All Episodes
Previous Next
June 5, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:59
June 5, 2009, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Are you people ready to sizzle?
Ready to cook?
You better be.
It's Rush Limbaugh, and it's the EIB network, and it is Friday, live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Hey, Johnny, I know you're listening to the program.
I'm talking to the staff announcer Johnny Donovan.
I want you to redo this open line Friday intro and take out that via New York City business.
I don't want the New York tax auditors having anything to put their arms around.
And they're gonna hear that and go, what does that mean?
So it's your first chance.
Get rid of it.
Just say live from the EIB Southern Command in Sunny South Florida, period.
None of this via New York City stuff.
I'll tell you when I'm there that it ain't gonna be this year.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome, Rush Limbaugh and the example by tax lawyers, the accountant, don't go.
Just don't go.
At least on a working day, don't go.
Anyway, here's the rules for open line Friday.
As you know, folks, Monday through Thursday.
Uh we uh we only take calls from people who agree with me unless people lie to snurdily and trick him.
Uh, in which case we politely, and you would never know it, but we dispatch him.
Uh, but on Friday, we will take calls from people who don't agree or talk about things I don't care about.
We talk, well, people that don't agree with me all the time, but on a Friday, you don't have to say anything I care about.
Uh so when we go to the programs, the uh of the phone, the program is all yours.
You can start a lining up now, snertly at 800-282-2882, the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
We have learned, ladies and gentlemen, that Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is mad at me.
I made her mad in 1998.
Now, 1998 happens to be the year that I predicted that she would be nominated by somebody for the Supreme Court, that she was on the fast track, that that was why she had been put on the circuit court, the second circuit.
The New York Times has distorted, and by the way, in addition to this.
Via digging deep, ladies and gentlemen, through the questionnaire answers that she submitted.
I have gotten closer to determining whether or not this woman is indeed a stealth pro-lifer.
And I'm tending to think I'm right about this.
Oh, yes.
I'll have the details as the program unfolds before your very eyes.
But first, the New York Times story today.
Speeches show.
Yes, I'm gonna get to Obama.
Do you know how sick I am of Obama?
I'm gonna get all I'm gonna get to Obama.
I'm gonna get to this sham of a show in Germany.
We're gonna talk more about the sham of a speech yesterday in Cairo.
Did you see Angela Merkel standing next to the guy?
Put this in perspective.
She was standing there and she's not happy because, you know, he's he's they're they're not getting along and they haven't gotten along ever.
So there he is.
He's at Vukenval today, the concentration camp, and he is beating Germany up.
He's ripping them to shreds over something they did 60 years ago.
One day after praising all of Islam.
Now, can you imagine?
And there's, of course, Ellie Vissel gets up there and and um he does his thing.
Uh, but uh it's what we 65 years here or close to it.
And so she's up there, and you could just look on her face.
It was more than just solemnity on her face.
Trust me, my friends, I know these things.
And he's up there and he's ripping Germany what it did 65 years ago.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Trust me on this.
She wasn't happy.
If you get a chance to see video of it, you'll see what I mean.
Look at her while she's up there, while he's up there making his uh speech.
Anyway, here's the New York Times thing on Sotomayor.
In speech after speech over the years, Judge Sotomayor has returned to the themes of diversity, struggle, heritage, and alienation that have both powered and complicated her nomination of the court.
What we have found out is that is that I was right to stick with this notion that she is racist.
She makes this reference to wise Latina woman repeatedly over the course of her career.
Not just twice.
It is Obama who needs to retract what he said.
Obama said, I'm sure if she could say it again, she'd say it a different way.
She's been saying it her whole life.
This woman is focused on race.
She is focused on gender.
There is no question.
Anybody with an open mind looking at this, there is no question she defines herself by race.
She has lamented the dearth of Hispanics on the federal bench.
She has exhorted young people to value immigration.
By the way, speaking of that, Denji Harry says he wants an amnesty bill this year.
Now he didn't say amnesty, but we all know what they mean.
He wants an immigration bill this year.
She mulled over the deeply confused image America has of its own racial identity.
Did Sonya Sotomayor?
And she has used on more than one occasion a version of the wise Latina line that she has spent much of this week trying to explain.
And now U.S. Senator Bob Menendez is coming after me.
Mike, I told you soundbite one, but I changed my mind.
Let me find Menendez, go through here.
Let's see, it's number 12.
Grab audio soundbite number twelve.
He's on um is on uh government-controlled MSNBC yesterday afternoon.
And he's talking to the government-approved anchor Tamron Hall.
And she says, Do you believe the Republicans uh so they might be might have running into a true roadblock with Hispanic voters out there if this line of talk about her being a racist continued?
I think there's a price to be paid if that's the way they're going to take on this nominee.
There's a difference between going after a nominee hard on their judicial beliefs, on the decisions they may have made if they happen to have been a district court or appellate court judge.
That's different than having these people say Latina chick.
That's different uh than calling Judge Sotomayor racist.
I'm talking about Rush Limbaugh, I'm talking about New Ginridge.
Those are all voices of the Republican Party.
And they have a word accountable.
They have to be held accountable.
And I've never called her a Latina chick that I'm aware of, a Latina.
She says, see, I understand the English language.
Latina chick is redundant.
Latina already means Latina chick.
So I don't have to say Latina chick, because Latina covers Latina chick.
So now I've been warned.
I have been warned by another United States Senator that somehow, somewhere, somebody in government is going to have to hold me accountable.
Meanwhile, the New York Times and everybody makes it clear today, this woman is a broken record on her statement that a Latina would uh much wiser than uh than a white male.
It's just a broken record on it.
She focused on race.
She's focused on her gender.
Now here's the part about me making her bad back in 1988.
Let's see here.
Uh the uh somebody just picked the uh yeah, here it is.
Her speeches also indicate she's not afraid to take on opponents.
In 1998, after she was confirmed to the appeals court, she recounted how she was vigorously questioned by senators based on what she called mischaracterization and misunderstanding of three of her decisions by Rush Limbaugh.
In fact, this is actually in quotes of what she called, quote, mischaracterization and misunderstanding of three of my decisions, unquote.
Uh my Rush Limbaugh.
In recent days, Mr. Limbaugh has led the fight against her nomination, calling her a racist.
And if you go through, I've got the Sotomayor stack here.
If you go through this, it it it is clear that they're trying to paint me as the foremost opposition.
And the fact that I'm leading the opposition to uh to Sonia uh Sotomayor.
And by default, I guess so.
Everybody else is backing out.
Everybody else is backing away.
And uh, and I don't.
There's also Byron York was the White House tipped off about the Suter retirement.
And uh, we think so because Judge Sotomayor started praising Barack Obama in speeches, which is a no-no for a judge uh days before Suter announced his uh his retirement.
The White House even uh let something out of the bag that they knew about his retirement before he actually announced it.
So there's a there's a some people look into the fact that Suter might have let him somebody know that let the White House know that um she was uh that he was going to retire out there.
Now, as to the aspect of Sonia Sotomayor being pro-life, there is something that's being called now in the um in the intellectual circles of investigation, the abortion assurance mysteries that attach themselves to Sonia Sotomayor.
Here is a post by uh by Ed Whelan, who says that her response to the Senate questionnaire presents some puzzles.
Question 26b asks whether anyone involved in the selection process, quote, ever discussed with you any currently pending or specific case, legal issue or question, in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking an express or implied assurance concerning your position on such case, issue or question.
It also asks that Sotomayor identify each communication with anyone in the White House, referring to or relating to your views on any case, issue, or subject that could become come before the Supreme Court.
So Sotomayor's answer to all this is no.
Question 26b, the answer is no, it didn't happen.
But if reported, Obama sought and received assurances that she is pro-Row, it would seem the answer should be yes.
Remember, Obama went out and said he knows that she is pro-Row, pro-choice, but that he didn't ask her.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says that Obama was careful not to ask specifically how one might rule in a case that could come before the Supreme Court, but the scope of question 26b is far broader than specific inquiries.
Perhaps Obama and Sotomayor did a very clever wink-wink routine, but it's possible to suggest that consistent with Obama's stated commitment to transparency, the White House ought to make publicly available any record, including any auto re audio recording, of Obama's interview with Sotomayor so that the American people can know just what commitments and assurances he extracted or received.
A great question because he told the press that he had not expressed, not asked her about this, but that he knew.
How does he know if he didn't ask her?
Question 26C asks Sotomayor to describe any representations made by the White House or individuals acting on behalf of the White House to any individuals or interest groups as to how you might rule as a justice.
Sotomayor's response indicates she's not aware of any such representations, but it's been reported the White House has delivered strong but vague assurances to abortion groups that she is pro-Row.
Does Sotomayor really not know of those reports, or does she somehow regard them as beyond the scope of the question?
So we've got Obama assuring us and the groups that she is pro-Row.
She's saying, I haven't talked to Obama or anybody else in the White House about this.
So there is no way to know.
Which leaves it an open question.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Open line Friday resumes in mere moments.
Here's the confirmation on the uh White House getting hold of Sonia Sotomayor three days before the Suter news broke.
This is from uh the Hill.com White House first contacted Judge Sotomayor three days before news of a Supreme Court vacancy became public.
This according to a questionnaire that she submitted yesterday.
The 173-page questionnaire delivered to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sotomayor relieved uh revealed that she was first contacted by Greg Craig.
On April 27th, the White House counsel, three days after David Suter's resignation leaked to the media, and four days before he had made a formal announcement.
It's just not kosher.
Of course, nothing sticks to this admitment.
Well, I can't really say that.
I don't, you know, I don't quite know what to make of this.
You know, Scott Rasmussen has on his polling site.
He keeps track of something called the uh uh Rasmussen presidential tracking poll, the presidential approval index, and what he does, he keeps track of the line of strongly disapprove and strongly approve of Obama, and then comes up with the presidential approval index.
Now, since Obama was inaugurated, his approval index is hovered anywhere from plus 20 to plus two.
Today it's at zero.
They're both at 34.
34% strongly approve and 34% strongly disapprove.
The overall approval number is 54%.
Not in the 60s.
54%.
That's just one percent over his vote percentage in the election.
Now, I don't know what to make of this.
This poll is uh, it's it's it's different than the other polls out there.
The other the other government run polls, uh, government-run media polls are all you know in the 60s with uh with Obama.
And it's it, you know, it's eager, i it's tempting to take hold of a poll like this.
Whoa, it's finally starting to come together, this tipping point.
Well, I'm not so sure.
I would you just, you know, I have a I have an inherent, not a distrust, but uh an arm's length uh on all polling data.
Nothing against Scott Rasmussen here.
I know he's a he's an accurate and and and fair guy, so I'm don't I don't doubt his results.
I just I just don't know that it means anything right now.
But if it does, if it does mean anything, we are this happened five months into the Obama presidency.
Now, the way Rasmussen tracks this, he says that the president's ratings have slipped since GM filed for bankruptcy to initiate a new government bailout and takeover, and only 26 percent of Americans believe that GM bailout was a good idea.
Nearly as many support a boycott of GM products.
And I know that's true.
I've been I've been hearing from people left and right.
Nobody wants to support an Obama company.
For those of you that work at GM, you have to understand the people angry or not angry at you.
Now not angry at General Motors.
The people saying they don't want to buy anything in General Motors are not mad at General Motors, they don't want to patronize Obama.
They don't want to do anything to make Obama's policies work.
And this is this is an untold story, by the way.
Of course, the government-controlled media is not going to report anything like this.
But there are a lot of people who are not going to buy a Chrysler of General Motors as long as it is perceived Barack Obama is running it.
Because people do not want his policy to work here because this is antithetical to the American economic way of life.
The government does not own car companies.
The government does not design cars.
Not in a country that works.
So people aren't going to buy products uh from companies that Obama runs.
What are you smiling at?
You disagree with that?
What?
Oh, you guys are, you know, my I love you people on the staff, but they you are just too worried about me.
Dawn is afraid that what I just said will be translated by the media.
Rush wants GM to fail.
Did I say that?
Did I say I want General Motors to fail?
No, I didn't.
Well, yes, they can they can remove the did uh they could, yeah, they could clip it.
They can remove the did I say I want General Motors to then pfft.
I'm just telling you.
You know, I'm looking at this poll.
We've got it's it's at zero now.
His is 34% strongly approved, 34% strongly disapprove.
That's zero.
His presidential approval index is zero.
In the Rasmussen poll, his overall poll approval numbers 51 or 54 percent, one percentage point above his 53 percent total of the vote.
And uh Rasmussen said 26% of the respondents in his poll are going to boycott General Motors products.
And I simply am pointing out here to people that work at General Motors.
It had nothing to do with you.
It has nothing to do with your products.
It has to do, these 26% don't want to patronize Obama.
They don't want to patronize an Obama or government-owned company because they don't want it to work.
So if you say, yeah, but maybe the 26% want GM to fail, I would argue.
Should I say I would argue that if Obama has to take it over and run it, could we just admit that it's failed?
Welcome to Open Line Friday, Rush Limbaugh, where I take the greatest career risk known in the major American media, free media, and that is allowing rank amateurs, lovable listeners to uh control the content of this program when we go to the phones.
I'm going to illustrate how that's done now.
Here is that risk being taken.
We go down to Pepper in Houston.
Pepper, thank you for calling.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Rush, I uh mega data first off.
I just want to say what you were just talking about there about not buying GM products because of Obama is exactly how I feel.
I just I I have felt this way now for weeks.
I am I have driven a Chevy Tahoe for several years.
In fact, right now I've got uh about 150,000 miles on it.
I won't even look at another one right now.
And I just want to say thanks.
At least somebody understands what's going on here.
Well, appreciate that, Pepper.
Look, um uh I know that that you're out there.
I think I think this is also why.
For those of you that work in labor unions, I think you should understand here that one of the reasons why there may be I don't want to say the word animus, but why there may be opposition here to all that's going on here to build up union and so forth is that Obama is behind it.
You see, most Americans understand that it is not the America they know and love that they understand that they grew up in, where the government owns automobile companies, tells CEOs what they can make and what they can't earn, tells bondholders to go to hell, tell people who have invested risky money in investments and then lose it all, just go away.
This is not how the America they understand operates.
So Obama's taking over all these industries.
And the people in this country, it's and and it just uh uh uh Rasmussen says 26% say they're gonna boycott General Motors products.
The reason is because people do not want this to work.
They do not I know the story going.
This is about this little schlub up in Wisconsin.
Yes, I know all about it.
I know all about it.
Look, that's not even big enough for me to worry about.
That guy's such a po dunk, it's not even worthy of our time on the E. I wish you wouldn't interrupt me with this stuff.
If you're gonna interrupt me every time I'm on that stupid government-run channel, then I'm gonna be new, nothing but reacting to the government-run channel.
All they do is run videotape of me and people complaining about me.
Talking about government-run MSNBC.
Some little podunk Republican, moderate liberal Republican who was thrown out of his leadership post in Wasaw, Wisconsin, some county there because he dared criticize me.
And so this guy is now loved and adored by government-run media.
Big whoop.
This has been going on for three days.
This is not even new news.
This has been recycled, it's on and anyway.
The point is, be it General Motors be a Chrysler, whatever else Obama ends up controlling and running, the American people are not going to want it to succeed.
So I want all of you who work at General Motors and all of you who are members of labor unions to understand that the opposition to you is not because of you.
It's Because of opposition to Obama and turning America upside down and 180 degrees out of phase from what America is.
Now the the jobless uh rate is now official.
Yesterday was 9.2%.
Today they've really officialized it.
The unemployment rate is 9.4%.
This is a 26-year high.
How's that hope and change working for you?
How's that stimulus working for you?
Biden went on television today while Obama's over there whining and dining his wife in Paris.
And says, you know what, we're gonna speed up the stimulus spending.
You're gonna speed it up.
What you're just gonna do it by fiat, or do you gonna go back to Congress and have legislation for this?
These people are autocrats.
They're running everything out of the White House on their own initiative without consulting Congress.
Of course, the Democrats in Congress don't care, and the Republicans in Congress may not know.
Being charitable.
But the fact is that government-controlled associated press is trying to spin a record high, 26 record high unemployment rate as good news.
And so is government-controlled Reuters.
U.S. employers cut 345,000 jobs last month, the fewest since September, and far less than forecast, according to a government report on Friday.
That was more evidence the economy's severe weakness was diminishing.
Can we put this together and see if it adds up to you?
Unemployment, they say is slowing, and it has reached a record high.
Now for those of you under under 40 who attended public schools, I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you.
Unemployment slowing.
The recession may be ending.
Unemployment now at a 26-year record high.
And this, as I say, does not even include numbers of people who have given up.
They're not even trying to find work.
Those numbers were always reported when the Bush administration ran a show.
But now that it's uh it's Lord Obama, they do not report that number or even mention it.
The real unemployment number when you factor those people in is little, it's like 16.9%.
When you factor people in who are not trying to work, we had the story in the Los Angeles Times yesterday, government-run Los Angeles Times.
Big story on fun employment.
The people who've not tried to find work and are enjoying being out of work, and they're traveling, and they're staying at beds and breakfast, and they're living off their mom and dad.
And they're working at nonprofits a whoopee.
16.9, 17% real unemployment when you factor in a people who don't care anymore.
And are not trying to find work.
Here's how the government controlled media.
We have a montage of government-controlled reporters.
This is how they played it yesterday and today.
Not all that bad.
The mass layoffs are slowing.
We know it's tough out there, but there are indications that maybe the worst is bottoming here.
9.4%, it's a grim number.
I understand there's a silver lining to this report.
A bit of a silver lining in that we are finally beginning to slow the rate of job losses.
We've got this unemployment number, not great numbers, but the markets reacted to a positive that they weren't surprised.
So there you have it.
I mean it's that's no matter where you go in the government-run media.
A record high unemployment rate equals a bottoming out.
Not that bad.
Silver lining.
A silver lining.
This is, if you've offered if you've wondered what state-run media, state-run control media is government-run media.
Government controlled media.
This is what you get.
This is no different than Pravda back in the days of the Soviet Union.
This is no different than Grandma down in Cuba.
Reporting on Fidel Castro.
This is no different than a Hugo Chavez media.
This is no different than Iranian media.
This is no different than the media Saddam Hussein controlled.
Government run, I mean, we've got record unemployment, the highest rate since 1983, and it's good news.
So good that oh that Biden's gonna go out there and speed up the stimulus spending.
And you want some more good news?
Goldman Sachs is predicting that by the end of the year oil will be at $85 a barrel.
Today it spiked at over $70 a barrel.
Let me just check.
Let me just check where it is right now.
It is at $69 a barrel.
It peaked at over 70 today.
They say 85 by the end of the year.
So my friends, the meaning of this is if, and I mean if, Capitol I capital E F, if there is any recovery, despite Obama's policies.
$85 a barrel gasoline is going to wipe it out.
you Long, cool woman in a black dress, Hollies.
Ladies and gentlemen, even more has been learned about Sonia Sotomayor and abortion.
And what we have learned is from a speech that she gave in June of 2001, eight years ago, in which she commends liberal lawsuits on abortion, illegal immigration, a welfare reform.
Here's what she said.
Now I know they're gonna climb on me for saying this.
She really writes poorly.
And people are acknowledging this.
There was a long couple stories yesterday that it's amazing how poorly written her opinions are compared to other appellate judges who are all great writers.
In fact, it's one of the trademarks of an appellate judge, Supreme Court Justice, is their their brilliant writing.
So this this I'll just read this passage from the speech of Judge Sotomayor in June of 2001.
In 1996, Congress prohibited lawyers receiving federal legal services money from taking on class action lawsuits or lawsuits involving abortion, illegal uh immigration or welfare reform.
Commendably, so she agrees with that.
Commendably, I know Brooklyn Law School's clinical programs have redoubled their efforts to help address the need created by this legislation.
These efforts and the voluntary efforts of other law schools, bar groups, and lawyers and private law firms are not enough.
The need is very great.
She is commending Congress, prohibiting lawyers receiving federal legal service money from taking on lawsuits involving abortion.
Now, what that means is that she agrees that federal money should not be used to pay lawyers who take on abortion cases.
Now what are we to conclude from this?
Well, it's just it it it it just more confusion.
It just it just leads to more confusion.
Here's a woman with rich Latina, wise life experiences, by her own admission multiple times uh in her life, saying she doesn't think it's right for lawyers filing suits on abortion to get federal money to do it.
Now that would make one tend to think that she thinks one of two things that the government ought to have nothing to say about it via their money, and secondly, if these lawyers want to go ahead and file abortion cases, then find the clients to pay up.
Don't ask the government to do it.
She is a devout Catholic, she is a devout Catholic.
And uh, folks, I'm telling you, the only evidence, and it isn't evidence, the only evidence we have that she is pro Roe vs.
Wade, pro-abortion, is that Obama has assured us.
But Obama has said he didn't talk to her.
And on her questionnaire that she submitted yesterday, she said she wasn't asked specifically about it.
But yet Obama knows specifically, but she says she hasn't said specifically or even been asked specifically.
So I don't know.
I know a lot of you people think this is nuts because you think that Obama would not nominate anybody to the court who was not pro-Roe versus Wade or pro abortion.
But the I just in general sense, I could I could agree and understand that, but what if he doesn't really know?
What if he doesn't?
What if he's just assuming?
Or it look at.
If he knows, somebody's lying about them having talked about it.
Because she says in her questionnaire that she hasn't.
Nor was she asked, directly or indirectly.
Now it could well be that she's told, you know, some colleague somewhere who told an Obama White House official, don't worry about it.
Who knows?
But that she didn't admit that in a questionnaire, she said that didn't happen.
Uh I also saw in a news story that she has spoken highly of Justice Scalia, another Catholic on the U.S. Supreme Court, who, of course, thinks Roe v.
Wade is horrendously bad constitutional law.
Justice Scalia, in fact, in an abortion case, I'll never forget that you give you an example of of just how how great a writer and thinker Scalia is, but how all of these appellate judges, most of them are really, really good writers.
You have to be.
When you're going to explain your opinion and so forth, you've got to be a good writer, not just in legalese, but in in common sense languages as well.
And he said from the case that had just been decided.
It was apparent to him that, quote, the the mansion that is abortion rights law will have to be torn down, door jam by door jam.
Now, nobody talks that way.
I mean, when you if you go to a party and you're talking about abortion, nobody is going to say, you know what?
Abortion's like a mansion.
And we're gonna have to we're gonna have to end it by uh tearing it apart door jam by door jam.
But people do write that way.
People, you know, good writers have a you have a flair for writing unique things.
Scalia does.
Uh it's kind of like golf announcing on TV.
I play golf, and if I if I uh if I make par, I'll say that's four or that's a par, but I will not say I authored a par.
Golf announcers will say, Tiger Woods authored a par.
If Tiger Woods bogeys a hole, they will say, and he puts a blemish on the scorecard with a uh with a five.
We who play golf do not say after a bogey.
Well, there's a blemish on my card.
We shout the F-bomb.
I love the Israelis.
Even the Israelis in Tel Aviv, even the San Francisco Israelis, I love them.
Have you heard what they're doing?
Obama yesterday, in his outreach of love and please respect me and please raise my approval numbers in his speech at Cairo University.
He admonished the Israelis to stop building settlements on the West Bank.
So the Israelis responded today by increasing their construction of what they are now calling Obama huts.
Although these huts that they are building in the West Bank are going to be much larger than the six by nine square foot hut his brother still lives in in Kenya.
A day after U.S. President Barack Obama reiterated his call to stop settlement activity during a speech in Cairo, defiant settlers continued to erect quote unquote illegal structures in the West Bank, building a new outpost on Friday morning.
At the outpost named Oz Johanaton, settlers built a wooden structure they mockingly called the Obama Hut, saying it was a sign of appreciation for the U.S. president for his actions that had led to a dramatic rise in the number of outposts.
Overnight Thursday, settlers and right-wing activists, this is from the Jerusalem Post, by the way, once again rebuilt an outpost said to be illegal that was dismantled on Wednesday by security forces.
One of the activists said of Obama, he is an Arab Muslim, he's a Gentile, he's fighting against the Jewish people.
The settlement Israelis are not happy.
And there are a lot of other uh uh Muslims around the world not happy with Obama's speech either.
▲
Export Selection