All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 20, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:28
September 20, 2016, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Views expressed by the host on this program are riveting the nation and have done so for 28 years.
And that's because the views expressed by the host on this program are documented to be almost always right, 99.8% of the time, and are always fascinating and interesting and compelling, and you can't turn it off once you turn it on.
You might even be trying to right now.
It just can't do it.
Happy to have you with us.
Rachel's in there rolling your eyes.
800 282-2882 if you want to be on the program on the email address, Lrushmore at EIBNet.com.
Okay, folks, just one more thing from the Victor Davis Hansen piece, and I'm going to leave the rest of it up to you to find and read on your own.
Again, it is it is yet another piece, maybe the one, the definitive piece, aimed at never Trumpers.
Asking them, do you really know what you're doing here?
This segment of the piece is entitled an overdue reckoning, and it deals with the people who are out there on the never Trump side criticizing Trump because he's not conservative.
Not conservative enough, not a real conservative.
He's going to destroy the conservative movement.
If we vote for this guy, if we support this guy, we're throwing the conservative movement overboard.
If we if we support Trump, we're essentially saying that everything we believed in for the last 30, 50 years has meant nothing if we're willing to invest in this guy.
There's a lot of never Trumpers that think that, that they would deal conservatism a mortal blow if they were to compromise their beliefs and support Trump.
And in a certain set of circumstances, yeah, there wasn't there'd be no doubt that that is true.
But in this set of circumstances, where conservatism is not the most important thing at stake, watch me get savaged for that.
But to a lot of people, conservatism is the most important thing at stake.
It is the only thing at stake here.
That and maybe the Republican Party.
And look, I understand those people who think that way.
If it's their livelihood, if it's their living, if it's their future, I get it.
But Mr. Hanson's argument here is that it's not the most important thing going on in the moment.
Conservatism, conservative movement.
But more than that, the very people out there, that's what this next segment's about, the very people in the never Trump crowd who are calling Trump out for not being conservative, may not be all that conservative themselves.
To wit.
The old Wall Street Journal adherents to open borders.
That's not so conservative.
At least not for those on the front lines of illegal immigration, and without the means to navigate around the concrete ramifications of the open borders ideologies of apartheid elites.
Again, let me translate.
So we all know here the Wall Street Journal editorial page has been open borders forever because the Chamber of Commerce buys a lot of spots.
And even if that didn't happen, the Wall Street Journal editorial board is on the same page as the Chamber of Commerce.
And whatever big business wants, the journal is going to be in favor of.
The journal's their Bible.
And big business wants open borders.
Here comes the journal.
Ostensibly a conservative place.
If you want to find out what conservative finance and economic news is, you read the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
Mr. Hanson is saying, really.
I mean, these guys, there's nothing conservative about their immigration position.
They're for open borders.
And it's that's not conservative for all of those people who are not in the elites, who are not in the establishment.
Those people are out there on the front lines of illegal immigration and do not have the means or the resources, the money to navigate around the very real ramifications of what open borders means to communities.
Hey, the Wall Street Journal Can afford to throw their conservatism on this aside because they're not going to live with the results of open borders.
How conservative was a definition of free trade that energized European Union subsidies on agriculture, tariffs on American imports into Japan, Chinese cheating or peddling toxic products, or general dumping into the United States.
For two decades, farmers and small businesses have been wiped out in rural America.
That destruction may have been creative, but it certainly was not because the farmers and business owners were stupid or lazy or uncompetitive.
By this late date, for millions, wild and often unpredictable populist venting became preferable to being sent to the library to be enlightened by Adam Smith or Edmund Burke.
Meaning real events in real people's lives brought about by so-called conservatives who believed in free trade and open borders is decimating the communities where these people live.
There isn't any conservative about it.
And there isn't anything positive about it from their standpoint, and they're told that supporting Trump, who wants to try to protect them, who claims that he's going to stop all of these things ruining their lives.
For the Never Trumpers to come around and say, he's destroying conservatism, they'd better realize it's gone beyond conservatism now.
It's not a debate over who's conservative and who isn't, and who thus deserves to receive a vote and who doesn't.
Outsourcing and offshoring did not make the U.S. more competitive, at least for most Americans outside of Wall Street and Silicon Valley.
Boutique, this is a great line coming up here.
Boutique corporate multiculturalism was always driven by profits while undermining the rare American idea of e pluribus unum assimilation.
As the cany multimillionaires Colin Capernick and Beyonce have grasped, boutique corporate multiculturalism was always driven by profits.
Meaning you can also include boutique corporate climate change support.
How many, how many you go to the grocery store, how many products you see and have got some relationship to green this, green that organic here, organic there?
And his point is these people aren't really into all that ideologically.
They're just, they just think you are, and they're trying to separate you from your money, so they're going boutique climate change, boutique multicultural to make you think they are hip and up with it when all they want is your money for their profits, which nothing wrong with that.
That's what businesses are out there to do.
But these people can get away.
They get away with throwing away their conservatism, they get away with abandoning their conservatism, and they're not called out on it.
They're called good citizens.
They're called interested in social justice and all that.
His point is, who are all these conservatives claiming Trump isn't one?
Are they really?
Long ago, an Ivy League brand ceased being synonymous with erudition or ethics.
As Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama have demonstrated...
Defeated or retired conservative Republican grandees were just as likely as their liberal counterparts to profit from their government service in Washington to rake in lobbyist cash.
So Hoipoloi were about ready for anything, or rather everything.
Meaning, so you got all these people shouting out that they're conservatives, and we'd rather have this erudite ivy leaguers who make us proud because they don't sound like cowboys or hay seed hicks.
But you're trying to tell me that Bill Clinton is erudite, that Hillary Clinton is sophisticated and erudite in Obama.
And in all these people, Republican or Democrat are scoring big Personal paydays off of their government service.
And they're excorgating Trump for being insincere, disingenuous, and not conservative.
In sum, writes Mr. Hanson, if Donald Trump's bulldozer blade didn't exist, it would have to be invented.
Donald Trump is Obama's nemesis.
He is Hillary's worst nightmare.
Donald Trump is a vampire's mirror to the Republican establishment.
Before November's election, Trump's next outburst or reinvention will once again sorely embarrass his supporters, but perhaps not to the degree that Clinton's erudite callousness should repel her own.
It may be discomforting for some conservatives to vote for the Republican Party's duly nominated candidate.
But as this manichian two-person race ends, it's now becoming suicidal not to.
And that's how it concludes.
So didn't read the whole thing, but it's Victor Davis Hanson in National Review Online, just to give you flavor.
Now, uh I mentioned earlier that I had been told by spies on the scene that Trump was delivering a stem winder in High Point, North Carolina, but at the time we had lost our satellite feed here because of the dense overcast producing torrential rain and lightning.
We have a couple audio sound bites, though, just to give you a flavor for it.
So I think we have this is a huge crowd for high part, like two or three thousand people.
It's a sold-out venue, wherever it is.
And we've got two bites.
And let's just, I have not heard these myself, so we'll be listening to them together.
I will fight to bring us together as one American people.
Imagine what our country could accomplish if we started working together as one people under one God, saluting one flag.
Uh-oh.
Uh-oh.
Ho ho ho.
It's time to break with the bitter failures of the past and to embrace a new inclusive prosperity and the American future, because that's what it's going to be.
New factories are going to come rushing in.
They're going to come rushing, rushing in.
We will incentivize people to stay, and they will be decentivized if they leave our country.
They're not going to just come out, fire all our people, build product outside of the country, and sell it into our country so easily.
It's going to be a whole different ball game.
And here's the next bite.
Once more, we will have a government of, by, and for the people.
We will make America wealthy again.
And save your Social Security.
Which you people are a long ways away.
We will make America strong again.
We will make America safe again.
And we will make America great again.
God bless you.
God bless you and thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, we edited the applause there, but that I wouldn't call that a stem winder.
I'm not, don't it's not a criticism.
I just have a specific definition of stem winder.
And that's not a stem winder.
That's that's kind of dialed back in reserve there.
At least our excerpts of it were.
But that you heard me say, uh-oh, when he said, good thing what's it what we can we can we can accomplish working together as one people under one God.
Climate change crowds are gonna go berserk on that one alone.
And saluting one flag.
Speaking of which, I'm glad I remember.
Do you hear what Jerry Jones said, the owner of the of the Dallas Catboys?
My players are gonna stand for the national anthem.
My players are gonna stand.
And I was interested in look at the reaction to this.
He owns the damn football team.
The people that work for him are his employees, and he can tell them that they are going to stand for the national anthem.
And I've heard all of these coaches and some others in the NFL who want no part of this when it's reported to them that some of their players are not going to stand, but that they're going to raise their fists.
A la John Carlos and Tommy Smith at the Olympics in Meiko in 1968.
And these coaches, well, I I can't tell these guys what to do.
First Amendment, free speech.
What do you mean you can't tell them?
You tell them this league suspends players left and right for doing things that they're not allowed to do.
These teams suspend players for things they're not allowed to do all the time.
They demand that they be in bed at a certain time during training camp and on the road.
They have all kinds of things they demand that they do.
But when it comes to the national anthem, apparently, oh no, no, no, we can't we cancel these guys.
But Jerry Jones said, my guys are standing.
So that's considered a throwback now, by the way.
Oh, that's he shouldn't be that that's that kind of authoritarian.
Millennials will not appreciate that.
Well, it's time they learned.
Uh Dennis, Torrance, California, quickly squeeze a call in while we have time.
How are you, sir?
I'm good.
How are you, Rush?
Very good.
Appreciate your call.
Thank you.
Hearkening back to the previous hour.
So uh bear with me a little on this, because it may sound a little far-fetched, but uh when you consider who we're dealing with on the left, I'm not so sure.
We already know Obama hasn't even acknowledged we're in a real war with Islamic uh Islamic terrorists.
He won't even acknowledge uh terrorists or Islamist.
But who has the administration been in a narrative battle with from the get-go?
Us.
You, me, everyone on the right.
Oh, absolutely.
Pardon me.
Absolutely.
I I I've said I've said along that that we are the biggest enemy they think they've got.
That plays right into my point.
Could Josh Ernest possibly be engaging in little code speak?
Maybe that's directed at us, what he's saying.
What would be the code?
What would uh uh well he he he's saying they're any narrative battle.
Who are they really in a narrative battle with?
Like they won't even acknowledge they're any in an actual war with Islamic terrorists.
It's absurd to say they're any narrative battle with them.
Well, but see that no, no, see that's the point's not.
It's it that's exactly the way Obama wants ISIS.
Obama doesn't want to see ISIS as a as a battlefield opponent, as a as a at-war opponent.
Uh Obama's not for his legacy, his legacy doesn't depend on defeating ISIS in the battlefield.
His legacy depends on the media and historians writing how he dealt with ISIS and rendered them irrelevant and all of that.
And that is resulting from creating a narrative that he has done that.
And he needs the support of the media to do it.
He doesn't want to defeat them on the battlefield, doesn't want to go that far.
I don't but no, I I think I think Bolton was right.
They do construct these various ways of dealing.
That's why he won't pronounce them as an enemy.
He won't call it Islamic terrorism, like you point out.
I gotta run quick time out, folks, so back in just a second here.
I'm gonna tell you what I think is actually going on with Obama and ISIS, this whole narrative business, folks.
I've studied this to the naked eye, and to those of us who see the world the way we do, and consider militant Islamic supremacism to be of enemy status, and Sharia to be incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.
We see an enemy that is attempting to conquer us, and we see anatomy needs to be stopped.
And I don't believe Obama sees it that way at all.
And I think it's patently obvious.
Once you have the brush cleared away and can clearly see and understand, like when Ernest comes out and talks about, we're in a narrative battle here.
And when Obama won't call them what they are, he will not even use the word terrorism and this insistence that there is no terrorism in Islam, it's a religion of peace.
I really think...
Deep down that Obama sees Islam as the next civil rights movement.
He sees Islam as a gigantic yet minority movement.
Because there are so many powerful forces, even though they're smaller, arrayed against them.
And I think Obama wants his legacy to be how he stood against the tide of anti-Muslim sentiment.
Against the backlash.
He wants to be seen as having ushered in a new era of Muslim acceptance in our society and around the globe.
If Obama were president of World War II, he would be the equivalent would be talking about how wonderful the Japanese are, and how wrong it is for us to be suspicious of before Pearl Harbor.
How wrong it is for us to be suspicious of them.
And that they have reasons.
If they don't trust us and if they're angry, they have reasons.
We have stepped.
I think that's his view of Islam.
That's right, a man, a legend, a way of life.
St. George here tosses, Kelly, great to have you.
I'm glad you waited.
Hi.
The amount of time that conservatives spend complaining about the media bias is such a waste of time.
We need to accept it.
We need to get in it and change it like you have done.
Fox News, blogosphere, we need to become part of the media machine.
You know, conservatives by design are polite.
We don't want to offend, but we need to be vocal.
We need to speak up with humor like you and like Greg Gutfitt.
Your thoughts.
Uh my thought.
Well, um I ha what I'm a little just a little confused, because you you say that people we need to get to be part of the media like I've done like Fox News.
Who isn't doing what what what what exactly who are the people you're talking about haven't done it and need to?
Well, we're we're just so quietly, you know, busy, we're working, we complain about the media, how biased it is.
We have got to speak up, be more vocal in our local situations.
We've got to become part of the media.
We need to speak out, we need to be smart and funny like you, and instead of complain about it, we've got to become part of it.
Okay.
I I know I know what you mean.
Uh you've got a two-prong bit of analysis going here.
On one hand, you're saying all of this cataloging and commenting on media bias.
We're way past that.
Everybody knows that.
Conservatives have been doing that, and basically all that accomplishes is uh us whining about how unfair things are.
Instead of doing that, we just need to forget what they're saying about us and just go be who we are everywhere, right?
Absolutely.
And Rush, you can never retire.
What will we do?
You have if you do, and I understand you know your effort, you've got to turn it over to somebody funny, Mark Stein, somebody like me.
You've got to you've got to take care of us after you're gone.
Just you can't just leave us high and dry.
You're too big a part of what's happening.
Uh, you've got to supersede the media.
The politicians have got to supersede the media.
You've got to speak to the people and and override them because they're a negative, horrible force in our country.
Yeah, you know, it it becomes increasing and by the way, thank you.
I I uh I I think you overblow it there a little bit, but I appreciate your thoughts very much.
Um the uh the whole concept of of media, um, it's just it's an adversary.
The media is another adversarial force.
I um avery gale people with uh these stories, I don't know how many times over the years, but we still have way too many people that are that are totally, even though they think they're not, totally dependent on what the media says before they'll form an opinion of their own.
People on our side.
And it's it's frustrating in one sense, uh understandable in in another, that I think the big disconnect is we call them the media, and it's funny to me now to read,
the media is written about by other members of the media as not a news gathering operation or business, but rather as an opposition force to Republicans and conservatism, and as a support group for Democrats and liberals.
The media is written about as a built-in obstacle.
The media is written about as a political entity, not as a bunch of people in the business of gathering information and reporting it to people that didn't know it, which is, you know, the journalism 101 textbook definition.
Well, that's long out the door.
That hasn't been in practice in I don't know how long.
But yet I think we still have a lot of people who treat the media as a giant blob that can be shaped and molded to befriend us or to reflect our point of view if we massage them, if we hang out with them, if we feed them, if we give them leaks and so forth.
I think there's a lot of people on our side who think they're part of it, only in the conservative branch or the conservative wing of the media, because all of media that you're talking about fits right in with the ruling class establishment.
They are every bit the members of the establishment that the elected officials and the CEOs and all the other cronyists are, and yet they are looked at erroneously, mistakenly by some people as not being that.
And so the approach to them, I mean, if if you are going to focus, if you're if you're uh if what you like to do is to chronically inform people about media bias, then it m you must occupy a position in which you believe that can change.
Otherwise, why tell people about it?
Well, there is another reason you tell people about it so they can learn to identify it on their own and not be so affected by it.
But in the process of chronicling media bias for people and telling them your friends and so forth, telling them how to spot it and so forth, you're almost acknowledging the fact that they can be better or they can be improved or whatever.
I think they're just not seen uh the proper way now by enough people on our side.
It's not about news gathering, it's not about information gathering, it's not about reporting anything.
It is, as Mr. Hansen said in his piece right here, the media have devolved into a weird ministry of truth.
News, the news seems to be defined now as that information necessary for people to arrive at correct views or opinions.
So you take an issue like ISIS.
The media is ministry of truth.
That means they are state-controlled, they work with Democrat governments, Democrat administrations, and their purpose is to pass on information in such a way that everybody who hears it will agree with the administration view of ISIS.
And if you don't, you are a reactionary.
Or some other name.
You're unstable.
You're an extremist.
If you reject the accepted definition, explanation of anything.
A campaign, a candidate, a uh military unit, an enemy, another religion, if if you accept the approved definitions and therefore subscribe to the correct view and opinion of it, you're cool, you're fine.
If you don't, then the name calling starts.
You're reactionary, you're extremist, you're racist, you're sexist, you're your bigot, uh, what have you.
And there's too many on our side who still seem convinced that they can make the media respect them, that they can cause the media to like them, that they can if they work it right, make the media treat them fairly and properly and so forth, thereby admitting that they fail to see what the media's existence really is, at least for us, which is just another obstacle.
It's the media is part of the Democrat Party.
The media is part of any Democrat administration.
And the idea that it can be changed, the idea that they can be persuaded to abandon the administration to be critical of them.
That's fallacious.
It can't happen.
And it won't happen.
So they they they have to be defeated just like you would defeat Hillary.
You're running against Hillary and the media.
Anyway, I appreciate the call much.
I've got to take another brief time out, my friends.
We'll be back here just a second.
Here's Julia in my adopted hometown of Sacramento, California.
How are you doing, Julia?
Great, Russ.
How are you?
Fine, Dandy.
Thank you, El Mucho.
Uh I I just wanted to uh mention uh the first part where you were speaking about uh George Bush Sr.
I can't I can't even believe that uh a Republican would even consider or even vote for Jory.
A person that that can't even defend the Americans we had in Benghazi.
She couldn't even make a decision.
And how could she possibly be qualified to president?
Such a great question.
And unfortunately, sadly, I can answer it for you.
Uh I wish I wasn't able to, but I can answer it for you.
That's simply not how Hillary and Bill Clinton are seen by most of the Republicans in the blue blood uh moderate wing of the party.
That's not how they see the cleanse.
They don't see Benghazi, they don't see Lewinsky.
If they do see those things, they they write them off as one offs, not the kind of things you should judge these people on, because there's a there's a mutual respect for the uh membership in this club that has happened by virtue of merit.
If you get elected president, you get elected senator, and if you run for president, you are an accredited, accepted, qualified member of the establishment.
And if you if you've been a president, you're at the upper echelon of it.
And so it's a small club, it's rarefied air, and it comes first before any criticism or party loyalty or what have you.
And if you doubt me, just check.
How many Republicans are you seeing willing to sign on with a Democrats for Amnesty, for example?
So you're sitting there, you you can't imagine somebody who's been president and looked what Bill Clinton did in eight years, or what Obama has done, what Hillary wants to continue.
You can't imagine a Republican not opposing it.
Right?
You can't invite you cannot imagine that.
Well, Um they don't.
I think they have an entirely different uh set of what parameters in which they it's not that they don't condemn this stuff and they don't acknowledge it, but you can redeem yourself.
If you if you've um if you've been doinking bimbos in Chappaqua, you can redeem yourself from that.
If you travel around the world and make it look like you're giving money for AIDS, or if you uh because that that brings this aura of respect to other members of the establishment.
It's a different world.
And it it's it's here.
I've got a headline here.
You you I hate to give you this at the end of the program.
Republicans advance Obama judicial nominees with weeks to go.
This is a story about how the Republicans in Congress are preparing to help Obama get his judges nominated, confirmed, before he leaves office as the polite and decorous and gentlemanly thing to do.
If the Republicans behaving what they think the people of America would like them to do, be respectful of Obama, he's president, and in turn they will get the same kind of respect from the Democrats if they ever end up back in the White House.
Ha ha.
But there you have it.
I debated not even doing this story today because we're on a roll on other things that want to ruin your day.
Now look what I've done.
I hope you have a great rest of the day, my friends.
We plan on it here at the EIB Network, and we'll be back here tomorrow.
Revd and ready, stoked and prepared, fully loaded to do it all over again with eager anticipation.
Thank you so much for being with us as always.
▲
Export Selection