All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 9, 2017 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:13
February 9, 2017, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day, Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man, America's truth detector and the doctor of democracy.
And the most talked about radio talk show and host in the country.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program to email address at L Rushbow at EIBNet.us is something that's it's in NBC news, but I haven't seen this anywhere other than on their website, majority in leading European Union nations support Trump-style travel ban.
A majority of Europeans would support a Trump-style ban on further immigration from primarily Muslim countries, according to a poll of more than 10,000 people in 10 countries.
An average of 55% of those surveyed for the London-based think tank Chatham House agreed that immigration from Muslim-majority countries should be halted.
I was talking about this right before the end of the previous hour.
And I said, These people are way ahead of us.
They have they've seen their countries overrun.
Germany, Switzerland, you've seen, I mean, all of the United Kingdom, they have been overrun by illegal immigration and refugees from predominantly Muslim and Middle Eastern war-torn regions.
And when it happened, you know, their elites welcomed people in just like the elites in this country want the same thing to happen here.
And they didn't do much to oppose it and stop it because they were for the most part, these populations are good, good little socialist populations.
They trust their government, they think everybody's looking out for everybody, and they see what's happened here, and they now, when they see what President Trump did, they wished it would happen in their country.
They are ahead of us because what Trump is trying to do is make sure that what has happened in Europe does not happen here.
Now it's it's interesting.
You asked the question and we're back to it again.
Why would people be in support of this?
Does it strike anybody that on 9-11, when there were 19 militant Islamic hijackers who flew three airplanes that crashed, and 3,000 Americans were killed?
Does it strike anybody that from that day forward, the elites and many of the leaders in the United Nations and in this country moved into high gear to defend Islam and Muslim countries and militant Islamic extremism,
which to me is the exact opposite of what should have happened given human nature.
And by human nature I mean common sense.
This has always amazed me that since 9-11, rather than I mean, if if 19 people kill 3,000 Americans the way they did, that'd be all the information you need to kind of get the idea that what's in the future, unless you were vigilant.
And instead, our State Department started doing seminars on why do they hate us?
Why is it our fault?
What did we do to cause this?
And then it became well, we were told, well, it's our support for Israel when you get right down to it, Mr. Limbaugh.
Militant Islam hates us because of our support for Israel.
Yeah, okay, maybe that's what we were told, and maybe that's a factor, but it's certainly about much more than that.
It's simply that we exist, that we are infidels.
Look, I'm not trying to restate old history.
I'm I'm I've always been confused.
Just in in the strict common sense, why in the world have we gone out of our way to be welcoming to the people that did this?
I that's what I have never understood.
And whenever anybody has suggested vigilance and preparedness against further attacks like this, those people have been called bigots and racists or anti-Muslim, and we've always been told to guard against Muslim backlash against Muslims.
And it was almost immediate the defense of Islam and militant Islamic extremism even reached a fevered pitch after that attack.
And it's never made sense to me since.
So we've got, at the time that's going on, we have open borders, illegal immigration, people from the Southern hemisphere, Central America are pouring into the United States as wished and desired by the Democrat Party.
Any attempt to stop it, get control over it, it's called racism and bigotry as well.
And now in Europe, the immigration and refugees, the immigration and refugee status is primarily militant Islamic extremists.
And we're all told, shut up, don't comment.
We we need to be bigger than they and let it all happen.
It's defied common sense.
Every bit of it has defied common sense.
And now when the president wants to do what he promised to do during the campaign and have a vetting system that's a little bit better than what we've had, and have a temporary moratorium trying to make sure we do not make the mistake of letting the wrong people in, all hell breaks loose.
It's an utter violation of all common sense to me.
And the same thing with illegal immigration.
Nobody's opposed to legal immigration.
We're all for legal immigration with a proper vetting that we've always engaged in.
But there are people that want the borders of this country wide open for anybody.
Now, now we're dealing with the idea, well, we got a bunch of lazy middle class and lower middle class, white working class people, and they don't want to work anymore.
And we need people to come in and do these jobs.
So it's kind of a variation on the old saw that there are jobs Americans won't do anymore.
Seems like that's now undergoing a change.
It's not jobs Americans won't do anymore.
It's lazy Americans who have grown fat, dumb, and happy after years and years and years of prosperity, and we need eager beavers who have not yet become wealthy to come into this country and do the work they won't do.
And as it when you look at it from afar or even nearby, when you look at it close up, it's it's clear what's happening.
And that is an effort is underway to fully transform this country away from the principles, traditions, and institutions of its founding.
And the people in the last election rose up against that.
And so now the battle is joined, and Trump is doing what he can to follow through on his campaign promises, and the people that supported him are sticking with him.
But the effort to continue what was going on is at full speed.
But the common sense of it is never made common sense to me.
Common sense would be if 19 people kill 3,000 of your fellow citizens that you would be on guard for the same kind of thing happening, and instead we've gone the other way.
Well, it's more than it's our fault.
Our fault, that's just a common left-wing reaction to it.
There's an active desire.
My point is an active desire to undermine all of these Western civilized democracies.
There is an ongoing effort to undermine all of them here, Western Europe, you name it.
Which takes me, it's not totally related, but I had this story yesterday, and I didn't get to it.
It's a Wall Street Journal story.
Well, it's Wall Street Journal, it's a Bloomberg story based on an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by James A. Baker and George Schultz.
Now, these two guys date back to the Republican Reagan administration.
They are considered Republican royalty.
They are called even by the drive-bys.
They have so much respect now.
They're called elder statesmen in the Republican Party.
According to the drive-by's Democrats, the Republicans don't have any statesmen, period.
But these two guys have written an op-ed pushing a carbon tax, and they had a meeting with Trump officials in the White House to push a carbon tax.
A group of prominent Republicans and business leaders, including former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and James Baker, will meet with some of uh Trump's top advisors in the White House.
It actually took place yesterday to push a plan to tax carbon dioxide in exchange for lifting a slew of environmental regulations.
A tax on carbon dioxide.
We exhale carbon dioxide.
A carbon tax.
Unlike the current cumbersome regulatory approach, a levy on emissions would free companies to find the most efficient way to reduce their carbon footprint, said James Baker and George Schultz in a Wall Street Journal opinion article on late Tuesday.
A sensibly priced, gradually rising carbon tax would send a powerful market signal to businesses that want certainty when planning for the future.
The proponents are set to formally announce their proposal Wednesday, which they did at the National Press Club, lending their stature to an approach for addressing climate change that mirrors an idea already advanced by Exxon Mobil.
The self-dubbed Climate Leadership Council, pushing the framework, says that a carbon tax is necessary to respond to quote, mounting evidence of climate change that is growing too strong to ignore, close quote.
Folks, James Baker and George Schultz, Republican royalty, now on board with this whole idea that there is man-made climate change that we've got to get ahead of.
There's mounting evidence growing too strong to ignore, and we need a carbon tax.
We need a worldwide, this is the key to it, a worldwide carbon tax administered by the United Nations.
And they're talking about 20%.
A carbon tax is a tax on every fossil fuel there is and any emission deriving therefrom.
It is an endless way to separate people from their money.
And all you have to do to incur it is live.
You cannot go through your life without using carbon.
We are carbon.
The human body is carbon.
I first heard of a carbon tax, and I'm sure it predates this.
I first heard it was one of the first things Bill Clinton proposed after he was inaugurated in uh in 1993.
But why, this is news that these are the these are the most prominent Republicans to get on board this whole idea that there is now mounting evidence.
I'm telling you, this is a worldwide effort that has a worldwide taxation purpose.
And the thing about a global tax, one that's administered by the UN and that every citizen in the world, forgive it, take a few, is forced to pay.
It that kind of tax is never undone.
That kind of tax is never repealed.
And these regulations that they claim they want to get rid of, that never happens either.
Or they might get rid of some regulations at first, but they'll be back.
The regulations will be back because that's just the way bureaucracies work.
I read This, I was beside myself in shock.
I was surprised.
I guess I shouldn't have been.
But the idea that this is no way to address climate change.
In fact, there is no way to address climate change.
What is addressing climate change mean?
How come raising taxes has anything to do with climate change?
How in the world can it?
This to me is further evidence of the hoax of all of this.
The idea that what really is this is all about, as most everything to do with left-wing politics is, is separating you from your money.
Standing in the way of you accruing and acquiring wealth.
That's what the income tax is.
Now, this, all under this umbrella of saving the planet.
Dire consequences.
We can't afford to take the chance that we're wrong.
We must assume that we are right and begin immediately on the steps necessary to save the planet.
And step number one is a tax increase.
If this doesn't lay bare the entire phony hoax nature of all this, I don't know what would.
Now, admittedly, the plan, it's right here from the story, plan faces strong political headwinds.
Both Trump and the majority of House of Representatives have come out against a carbon tax in the past year.
Trump has pledged to do away with environmental regulations, limiting emissions of carbon dioxide without a carbon tax.
But the idea of a carbon tax, long favored by economists as the most straightforward way to address climate change, could gain traction as part of a broad tax overhaul on Capitol Hill.
The thing is, it's not a climate proposal, it's a tax proposal.
It's a tax increase that is disguised as something that's going to save the planet.
It's it's it's hideous.
Thomas Pyle, head of the free market advocacy group, American Energy Alliance, said this is not a climate proposal, it's a tax proposal.
There is no need to trade Obama's climate regulations for a carbon tax.
Donald Trump's already promised to undo them anyway without a tax.
But they got into the White House and they had a meeting.
It wasn't with Trump, but with Trump officials.
Now, a lot of people have gotten in there.
You know, and Trump went and talked to the New York Times, and he told them what they wanted to hear on climate change.
But when he left, he had not changed.
So I'm I'm not worried about that.
I'm just the all-court press now, the full court press is on with Republican royalty now joining this.
And these people, by the way, are all involved in the oil industry.
I gotta take a quick time out, my friends, is time just zooming by back right after this.
No, no, no.
Let me put it this way.
I don't I don't mean I don't ever want to be confusing.
Folks, we had we allowed more Muslims to settle here in the United States in the 10 years after 9-11 than we did in the 10 years prior to it.
That doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.
We acted guilty and responsible after 9-11.
It doesn't make any sense.
It's all I'm saying, we acted like we had done something wrong, or that we had to prove that we harbored no animosity.
We were attacked.
It just never made any sense to me, and it still doesn't.
We don't need Saudi Arabia's oil today as much as we did because of fracking.
So it it common sense-wise, it makes no sense, but there is a reason for it, and if you have information, if you know what's going on, that reason would make sense if you know the motivations of the people involved.
But just on the on the surface, their common sense, why do we act like we were responsible?
Why do we act like we Had to do something to show our sorrow.
It never made any sense to me.
Still doesn't.
Now, in this story on prominent Republicans pushing carbon tax, listen to this, this one sentence.
But the idea of a carbon tax, long favored by economists as the most straightforward way to address climate change.
What in the name of Sam Hill do economists have to do with addressing climate change?
Don't think these words are not carefully chosen.
Addressing climate change is not dealing with it.
Addressing climate change is not attacking it.
Addressing climate change is not fixing it, solving it, or what have you.
And why does it matter what economists think as the most straightforward way to address climate change?
And as part of this proposal, $300 billion of the tax collected would be redistributed to households in the form of checks, quarterly checks from social security.
So the poor, a family of four qualifying, would see an average annual payout of $2,000 from this tax increase.
Readings and welcome back.
Let's say that we get the carbon tax.
We don't want it.
We better not get it.
But let's just let's go down the road.
We get the carbon tax, 20% carbon tax.
Do you think that that would end all talk of climate change?
No, it wouldn't.
What does that mean?
It means this is bogus.
Economists agree that a carbon tax is the most sensible way to address climate change.
Right.
Okay, so people are going to think carbon tax, we've fixed global warming, but they're not going to stop whining and moaning about it, and they're not going to stop blaming people for it.
And therefore raising taxes isn't going to matter a hill of beans.
All it will do will be address climate change.
That's a perfectly well-chosen word to obfuscate and confuse.
George in Deland, Florida, I'm glad you called, sir.
Thank you for waiting.
How are you doing?
Thanks, Russ.
Thanks for taking my call.
Um I want to ask you to be to begin to understand the media and why they're unhinged.
You really need to go back decades, Rush.
Before Rush Limbaugh, uh conservative radio and Fox News.
My question is, what was the what was this fake news effect on the on American American voters before you came along?
Well, there was a monopoly.
Uh as recently as as August 1st, 1988, when this program started, all we had back then, and to me, 1988 seems like yesterday.
To a lot of people, it's the Jurassic Age.
But to me, since that was a day I started 1988, seems like yesterday.
And in 1988, we had ABC, CBS, and NBC, and CNN had just started, they'd been five years or so in.
And that was it.
They had a monopoly.
They had the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the news on all three of those networks, was identical.
Oftentimes in the nightly news, the news events would be in the same order.
There literally was very little different other than the specials they would do.
So my question is if you if you were harmed back then and you have this media that won't tell your story truthfully, what was your recourse?
What happened?
And uh I think what in my opinion, what happened is we withdraw socially and politically at that time.
And before you came along in the conservative radio, that monopoly has caused harm to a lot of people.
Now you you come along, um Trump has not come along yet.
People are getting some courage that okay, there are some places I can tell my story.
But when I went to the saw uh Donald Trump at uh at a rally in Daytona Beach, I saw this hope in people's eyes of justice because now uh this this uh this um this justice that they were able to see because the media never no longer uh controls that.
And the media today will never, never change, because if they do, they'll be they'll realize that they have affected the lives of millions of people in the last few decades.
What do you mean they'll never they won't be able to do that?
What do you mean what do you mean they'll they'll never they'll never change?
Well, they'll they'll realize that they have like by being they basically have turned uh themselves into victimized not telling the truth when someone's been harmed harmed like in uh the military or or through borders by not telling people stories, they've actually helped uh because a political gain.
They basically have become uh the victimizer.
And so they're not going is if they realize that they've actually caused this harm, and that's why they've basically gone unhinged, because they cannot come to that conclusion that they're actually caused this the problems in Syria by not by not gonna be able to do that.
Okay, wait a minute.
Now you're getting away.
Let me see if I can translate this.
They have a monopoly in 1988.
You ask what could people do back then when the media was lying about them?
There wasn't much.
Um but again, the media, it's always been left-wing.
I'm gonna say something here that many of you might find uh I don't know, profound or shocking or what have you.
Look, I remember it.
I remember the media back then.
Um it was it was all left all the time.
But it seemed uh aside from that, it was benign.
And what it took to overcome it was somebody like Ronald Reagan who was able to go over the heads of the media and speak directly to people without the benefit or the need of the media translating or reporting or deciphering or what have you.
Republicans won elections, of course, during this period of time, but during this period of time is when the left began to really entrench itself in the bureaucracy and in all of these nonprofits, they took over the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, you name it, uh all the Mellon groups, they were taking them over.
Nobody saw it, nobody, it was nobody's radar.
Uh they were they were embedding themselves in the in the unelected uh bureaucracy, and they were well aware of the monopoly they had, and therefore they're there they did a fairly decent job of hiding, they didn't hide the bias, but they hid the agenda.
Now, when this program came along in 1988, that that was the first assault on this monopoly.
And then as this conservative media grew, first with other radio talk shows locally, then nationally, and then my television show hit for four years, and then Fox News hit three years after that, and then the internet blew up, and we got blogs and and and conservative websites and and the magazines that were conservative went online, and there became a full-fledged alternative media.
That would be us.
And this destroyed the monopoly.
The monopoly the media had gave them opportunity for two things what to report and what to ignore.
And what they ignored is what we reported, and that served to expose who they were every bit as much as documenting their bias.
The thing that happened as a result of them losing their their monopoly, they haven't changed their ideological stripes, but they have thrown away, they have, it's gone now.
There is not even a pretense of objectivity.
They don't even try to hide behind that anymore.
There's no pretense of fairness.
It is all out ideological warfare.
And so I believe that busting up the liberal Monopoly of the news, the drive-by media monopoly, has in part contributed to the how should I phrase it,
the uh ongoing ideological battles, the partisan divide, because what it did, what the alternative media did was awaken all of the Americans who were not fairly represented in the media.
When this program started, practically everybody that called began by saying, thank you.
I've I'm not used to hearing what I think in the media, not nationally.
So a bunch of people, average ordinary Americans, began to have their thoughts, their opinions validated because they were all over national media and on websites and eventually on Fox News, and it gave them confidence and strength, and that's when the battles began.
The left and their news monopoly, they lost their contentment.
They lost the fact that they were benign, they lost the fact that they owned it just by waking up every day.
It became a battle.
It became an all-out war.
And now I think media is a battleground.
just as electoral politics is.
And it's not going away anytime soon.
It's not going to change.
It's part of the evolution of this.
And in the process, who the left-wing media is has been fully exposed.
Now, there's no doubt they always were what they are now.
It's just they were able to hide that for the longest time.
But now it is known that they leave media and go to work for a congressman or senator and then go to work for a network and then come back.
And it's incestuous.
They marry each other in Washington, D.C. They work at each other's think tanks and so forth.
The entire establishment of left-wing media and its related and associated businesses, such as politics, has been exposed.
And so it's not nearly as easy for them.
Here's the bottom line.
They used to own the shaping of public opinion.
They owned it.
There was no opposition to it other than what might be local newspapers or in local media.
But there was no competition for it.
Now it's a battle every day for what they've always been – They've told everybody all these years, and all they were doing was reporting the news.
They were just out making news.
They were not making the news.
They were bending, shaping, forming, flaking public opinion.
They were advancing the left-wing agenda, which was found in the Democrat Party.
They were always doing that.
That's what this busting up of their monopoly has exposed, who they've always been.
They've sort of been drawn out.
And so the the partisan nature of things has intensified as a result of their monopoly being blown.
I have to be honest about that.
I think that's one of the things.
We have a 12-year-old young man on the phone from Fort Lauderdale named Ben.
Ben, great to have you.
How are you doing, sir?
Good.
How are you?
Vine and dandy.
I'm glad to hear from you.
Um just want to say that I read, I love all your books, and I've read and listened to all of them.
Well, I thank you very much.
I appreciate you've read and listened to all of them.
Good for you.
Good for you.
Thank you so much.
Oh, thanks.
So I was wondering if you thought that Trump still would have won the election if he had been less like brash and if he cared more about what others thought and said about him.
I do.
I I I even if if he had if he had stayed focused on the issues, if his if his position on the issues had been the same, uh I I don't think it would have hurt him uh at all.
But I look, I'll let I'll admit that the brashness equals fearlessness, and a lot of people admire that.
The uh the brashness equaled confidence, and a lot of people not only admire that but need it.
Um but the reason I say this is a lot of people want to take away from Trump, he only won because he appealed to these base instincts of these these despicable white working class voice and that's not the reason Trump got elected.
He got elected on issues of substance.
And the truth is that his personality quirks did not hurt him.
And to some extent they did help.
So, yes, I think he still would have, if he had been this consistent on issues with those behavioral changes, you have no doubt about it, in my mind.
Man, we have been all over the place today, folks.
I um these kind of shows, they just don't know where they're going, and you don't know where it's gonna end up.
So I hope it was okay.
Open line Friday tomorrow.
Be back.
Locked and loaded.
Left hates that.
▲
Export Selection