Citizens have also been banned from calling leader Kim Jong-un a fool.
They send you to the gallows.
Okay, going to take a brief time out here, my friends.
Another obscene profit break.
This is our equivalent of hitting the reload page at the Drudge Report.
And we'll be back and resume with your phone calls, so don't go away.
Okay, still to come on the program today.
Democrats and the media openly, very worried about the upcoming debates for Hillary based on the way she bombed with Matt Wauer in the presidential forum earlier this week.
And the column that I read from the Claremont Review book, the anonymous column, the Flight 93 election, I have chosen one piece, and there were many.
I've chosen one piece to the response to it to bounce off of, bounce off of, because it affords a really great opportunity to further explain and define conservatism in the eyes of many today.
And believe me, one of two things is going to happen.
It's going to enrage you and shock you, or one or the other.
And some of you might, yeah, make sense.
So probably get to that by the time we get to the next hour, maybe sooner, just depends on how things unfold here.
We're going to go back to the phones.
Now, this is Robert in Atlantic Beach, North Carolina.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Rush, thank you, sir.
First, let me say I'm grateful every single day that God gave you talent because you know what to do with it.
My comment is I was in the Pentagon on 9-11.
My office was 100 feet from the point of impact.
You remember the iconic flag picture.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, just a minute.
Before you go further, we need to explain something to people.
When I say that there's a Seahawks player to coach 9-11 Trutherd, part of that is believing that nothing happened to the Pentagon, that no plane hit, there's no evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon.
There's no residue, no nothing.
And there are people who actually believe that plane didn't hit the Pentagon.
You couldn't have been in your office at the time if it's only 100 feet away from the impact.
Well, Rush, if he would like to talk to my dead friends who perished that day, it might change his mind.
Oh, no, they think something happened.
They think the Pentagon blew it up itself or that the government, they just don't think that a plane hit it.
don't misunderstand.
People hold this belief, and the government flew the planes into the World Trade Center.
Well, as we, I'm sure you and I would agree, that's just simply hogwash.
And for those who were around the Pentagon and inside it, they certainly know the truth.
But I guess my comment was, if Mr. Kaepernick had been standing next to me on that day at that moment, would he view our national anthem any differently?
Now, I know we'll never know the answer to that because it's a hypothetical question.
But our national anthem, Rush, stands for a pathway to equality, as our flag does.
And it appears to me that Mr. Kaepernick does not want to follow that pathway to equality.
Our country was not perfect when it was formed.
Well, now, wait.
Let me make one stipulation as far as what these people claim.
The people that are sitting down or taking a knee and their supporters are specifically claiming that it is the flag that gives them the right to sit down to take a knee to dissent, that that is the meaning of the flag, that patriotism does not mean a required support for a country.
Patriotism can be principled dissent from a country if it's doing things that you disagree.
And the flag permits this.
This is how they're explaining it and rationalizing it.
I understand their point.
I don't know that I necessarily agree with it because I think that there is a reverence that we give to those who created this nation.
That's true.
But there's another question needs to be asked about this.
We're back at it, folks.
Now, on this 9-11 truth stuff, there are two elements to it.
In the World Trade Center, nobody's denying the planes hit.
The 9-11 truthers believe that planes hitting high up in the building as they did are not enough to bring the buildings down.
They believe that the planes being flown into the building was done on purpose, and then there were charges and dynamo, whatever it was, strategically placed inside each building that were then detonated after the planes hit to bring the buildings down.
They can't tell you why.
Well, maybe some of them can.
But they can't deny the planes hit because there's video of that.
But some of them do dispute who was flying the planes.
Believe it or not, I mean, the 9-11 conspiracies are all over the place.
And they have various bits of evidence, claimed evidence, like certain people getting out of town the day before because they knew what was going to happen, this kind of stuff.
Now, in the Pentagon, since all there is is a flash photo of the explosion, there's no picture such as there were of the trade center towers of the plane actually hitting.
There's just the testimony of the people on the ground.
There's no question something happened there.
The 9-11 truthers believe that it wasn't a plane.
They'll claim to you that there's no evidence.
Look at this.
I just had me talking about this.
Look at Fox showing videotape of the towers blazing.
If you're watching it by any chance, the truthers believe that just because the planes hit the top of the buildings, there's no way that would bring down those two buildings.
Something else had to happen.
And then, of course, the government wanted it because the government wanted it to get the people conditioned to go to war, all of this.
Now, the Pentagon truthers, and the reason this has even come up is because there's a couple of people in the Seattle Seahawks who happen to be 9-11 truthers, and they are planning, or were, to boycott the national anthem in the opening game on Sunday in Seattle.
Supposedly, an update's come down the pike.
They're not going to do that.
So they say.
So this has given rise to all of this discussion.
Now, our last caller, clearly a lot of people believe that when you hear the national anthem, see the flag, you stand up, because it is to honor America.
And in fact, many public address announcers ask you to stand and honor America while the playing of the national anthem.
Now, the people that are sitting down are taking a knee.
Let me read to you, just remind you what Kaepernick said, Colin Kaepernick of the San Francisco Fortagers.
I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.
To me, this is bigger than football.
And it would be selfish on my part to look the other way.
There are bodies in the street, people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.
Now, I don't detect a freedom of speech issue in that statement.
But what's happening, people in defending Kaepernick, this is classic.
I'll never forget.
You all remember back in the early 90s, it might have been late 80s, a huge public debate that I think even involved Supreme Court over flag burning.
And there was a crowd that was all for it.
If you believed in America, you have to permit people to burn the flag.
That's what the flag stands for.
The flag, they said, stands for your freedom to burn it, to rip it to shreds, to sit on it, to flush it, whatever.
That's exactly what this country means.
have your freedom to dissent and you can express your dissent in non-violent ways, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And people today are justifying the actions of Kaepernick and now Doug Baldwin from the he's the Seahawks player.
Broncos player last night was Brandon Marshall, number 54, an outside linebacker, sat down, or took a knee.
And people are saying, well, that's what flag means.
I mean, that's what the flag stands for.
The flag means that you can dissent.
And this has given rise to the predictable subject matter of patriotism.
What does it mean?
And so many people on the left want to define patriotism as dissenting.
In fact, Hillary Clinton did.
You remember that screeching, squawking soundbite we have of her, where she's literally screaming.
It's from 2008.
It is in New Hampshire as part of the presidential campaign.
And this administration can't tell us.
And finally, patriotism means being able to tell this country they wanted it.
Okay, fine.
So patriotism to the left means being able to criticize the country, to burn the flag, what have you.
I understand that.
I just want to know, where does it end?
If patriotism is, at some point, does it become patriotic to destroy the country?
How far does that definition of patriotism extend?
And some people say, well, yeah, it does Russia, even Thomas Jefferson said at some point revolutions need new blood.
At some point, guarantee freedom, you got to spill some blood.
At some point, it might be necessary for future populations of the country to overthrow the government, and that the flag stands for your right to do that.
Well, I don't, my problem with, I understand all that intellectually, but I also intellectually understand the left.
And they do not, in my mind, their changes they want to make to this country are not improvements at all.
They don't like it, and they want to tear it down and rebuild it into something that it was never intended to be.
Now, does patriotism, do they have the freedom to do that?
I guess they do.
They have the freedom to try.
But to sit around and applaud it and to honor it, I don't know.
I remember getting into knockdown drag outs with friends over the flag burning thing.
And my take on it was, yeah, you might be persuasive in that it's entirely legal.
It ought not be punishable.
But where does it end?
I've always wanted to know about the motivations of people.
I admittedly have a love for this country, and I'm very frustrated at people that don't.
But I know they exist.
I know what their grievances are.
I just disagree profoundly with them.
And I think the reasons they feel the way they feel are, while they may think they're legit, I think they're immature and childish.
If their ideas were to improve things, that would be one thing.
But I don't see much of this leftist dissent as ending up improving things.
That's where I've always come down on this.
But we are clearly in the midst of a roiling debate over the very existence, foundation, structure of this country and what America is going to be.
And there's a whole crowd of people, and I don't know how big it is, we'll find out, that believes most of this country is unjust.
That most of this country, that any aspect of this country that you can trace to the founding is immoral.
That any aspect of America today that you can trace to the founding is unjust and needs to be stripped.
And of course, I have a completely different view.
I think the things that happened that resulted in the founding of this country are miraculous.
And even though I intellectually understand the people who have grievances, emotionally I don't get it.
I don't know.
It's a real sore spot, and it's been a constant source of concern of mine.
Because I don't know where else in the world you could live that you would be afforded with the freedom and the opportunity.
And even if you want to talk about things like equality, like if that's the number one thing to you, or non-discrimination, I don't care where you go.
There's no better place on earth.
We are the luckiest people that have ever lived on this planet.
And all it takes is a little perspective to realize that.
And then a mature admission that nothing's perfect.
But one of the fallacies of the left is that they believe that humanity is in its own existence imperfect, flawed, but that can be perfected.
Humanity can be perfected, but only with the power of a massive central government in forcing things such as behavior and belief on people.
And in that way, you make people perfect, even if you have to force them to do things against their nature and against their will.
If you want to create this utopia, this perfect place, since there's going to be natural opposition, you have to stamp that out and you have to have a massive command and control central authority, which, quote-unquote, understands this desire for perfection, understands what the perfection is, and then how to implement it, which of course is totally fallacious.
It simply isn't possible.
There isn't the perfect.
And there's no way to enforce it.
It's been tried.
I don't know how many times.
It's failed miserably each time it's tried.
In fact, the things I'm saying now actually have somewhat of a relationship to the column that I have chosen that reacts to the column I read the Flight 93 election.
And you will see when I begin that discussion.
It's not going to be lengthy, but it's going to be somewhat in depth because it's going to be Burkean.
It's going to involve Burke.
And when you talk Burke, when you're talking Burke Eisen, Edmund Burke, now you're in the weeds.
Now you're into what real conservatism is.
And I'm going to get into that.
It'll help you understand where the quote-unquote intellectual conservatives are in all of this and what they think is their role.
And it might surprise you.
For example, how many of you think that the purpose of conservatism is to someday win and dominate and have conservative beliefs and conservative lifestyles, conservative principles be the majority of belief and thought and behavior in the country?
How many of you believe that's one of the objectives?
Many of you probably do.
You would be shocked to know how many intellectual conservatives think it's impossible and is foolish to even try and is not what's supposed to be the case.
That's not the role of conservatives.
In their view, you know what the role of conservatives is?
To keep the left from careening totally out of control.
Acknowledging the left is going to win, acknowledging that liberalism is going to win all the time, but making sure it doesn't take the country off the rails.
That's what many intellectual conservatives believe conservatism is.
Is that what you think you signed up for?
Just to be sort of a set of guardrails against extreme wacko leftist behavior?
In other words, did you sign up to be on the Washington Generals and win a couple now and then?
No, I didn't either.
Take a break.
Back more after this.
Don't go away.
And we go back to the phones at Clover, South Carolina.
Stewart, welcome to the program, sir.
Hello.
Hello.
Thanks for taking my call.
I'll try and be brief and concise here.
But my call is about this, a lot of what you've been talking about, everything around this false narrative of cops shooting unarmed blacks.
It's just not true.
We know that the stats show that they're not using lethal force against blacks more so than whites.
And even if it were true, the question.
By the way, let me just intercede because a lot of people.
What do you mean it's not true?
Rush, you're letting him get away.
DOJ, Department of Justice Statistics, folks, the caller is right.
There is no proportionally greater number of, and the whole thing is so vastly made up that it's near criminal itself, the way this whole belief, that unarmed innocent blacks are not being wantonly murdered by the cops in this country.
It just isn't.
Now they are being murdered by other blacks in far greater numbers, but we're not supposed to talk about that.
That's a whole other subject, and you're not qualified because you're not black, so you can't talk about that.
But anyway, I just don't want people to think that I'm letting you run off the rails here uncorrected because the DOJ stats back him up.
Now, what's your point?
Well, I mean, even if it were true, the question would be if it was justifiable.
I mean, if the unarmed person tries to arm themselves by taking a cop's gun, that cop is justified and using lethal force.
But regardless, I believe this whole false narrative was started and has been perpetuated by a fear of the left that they're worried that Hillary is not going to get the vote that Obama got, especially in the context that Obama has done nothing for the African American society and everything has gotten worse under him.
I think they've started to perpetuate this whole meme.
Wait a minute.
I just want to make sure.
Are you saying that Kaepernick sitting down during the anthem is because they think Hillary's not going to win and they're worried?
No, I think Kaepernick sitting down is his belief of this false narrative, and it's now causing him to denounce the whole country.
I mean, he's sitting down for the anthem and the flag, and he's going to believe this.
I watched something you mentioned recently about the cops that were mentioned that were killed in Dallas.
You said something to the effect of if these people really believe that cops are out there hunting them down, it might drive them to go commit some atrocity like that.
And now you've got people that really believe this that are, it's just a dangerous false narrative.
And it's now causing people, and it's spreading through social media like wildfire.
And it's causing a whole group of people that, you know, among the sports fandom that may not be into the daily news or politics or anything like that, and they just get their news from social media, and now they see this high visibility sports car that's taking this stand.
It's like the whole false story of Ferguson.
Hands up, don't shoot.
It didn't happen.
It literally didn't happen.
And no less than the Department of Justice, Obama's own DOJ, has said it didn't happen.
But yet, Colin Kaepernick, who knows what he knows, he might think it does happen.
It did happen.
He might think it's all a lie when people deny it.
So the caller's point is that people are believing a bunch of myths.
They're getting angry about it as though it were true.
And they're taking action based on it.
This is inciting social media.
And all of it's based on things that aren't true, which is dangerous.
All of that is true, but there are people promoting this who know it isn't true.
People you never hear of behind the scenes, people like George Soros and others funding it, they know it isn't true.
They don't care.
They want the chaos.
They want the anger and what have you.
Back in just a second, folks.
Hey, quick question.
▲
Export Selection