Rush Limbaugh Program - November 28, 2016, Monday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 28, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program

31:24

November 28, 2016, Monday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Is that right?
	That makes perfect sense.
	I'm gonna have to check into this.
	I was just told that if, for example, Wisconsin doesn't finish, then you throw their electoral out of electoral votes out totally, and the number does not become 270, it becomes whatever.
	So 270 is only a majority of the available votes.
	So if Wisconsin electoral votes are not ready and not counted, then the number Trump needs is not 270, it's a lesser number.
	I have to check into this.
	That that would nuke the theory that one of the Democrats' efforts here is to get three states not, or at least two states not to report by December 19th, uh, which would take those electoral votes away from Trump, meaning that it would take him, well, if if you've got it all three could take him down like 265, 266 if they were all delayed.
	But now I'm told that if Wisconsin or any other state or a combination of states do not, if their electors don't vote on December 19th, then the total electoral vote is reduced by that number of electoral votes, and the 270 threshold reduces proportionately.
	So I need to check into that, because one of the theories out there on this recount is that they're simply trying to delay enough states, these three, from reporting by December 19th, which means those electors could not vote, which means Trump would be denied those votes, which would reduce his majority over 270.
	No, they even when you beat them, they never they never it the reason I'm thinking there might be something to this is because I'm remembering in the Florida recount.
	It's vague, and I'm gonna have to really, really search the deep dark crevices of my fertile mind.
	But I think at one stage the Democrats suggested just throwing Florida out.
	It was it was just throw it out.
	That would have given Gore the presidency.
	That would have given Gore a majority of the electoral votes.
	Uh it would not have been 270 if you throw out Florida's 15.
	He wouldn't have needed 270.
	So that's why I'm thinking there might be something to this that it doesn't matter if these if these states don't report.
	It just reduces the 270 proportionally to a lesser number that Trump would need and still have it.
	Um also I just got an email.
	I'm on a I'm on a secret email list.
	I get Democrat Party fundraising emails, and they sure as hell are raising money off this now.
	It's not just Jill Stein.
	They're asking for minimum $3 donations for a little sticker that says I proudly voted for Hillary to put on your car or wherever.
	And it's all based, the fundraising appeals all based on how Trump did not win the election, that Hillary got two million plus additional votes than Trump, more than vote than Trump did, and that the election was not legit, and we needed Democrats need to show that they understand this some such thing.
	But they're fundraising off of it.
	But do not, regardless of the intricate details here.
	The real objective of this is to de-legitimize Donald Trump, period.
	His election, victory, and his upcoming presidency.
	That's the objective of all of this.
	Now to the Fidel Castro stack.
	This folks is mind-boggling.
	When you stop and consider who Fidel Castro was, Fidel Castro imprisoned, tortured, killed, executed his own people for the crime of pursuing life, liberty, and happiness.
	He conducted a 50-year war against human nature.
	The left, which includes Barack Obama, has romanticized what should be itemized, condemned, and defeated.
	It's been a tough few weeks for the left, and the death of Fidel Castro was apparently a tipping point for them to drive them even further insane.
	A man by the name of Carlos Ari is a professor of history and religious studies at Yale.
	He wrote in the Washington Post 13 facts about Fidel Castro.
	He turned Cuba into a colony of the Soviet Union and nearly caused a nuclear holocaust, the Cuban Missile Crisis.
	He wanted the missiles.
	He wanted Khrushchev to launch nuclear strikes against America.
	He sponsored terrorism wherever he could and allied himself with many of the worst dictators on earth.
	Castro was not a dictator.
	He was a tyrant.
	He was a murderous thug tyrant.
	He was responsible for so many thousands of executions and disappearances in Cuba that a precise number is hard to reckon.
	He tolerated no dissent.
	He built concentration camps and prisons at an unprecedented rate.
	He filled them to capacity.
	He incarcerated a higher percentage of his own people than most other modern dictators, including Stalin.
	And when his jails became filled to the brim, he simply released them and put them on boats and sent them out into the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean.
	He condoned and encouraged torture.
	And you know how the left in this country reacted to what they thought was torture at Guantanamo Bay against Oh, that reminds me.
	Just learned, my friends, that the perpetrator at the Ohio State University ran people down with a car and stabbed them and nicked them with a butcher knife.
	Isn't that an ISIS technique?
	Isn't that in fact how ISIS advises young recruits?
	Because there's so many people on the lookout for bombs and guns now, that the best way to do it is just grab a car and start mowing people down and have a knife with you and just start randomly stabbing people.
	I think that's an ISIS directive.
	And supposedly the PERP here at the Ohio State University is a Somali refugee.
	Somali refugee could easily be militant Islamic.
	Wouldn't take much there.
	We'll have to wait and find out.
	Fidel Castro forced nearly 20% of his people into exile.
	He prompted thousands to meet their deaths at sea unseen and uncounted while fleeing from him on rafts and other crude vessels.
	He claimed all property for himself and his henchmen.
	He strangled food production and impoverished the vast majority of his people.
	In 1959, the Castro Revolution literally nationalized everything.
	They took Castro's, and this people were surprised.
	They expected Castro was going to liberate them from tyranny, the tyranny that was Batista.
	And he did a double whammy, he just the wealthy, the middle class, he took everything.
	He took their homes, he took their land.
	I have friends here in South Florida who lost multimillion dollar estates, property, and businesses.
	And they fled here.
	They've reestablished those businesses in many cases here in the United States, and they live to this day to get their property in Cuba back.
	And they have lived with that desire since 1959 and 1960.
	It's one of the things that has fueled them.
	Fidel Castro outlawed private enterprise and labor unions.
	He wiped out the middle class.
	He turned Cubans into Slaves of the state, earning about two to three dollars a day.
	He persecuted gay people and eradicated, tried to eradicate religion.
	This is one of the most amazing things.
	Cuba wants you to think that it is a gay paradise, and gay Americans, militant gay, the leftist militant gay political operators in this country want you to believe that Cuba was a gay paradise.
	And it was not gay people were persecuted and executed the moment it was discovered they were gay.
	Okay.
	And Castro outlawed the church.
	Now, one of the things that communists do.
	And by the way, I'm going to give you a little preview here.
	Angelo Kodvia is back.
	I was reading over the weekend a very, very, very, very long essay he wrote for the Claremont Review of Books.
	It's essentially about political correctness.
	But in the process of writing about political correctness, he correctly identifies the stratagems and philosophies of communists.
	One of the things they do, for example, Soviet Union, China, every strict Castro.
	They destroy all religion.
	They outlaw it.
	They demolish churches, but they always leave a church here or there.
	They always allow a congregation here or there, and in fact, in some cases, they even have party members acting as dissidents.
	The purpose of this is so the population can see remnants of what the regime is telling you is vile and filthy, so that there is always work for the revolution to do.
	If they wiped out every church, then they would have nothing to rail against.
	So they keep a church or two in Havana open or maybe Santiago de Cuba.
	There's always, they always leave a vestige.
	Same thing, they eradicate and execute homosexuals, but they always leave some in prominent positions to show that the regime, in Castro's case, he had a propaganda machine making it look like Cuba was a gay paradise.
	So he left some gays and put them in prominence, had rainbow flags around, but the vast majority of gay people in Cuba are not alive today.
	Communism is an evil thing, folks.
	It is an ugly, evil, vile, inhumane thing, and Castro was one of the world's most dominant communists ever.
	He censored all means of expression and communication.
	None of what I have just shared with you is arguable.
	Every bit of this Castro was, every bit of this Castro did, and more.
	There was nothing redeemable about Fidel Castro.
	Castro was the ideal communist.
	The Soviet Union communism, the Fidel Castro's communism is all predicated on equality and sameness and prosperity run by the state.
	The only people who benefit are the leaders.
	They are the only people.
	The struggle is always presented as ongoing because there are always oppressors.
	It's like Obama finding phantom opponents everywhere trying to stop him.
	It's to keep people in line.
	It's to keep people thinking that there still is that day in the future where the revolution might actually succeed and make them prosperous.
	In Castro's case, the illusion lasted for 60 years.
	And it was all an illusion.
	Cuba was a hellhole.
	Now, all of this is undeniable, and yet looking at media over the weekend and watching TV and radio, listening to leftists lament and lionize and celebrate this, it was just the most ungodly thing.
	And I've got an example here from the Washington Post that's just beyond sickening.
	And I'm going to name the people that wrote it, Dom Phillips and Joshua Partlow.
	On every stage where a Latin American leader launched into soaring oratory against the imperialists, Fidel Castro was present.
	In every lonely jungle hideout where gorillas and olive drab plotted their fight, Castro kept them company.
	In every country where revolutionaries and communists dreamed of creating a workers' paradise, Castro was a guiding light.
	No single figure did more to define generations of Latin Americans who sought political upheaval than Castro.
	His anti listen to this next.
	The American left in this country, the American Democrat Party, Hollywood leftists, these things coming next or what they loved about him.
	Castro's anti-American rants inspired followers in countries that also saw resources sucked away by local elites in cahoots with the mighty United States.
	So you see, there was this lone figure in Cuba inspiring other olive clad, drabbed military junta type guys to rise up against the evil Satan that was the United States of America, which was sucking resources away from every Latin American country by the elites.
	And so Castro stood alone, protecting his people from the United States, which was stealing everything Cuba had, and his people believed it.
	That's what he but it's unconscionable for the Washington Post to write this dribble.
	In nations with extreme inequality, governments took lessons from Castro's state-run economic model.
	For modern day strong men looking for high-minded justifications to seize control of parliaments, courts, and the media, he was the man.
	Yeah, in nations with extreme inequality, like the United States, not Cuba, no, no, no, like the United States.
	Governments took lessons from Castro's state run economic.
	There was no economic model.
	There was no economy.
	For modern day strong men looking for high-minded justifications to in other words, the existence of the United States justifies Castro seizing control of his island nation and subjugating his people and jailing them and executing them and imprisoning them.
	The existence of the United States justifies this because we are the real imperial.
	This is in the Washington Post.
	These days, many Latin American countries' political and economic economic ties with Cuba have weakened because of painful recessions and voters' rejection of leftist governments.
	Leftists in Latin America had little interest in armed revolution anymore, but still Cuba and its influence in the region endures both because of its advances in education and health care and because of its example of fierce independence.
	Cuba's influence in the region endures because of its advances.
	There aren't any advances in education, and there were no advances in health care.
	And fierce independence, fierce, there was no independence, liberty, or freedom of even thought in Cuba.
	Some, like Castro, transitioned to political leadership and pressed for greater spending on the poor.
	I mean, this gets sicker and sicker and sicker as it goes.
	I've got to take a break.
	You hang in there.
	Be right back with more in a moment.
	Okay, listen to this last.
	A little reference here from this Washington Post story.
	And I'm sorry, it didn't, it might be the New York Times.
	It could be either one.
	There's a newfangled reformatter of websites, and it doesn't print everything.
	Sometimes it doesn't print the byline, sometimes it doesn't print the uh the website.
	And I neglected to make a note of it, but it's it's one of the two.
	But listen to this.
	You all know the dire Straits Venezuela's in.
	Venezuela is falling apart.
	Venezuela's currency is so worthless.
	You cannot keep a functional amount of it in your wallet.
	It would take too much.
	Venezuela has gone the way of every socialist communist regime.
	It's descended now into utter chaos.
	Nobody except the leaders has anything.
	So listen to this.
	Venezuela modeled itself after Castro's Cuba.
	The Hugo Chavez government's heavy subsidies for such things as milk and corn flour helped poor Venezuelans in times of high oil revenue, but are difficult to sustain now that petroleum prices have slumped.
	So the only reason Venezuela is in trouble is because it's oil industry's in trouble, and that's because oil prices are down.
	Venezuela modeled itself after Cuba, modeled itself after Castro and was such, oh, this Chavez Gay was so wonderful.
	He subsidized milk and corn flour for poor Venezuelans.
	He had to because nobody could afford anything.
	There is nothing in Venezuela that's worth recommending to anybody.
	There's nothing about Cuba other than cigars worth recommending to anybody.
	And yet the American left is enamored.
	And the last line of this piece, the Washington Post, while Castro's economic approach has lost popularity, it never was popular.
	Castro personally is popular, and Snerdley just asked me why.
	What is it about Castro that American leftists and worldwide leftists personally loved?
	And you know, charisma is a tough thing to explain.
	Clearly he had charisma, but I'll tell you what I think it is.
	I think he hated America.
	I think they loved him the way he stood up and pointed fingers at every American president and outlasted them.
	I I think that he he just he garnered all this support via his hatred of this country, which they share.
	The people we are talking about, it's in this Washington Post story.
	Every problem Cuba had was the fault of the imperialists in the United States denying Cuba what poor Fidel was desperately trying to bring prosperity.
	I mean, it's the most it's so intellectually vacant that it defies common sense explanation.
	It has to be something emotional, the attachment people have to have to Castro.
	I mean, the idea that health care in Cuba is better than not one of them would ever send a relative, a child or themselves, to Cuba.
	In fact, when Castro nearly died a number of years ago, do you know what it was that killed him?
	I'll tell you what he had a colon problem of some kind.
	I don't know exactly what it was.
	And the solution to it was a colostomy bag, and he told the doctor, screw that, I'm not wearing a colostomy bag.
	You stitch up the colon.
	Well, it didn't work.
	And the poison in the colon got all through his body, and his body was one giant infection.
	They had to call in a team of doctors from Spain to save him.
	Cuban doctors hadn't the slightest idea.
	Cuban doctors botched the whole thing.
	On his command.
	But I mean, we get this romanticized notion that health care in Cuba is better than anywhere in the world and affordable, and it isn't.
	It's not better and it isn't affordable.
	Nothing is affordable.
	It's so bad in Cuba that Brian Williams told his viewers on MSNBC that Cuban citizens actually prefer being driven around in donkey carts rather than automobiles.
	Andrea Mitchell practically crying over the death of Fidel Castro.
	Folks, I'm telling you, the attachment has to be his anti-Americanism, his hatred for America has to be the glue, the link.
	In addition to whatever other charismatic qualities that Fidel Castro had, undeniable.
	Che Guevara, too.
	How do you explain Che Guevara?
	Che Guevara was every bit the murdering terrorist that Castro was.
	And yet young college women run around wearing Che guarra t shirts.
	Because to them he was just a hip.
	He could have been a member of the stones.
	Yeah, he looked so cool.
	He looked hippie, looked like he could have been a rock rock star.
	And it just defies logical explanation.
	But this last sentence.
	While Castro's economic approach has lost popularity, Latin American countries remember him more for his focus on health care, education, and better conditions for the poor.
	You ask yourself how to deal with this.
	Better conditions for the poor.
	Cuba is known by people who know it truly as a gigantic poverty stricken island, where people earn essentially those that have jobs earn no more than $4 a week.
	There were no better conditions for the poor.
	In fact, you want to hear some stats very quickly?
	Let me give you some stats.
	Study by the State Department's Hugo Lawrence and Kirby Smith.
	In infant mortality, literacy rates, per capita food consumption, passenger cars per capita, number of telephones, radios and televisions, and many other indicators.
	Cuba led Latin America when Castro took over on New Year's Eve, 1958.
	Today, Castro's communism has not just left Cubans economically pauperized, but politically bereft.
	Some 51,000 Cubans last year entered the United States, and this year's figures were sub will easily surpass that.
	The numbers of Cuban nationals fleeing Cuba have now quintupled since Obama took office, when it was less than 7,000 annually.
	In other words, when Castro took over, Cuba was an economic engine.
	Yeah, the dictator was a thug Batista, but there was economic prosperity.
	After ten short years of Castro, there was no leadership in any category whatsoever, and it was going to continue to get worse for all 60 years of his rule, because he simply took everything for himself and his henchmen.
	He literally commandeered everything.
	His was one of the giant, biggest giant scams ever run by a single person on a country.
	And he could not have gotten away with it were it not for the assistance of other worldwide communists and leftist American sympathizers.
	It's one of the most stunning things.
	I mean, this idea that conditions for the poor, better conditions for the poor is what Castro's known for.
	I just, it's it boggles the mind.
	But that's what liberalism is.
	That's who they are.
	Look, it is a great myth that communists, as because of the myth that is Marxism is a great myth that communism is about upward mobility for the for the bourgeois, for the middle class, for the proletariat, for the hoi polloi.
	That's a big myth.
	That's not communism socialism is all a scam designed to keep people impoverished.
	Better to control them.
	It's designed to enrich the leaders.
	It's an oppressive, tyrannical form of human arrangement.
	And the lie is that it is the only way lower middle class people can have upward mobility.
	It's just absolute BS.
	All this equality and sameness and equal rights and fairness, you go to any communist country, there's none of that.
	And there never will be any of that.
	There's never any of that in liberal societies.
	There's always anger and misery And unhappiness because it's a false promise that a bunch of dupes end up believing.
	And it never happens, and they end up the leftists succeed in blaming capitalists for the failure of Marxism, socialism, communism.
	It is just despicable.
	The fact that this way of governance has not been dispatched forever is one of the enduring mysteries to me.
	And the explanation obviously is psychological.
	And I intend to discover it.
	I intend to find out what it is.
	It's it's to me it's unacceptable that people still find anything redeemable in it, even hope.
	Because there's clearly none of that.
	Here's uh here's Ted Crystal Lake, Illinois.
	Great to have you, sir.
	Glad you waited.
	What's up?
	What's happening?
	Uh before I ask you my question, I gotta say the scenarios that are on the come across on the telephone while uh you're in a commercial.
	They are fantastic.
	The writer for those could put a show on the road.
	Great.
	So anyway, my my question is in regards to the uh scenario that Russia interferes with the Clinton election campaign.
	I don't understand why Russia would not want her as president when the Clinton Obama strategy of that is what allowed Russia to move into the Middle East.
	Not oppose.
	What I think of usually as an appeasement strategy.
	I just don't understand why Russia would not have wanted her as president.
	You don't understand why Russia would not have wanted her as president.
	Yes.
	So you're basically asking what is all this about the Russians secretly trying to help Trump, because it seems like in your mind they would want Hillary.
	Yeah, I mean, the Obama Clinton strategy would allow them to move to move into the Middle East.
	You're looking at this way too deeply.
	You're going at this way wrong.
	This whole Russia affecting the election thing is nothing but a trope.
	It's nothing but an excuse for the Democrats losing.
	There's no substance to it whatsoever.
	The Russians didn't hack the DNC servers, the Russians didn't interfere in the election.
	And if you get a Democrat in the know to sit down and honestly tell you off the record, they'll admit it.
	It's just an excuse for why they lost.
	And it's an attempt to try to disparage and delegitimize Trump by claiming that Trump is chosen by one of our arch enemies, and that Trump is buddy buddy with one of our arch enemies.
	When in fact it's the Democrats who always have been.
	Somebody created it once the WikiLeaks dump started.
	There was somebody, some leftists speculated that the Russians might be behind it, and that's all it took.
	They were off and running with it.
	It doesn't require in-depth analysis.
	Seems to me that if the Russians were going to infere, they'd really prefer Hillary.
	If you want to take it there, that makes perfectly logical sense.
	Don't misunderstand.
	I mean, the Hillary would be much easier to roll.
	I mean, they're kindred spirits.
	Hillary's proven she can be rolled.
	She can be Secretary of State, she was rolled by everybody.
	But the whole thing is nothing more than an excuse.
	Just like the popular vote differential here is nothing more than an excuse to de-legitimize Trump's victory, pure and simple.
	It's all part of a giant strategy that, if successful, ends up as a giant insurmountable roadblock to Donald Trump.
	That's what they're trying to assemble here.
	And the and the Russians interfered is one little part of it.
	I wouldn't waste a whole lot of time getting into in depth analysis of it because it's there was nothing to it in the first place.
	Happy to be back at it, folks.
	But sadly, we're out of time.
	These three hours just zipped by, but we're back here tomorrow.
	Revved and ready.
	Whatever we have to deal with.

▲