All Episodes
Previous Next
April 2, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:31
April 2, 2012, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24 7 podcast.
I cannot believe that NBC would doctor a tape.
Can you?
I d I I literally I can't I am sitting here shocked and stunned, and I'm just at NBC would.
No, this is not the first time.
They blew up a truck.
Remember back on one of those uh shows like Dateline.
It was a GM truck.
They blew up, it might have been a Ford, I don't know, but it was a it was an American truck.
And they rigged it to blow up as though it would do so naturally.
They rigged the thing to blow up.
I mean, and but but but doctoring a tape.
They actually left a couple sentences out of the of the uh 9-11 call from George Zimmerman to make it look like the only thing on his mind was race when it wasn't when he called in the incident with Tree Von.
Did you not hear about this?
Ho ho!
We've got the audio soundbice to prove, but I'm not gonna play them until I can hear them.
And uh we've got a it's it's inside baseball, so it's called the mix minus.
I I do not have the feed from New York.
It is fixed.
I uh got the feed coming.
Well, play something so play something so I can make sure that it's working.
I don't want to have to take an engineer's word for it.
This guy looks like he's testing one tooth.
Okay, cool.
It's working.
I got it, got it, got it.
So that's coming up.
Uh this lotto.
Am I right?
Um what's the scoop of the uh Maryland woman will not share 105 million dollar lotto Jackpot with her McDonald's co-workers?
They they decided to pool and buy tickets, and then she went out and bought one on her own and claims that's the one that won, and she's not sharing in uh in Maryland.
Folks, there is a uh by the way, here we are.
This is the first broadcast week in April.
Let's go back a month.
The month of March in the United States opened with the left convinced that they were finally going to drive me off the air once and for all.
By the end of the month, I'm still on the air with a higher audience.
Seven new advertisers to replace the five, actually the less than five that abandoned us and hurt themselves.
And in that month, Al Gore has fired Keith Olbermann, thrown him off the air and replaced him with client number nine, Elliot Spitzer's taking over for uh for Oberman and his 56 viewers.
How does who do what?
It's an audience of 56 people.
What do you mean?
How does Spitzer do it?
How does Oberman keep getting hired?
I mean, that's the question.
How does anybody if if Olbermann were a uh anything other than an insane lunatic leftist, which is a resume enhancement, he wouldn't get hired.
But so Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize winner, the year I was nominated, Al Gore won it.
Olberman's out, and some of the stories that are out that Olburn would refuse to let his um his limousine drivers talk to him.
They're beneath him.
Uh it's it's it's hilarious.
Wouldn't show off for work, missed 19 out of 41 days because he said the lights would go off, the technical requirements uh were not met.
Uh it was a it was a network on the cheap.
And he's gonna sue them.
Anyway, the month of March starts, and they think they got me, and what happens is that Olbermann's gone, and client number nine is in his place at Al Gore's network.
Not exactly, and and by the way, Elliot Spitzer, great defender of women's rights.
Great, great defender of women's rights, client number nine there, Elliot Spitzer, not exactly how they thought it was gonna turn out, is it?
There is, ladies and gentlemen, I had a number of people send me this uh little story, this next story uh over the weekend in a panic.
And you may have heard about it by now.
There's a uh wondrous new poll out from USA Today Gallup that shows Obama now leads either of the Republican candidates among women in swing states.
It's a huge margin in the USA Today Gallup poll for Obama with women.
Since um USA Today Gallup they did not provide their methodology.
We don't know, we can't get to the internals of the uh of the poll, but we do know.
One thing that we have learned is that the vast majority of women in the poll self-identified as Democrats.
Something like 41 to 24% of the women in the poll identified as as uh as Democrats.
I think this poll's a fluke.
I think the USA Today Gallup poll on women is a fluke.
It was two weeks ago or three weeks ago that we stop laughing in there, will you?
I'm trying to do a serious program here.
I think the U.S. Now I was a fluke.
It was a fluke.
Because two or three weeks ago, we had seriously now, we had two, three devastating polls for Obama, and including women.
Washington Post, ABC News was horrible for Obama and women.
The New York Times poll had Obama at his lowest approval number ever in their poll of Obama at 41%.
Then the next day, the Hill.com came out with a poll.
It was devastating as well.
And these polls shook the White House to its core.
And now, after three weeks of the war on women from the Democrat Playbook, which has succeeded only in installing client number nine over an Al Gore's TV network.
We've got we got this fluke poll from ABC from USA Today and Gallup that shows Obama with this massive, massive majority in women.
And of course they're attributing it to this non-existent Republican war on women.
As you know, folks, if you've been here regularly listening here for 23 plus years, if you're if you're new and you don't quite know this, it is standard operating procedure here to distrust everything in the mainstream media until we get further into it, take some time and figure out, because they do some things they report are true, some are some are accurate.
Some of the polling data is.
Even that New York Times stuff that showed Obama at 41%, we distrusted that for a while.
Because they could have had motivation for that.
They could have been trying to shake up the White House.
They could have been, you know, New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, Wall Street Journal, they're not all that happy with Obama all the time, and they try to goose him in the direction they think he ought to go in order to win.
But we don't take any of this at face value.
The reason I say that this USA-to-day Gallup poll is a fluke is that women buy gasoline too.
Women have to pay taxes.
Women, some of them like to have jobs.
Some women choose to be homemakers.
I'm not that there's there's not there's nothing uns.
Yes, but it's not a job that's that's calculated in the employment numbers.
No hidden meaning here.
There's some men that don't want to work either.
Most of them are liberal Democrats, most of them occupy Wall Street.
There are a lot of men that don't want to work.
Am I gonna have to qualify?
From now on, everything honesty is not going to be enough on its own.
Women buy gas, women have to pay taxes, some women have mortgages, some women want jobs and can't get them.
Women have children, they want to be the ones who decide what their kids eat.
Not every woman wants Michelle Obama doing the menu every day.
Certainly not every woman wants Michelle Obama in charge of their wardrobe every day.
Women like being free, don't they?
Women love liberty.
See, we're being asked to accept the notion that women are monolithic.
That all you have to do is approach every one of them with a lie that Republicans want to take away their birth control pills, and just like the independents who don't like confrontation, women, when they hear Republicans want to take away their birth control pills, make a mad dash at a Democrat Party, and looky here, we got a poll to prove it.
I'm sorry, until I see the internals, till I see the samples, until I see registered voters, likely voters, adults, that kind of stuff, this poll is going to remain suspect in my mind.
Because women have economic concerns.
Women have just as much awareness, they're as in touch with this horrible economy as men are.
It would be no different than trying to run a poll now that's saying that because of the war on women, men are mad and have gone over to the Democrat side.
How do you figure that, Mr. Limbaugh?
I'm uh this is Mr. New Castradi, he pops in now and then asking a question.
Why would you say, Mr. Limbo, the men would be just as inclined to go Democrat when there's a war on women?
Well, if the Republicans are trying to take away women's birth control pills, that affects men too.
It's not just women who would be mad at the Republicans trying to take away women's birth control pills, right?
I mean, men have a vested interest here in that.
And to say that men are going to stay right where they are and vote Republican while there's this so much of this is utter folly.
But it's made it's just like there are a number of stories today on the individual mandate that the court's deciding.
Hey, that isn't any big deal.
Do you know how many mandates there already are out there?
And one of the mandates that's already out there that's being cited by the media, these stories, by the way, are designed to put pressure on and influence the justices on the court, not you.
The media has now focused its attention on health care as Supreme Court on the justices.
And one of the mandates that they are citing is the requirement that when you show up in the emergency room, you must get treated.
That is a 1986 law.
It happened during the Reagan administration.
And they're trying to say that Reagan was for it, but you have to remember well, you don't have to remember I do, and I will tell you.
Reagan shut down the government a number of times.
Reagan made famous a um uh tactic or technique.
He'd go to the State of the Union show and he'd hold up the latest omnibus budget, stacked with all those pages, and say there's stuff in here that there's no way in the world I'm in support of, but I've got no choice.
This is take one, take all.
I can't single things out of it I don't like.
And mandating that everybody it covered could have been something like that in an omnibus budget bill or something.
I don't know that it was, but it it could have been.
Uh they're also trying to say that a uh another mandate is the requirement that we all pay taxes to fund Medicare and Medicaid, and these, while I have to give them credit for for uh being really clever and slippery here, they're not analogous.
This Obama mandate that everybody buy health insurance or pay a fine is unprecedented.
There's nothing else like it.
It hasn't happened, it's not standard operating procedure, it's not accepted societal norms now, as the attorney general or the solicitor general attempted to uh attempted to argue.
So we'll try to break that down as the program unfolds.
And there's other things out there too.
We've got the the uh NBC edited version of the George Zemmerman 9-11 call.
This is this is typical.
I was being facetious when I opened the program as I can't believe NBC would doctor a tape.
I can definitely believe NBC would die, I can definitely believe that somebody at NBA, in fact, I expect NBC after their investigation to stand by this thing.
You know what they're gonna say?
Well, Zimmerman said it.
They didn't put anything in the Zimmerman didn't say.
They just left out a bunch of stuff he did say, and they left out a question he was asked, but they'll say he said it.
This is um when it when it comes to race as a template in the media, and the template is that you have you've seen the statistics, by the way, and they're all over the place on when um blacks are murdered, the vast majority of the murderers are black, that black on black crime is just off the charts, that the number of blacks murdered by whites is way down.
No, no, that the the well, I'm not supposed to say that.
No, well not no yes, there is, and the civil rights coalition acknowledges it.
And and they don't care.
Because there's no racial component there.
Remember, this is the race business.
It doesn't matter if the percentages are one percent of black people murdered are murdered by whites, that's enough to propel the race industry, and they're gonna focus on it, and again, it's race, race, race, race.
The fact that the majority of blacks are killed by other blacks, okay, well fine, that's we'll leave it out there, but it doesn't matter.
It's not relevant to what we're talking about, they say.
All you need is that one example.
And so you've got somebody steeped in media traditions at NBC, and that template is almost branded in their brain.
It's almost embellished.
And so if they're reading a transcript, and they see that they can assemble the various elements of the conversation in a way that confirms what they believe going in, they'll do it.
And they think they're performing a service.
They don't think they've doctored anything.
They think they're helping everybody understand what's really going on here, what really happened.
And they're cutting away all of the irrelevant fat from the story, getting right to the meat and potatoes.
That's what this guy thinks he's doing.
There may be an element of somebody knowingly falsifying this and trying to get away with it.
My point to you is that this is so in in their brains that that they don't think there's anything wrong with doctoring the tape.
Remember, getting to the truth as they see it, and as it's been explained to them and as they've been taught is all that matters.
Anyway, we'll play the two segments of the tape to show you what happened, let you hear it.
Lots of other stuff too as we kick off a full week of broadcast excellence.
You sit tight, we'll be right back.
Presidential politics on the Republican side.
Conventional wisdom, it's over.
Romney has it in the bag, conventional wisdom.
Because we're now at the um blue state stage of the Republican primary, and it's only natural to conclude that Romney will win in Blue State.
Yeah.
Why is that?
Because they're more moderate, right?
And liberal, right?
And that helps us how?
It doesn't.
Oh.
Oh.
Okay.
So conventional wisdom is it's over.
Romney gonna just steal it all away now.
Wisconsin, Maryland, Washington tomorrow.
Gonna win it all.
Gonna have a great April.
Because the lineup of blue states this month.
My question then, and this is just me.
I'm not trying to make a big deal out of something here.
I'm just curious about tactics and strategy.
Why continue all of the destructive attacks on Santorum?
There are a lot of them out there.
Fox News, uh commentary, National Review Online.
I mean, they're dumping on Santorum like this race is neck and neck, and I'm wondering why are they still dumping on Santorum if this is over?
Why all the negative columns and comments and ads?
It's over, right?
Where's the healing?
Where is the umity?
If it's over, where are the more positive ads and columns and comments about Romney's record and campaign?
What where are the instead we're getting uh that his nomination is inevitable?
He's the only one that can beat Obama, and by the way, Santorum sucks.
And over to Santorum sucks.
Or Santorum's horrible saying that I I where's the unity?
When's all this negative stuff gonna stop if it's over?
By the way, folks, uh I wish I had made note of this last week during the oral arguments at the Supreme Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is uh often referred to as the wise Latina on the court.
I was wondering.
Snerdly, would you call the New York Times, call somebody over at the style desk at the New York Times and ask it be appropriate or inappropriate to refer to her as the white Latina on the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor.
If you were with us last week, you recall that uh so much happened that I made a number of observations, practically begging you to climb down from the view that leftist intellectuals are vastly superior in in in smarts and intellect and all the rest of us.
It's just the exact opposite.
They have led such cloistered and closed lives, uh, talking only amongst themselves that they really are unaware of other worldviews, and their conceit and arrogance is such that they don't accept them even when they are exposed to them, don't even consider them.
And as such, they really are ill-informed people, masquerading as the smartest people in the room, the most caring people in the room, the uh most compassionate, most open-minded, most tolerant, none of those things are accurate about them.
And they actually are quite ill-informed.
And Sotomayor was just one of many of the justices on the court, the liberal justices, along with the commentators, illustrated it.
For example, everybody in this country knows, everybody knows that it is a law that you get treated in the emergency room if you show up, whether you can pay or not.
You get treated.
That is the law of the land.
In fact, it's so widely known that the media today is attempting to cite that as a mandate in saying that, hey, Obama's mandate's no big deal.
Why, this is uh commons, accepted societal norms, or uh some such phrase is being bandied about now.
The uh uh solicitor general, Mr. Varilli used the phrase frequently in describing accepted societal norms, and he said, we've obligated ourselves to these, so what's the big deal?
And at that at that point, Scalia, if you'll recall, said, well, why don't we just not obligate her?
That's the solution.
Why do we not obligate ourselves to these things?
Because what Verili was talking about is look at we've already codified it.
We will use other people's money to pay for other people's needs.
That's already been codified.
That's an accepted societal norm.
And Scalia is saying, why?
Why is it accepted that we'll use other people's money?
In other words, wealth transfers or redistribution of wealth.
And Varilli cited the fact that everybody gets treated in the emergency room.
Well, Sotomayor didn't know that.
It was shocking to me that her questions during oral argument last week showed that she doesn't know that it's already against the law for a U.S. hospital to deny anybody medical coverage because they might not be able to pay for it in the emergency room.
She didn't know it.
She offered that as solution to a problem.
It was stunning.
And I say was I was remiss in not uh mentioning uh this to you last week.
Now, here's the point about this.
The media is now focusing on the justices and trying to get them to understand that the Obama mandate's just one of many that's already there.
There's nothing special here, and there's no reason to say this is unconstitutional.
Now we know there are 2,700 pages in this bill, and this filled with mandates, by the way.
That's the problem.
Twenty, seven hundred pages.
Folks, 2700 pages is not even a law.
What is a law?
Law says you can't rob a bank.
A law says you can't kill anybody.
The law says that you can't beat somebody up without provocation.
Laws have a relative simplicity to them.
Genuine laws do.
There's no way that 2,700 pieces of legislation is a law.
It's impossible for every citizen to know what's in.
The justices don't know.
And Scalia made it clear that he doesn't expect his clerks to read all 2700.
The people that voted for this didn't read it all.
It's not even a law.
In this 2700 pages, mandate after mandate after mandate, and health and human services will add endless regulations.
There's a lot of open-ended stuff in this legislation that allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to be the final arbiter in what happens, what's decided, what ends up being a law or not.
But the individual mandate, I don't probably you're going to be hearing this all week, that the emergency room requirements no different than this mandate.
I just want to impress upon you that the individual mandate in Obamacare is different for all the reasons that we have explained a thousand times.
And frankly, I'll be glad to explain it another 1,000 times, but it gets frustrating to have to do this.
Because what we're up against, this NBC doctoring of the tape, it's just the latest example of it.
There's no moral core that we are up against.
We're up against people without one.
We're up against people who will lie and fabricate and make things up repeatedly.
They do not live anywhere near reality.
They create their own.
But the Obamacare mandate is not a tax for a benefit like Medicare is.
The mandate is not anywhere similar to emergency rooms or hospitals being forced to treat people who walk in.
It forces, the Obamacare mandate forces someone to buy something from somebody else, to enter into a contract.
It forces us, it compels us to enter into a contract.
There's no contract when you walk in the emergency room.
There's no contract between the emergency room and the government.
There's just a law out there that says they've got to pay for it.
And by the way, the fact that that exists, you might think it's awfully compassionate, but it costs us money.
Nothing is free if the hospital treats emergency room walk-ins who can't pay, who pays the hospital.
You do.
Or your insurance company does.
Or your employer, however you want to look at it.
But the hospitals raise their rates elsewhere to pay for this.
There's no free lunch.
It isn't free.
All these things that they are trying to say in the news media today and over the weekend that our mandates are not.
They are taxes to fund a program or a benefit like Medicare or Medicaid.
They are the denial of a benefit should an individual refuse to comply with a mandate.
But the individual mandate's none of that.
This Obamacare mandate federally is unprecedented.
Something of this scope has never been done before, never been ordered, never been attempted, and it's not like anything else that is out there.
NBC self-investigating an edited edited 9-11 call from the night Trayvon Martin died.
Audio soundbite.
Here is what NBC.
Grab 15 first.
Let's put this in the right order.
This is what actually happened.
This is a tape of George Zimmerman's 911 call.
This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something.
It's raining and he's just walking around looking about.
Okay.
And this guy is he white, black or Hispanic?
He looks black.
George Zimmerman.
This guy looks like he's up to no good, on drugs or something, raining.
He's walking around looking about.
Dispatcher, okay.
Is he white, black, or Hispanic?
Zimmerman, he looks black.
Here's how it aired on NBC.
This guy looks like he's up to no good.
He looks black.
A 100% distortion.
A 100% recreation of what happened.
In order to put together that sound bite that you just heard, they had to knowingly and willingly edit the question of the dispatcher, and then they had to edit Zimmerman saying he looks black right after he says he looks like he's up to no good.
But Zimmerman wasn't through when he said this guy looks like he's up to no good.
That's where NBC stopped it.
Zimmerman kept on.
After he said this guy looks like he's up to no good, he said, or he's on drugs or something.
It's raining.
He's walking around looking about.
NBC takes that out.
They took the dispatcher question out and they added on Zimmerman saying he looks black.
What is there to investigate here?
Anybody with two ears and an IQ of 50 knows what happens here.
Is the investigation of who did it?
Or are they investigating if it's wrong?
What are they investigating at NBC?
They are investigating how they can get out of this.
They are investigating how they can come up with a plausible explanation for this.
That's what NBC is doing.
Listen to them again.
Play Soundbite 15 first.
This is what actually happened.
This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something.
He's just walking around looking about.
Okay.
And this guy, is he white black or Hispanic?
He looks black.
This is what NBC aired last Tuesday on the Today Show.
This guy looks like he's up to no good.
He looks black.
Fuck, this is uh outrageous.
It absolutely outrageous.
This is one of the most glaring, obvious, egregious examples of racial bias and hatred.
And yes, it is hatred at NBC that led to this.
There is no compassion here.
There's no open-minded here.
There's no tolerance here.
Why didn't the 9-11 dispatcher ask if he was a white Hispanic?
Isn't that standard category now?
You didn't hear the dispatches.
Dispatcher said, is he white, black, or Hispanic?
I didn't hear him say, is he white, black, or white, Hispanic.
The New York Times added that for us into the uh lexicon.
I wonder if Richard Jewell's attorney is still available.
NBC tried to destroy Richard Jewell.
Do you remember the name Richard Jewell?
There was a bomb that went off at Olympic Park in Atlanta.
And Tom Brokaw went on the air After he had talked to his trusted sources and said that a guy named Richard Jewell had done it.
Richard Jewell sued NBC and a number of other news media outlets for falsely accusing him of setting the bomb at the Atlanta Olympics in 1996.
Jewell was tried and convicted by the news media.
The only problem is he was completely innocent.
He should have been treated like a hero since he's the man who discovered the bomb.
NBC accused him of planting the bomb.
The news outlets that Jewell sued settled for undisclosed amounts.
We don't know how much money was involved, except the Atlanta Journal Constitution that went to court and escaped on a technicality.
So I wonder if his attorney's still out there for George Zimmerman to go use.
Quick timeout, we'll be back and continue here in a second.
This is what Richard Jewell sued NBC for.
This statement was made by Tom Brokaw.
Quote, the speculation is that the FBI is close to making the case.
They probably have enough to arrest him right now, probably enough to prosecute him, but you always want to have enough to convict him as well.
There are still some holes in this case.
And it's not that NBC accused him of planting the bomb.
I'm not sure that they did, but they accused him of being involved in this.
So much so that he sued them and won for mischaracterizing his involvement.
And the whole thing started.
The entire witch hunt of Richard Jewell started by a leak from the Janet Reno Justice Department.
That's where NBC got it.
So an NBC on their dateline show or whatever their 60 minutes copycat show was, blew up that truck.
They were trying to show that if you bought and drove this particular truck, uh be aware it could blow up on you.
And they had a demonstration of how this just randomly happens, and they ran the demonstration.
And it was later learned that they had rigged explosives in the truck.
And I'm sure they were, well, journalistic license to show this does happen.
We just wanted to make sure it did happen for our purposes so we can show what would happen if it did happen.
I mean, the pretzels that the news media shapes that they twist themselves into in order to justify what they do is mind-boggling.
You can get dizzy trying to uh follow this stuff.
Now, if every political story aired on state-controlled media were to be parsed, subjectivity, spin, bias, prejudice could be found in every one of them.
A template can be found in every story.
Including stories that ran over the weekend about me.
I'm not going to talk about that.
But just trust me, there were a couple stories that ran on me over the weekend, and they had to make sure that the original false allegations still ran.
Even though they've been debunked, even though the original allegations were not true, they still kept them in there because that's the template.
They do it under the guise of reporting the timeline.
They don't report, by the way, we got it wrong.
They report that there is some doubt now about what was originally reported, but here is what was originally reported, and here's what Limbaugh is saying now.
As though it's still open to question.
This is how it's done.
There is subjectivity, spin, prejudice, and bias found in every state-controlled media story.
The difference is only a matter of degree.
But what they did to Zimmerman here, this happens every day, Multiple times a day in the way stories are edited.
Newsmakers and what they say, the way the stories are put together.
Gotta take a break here, folks.
We'll be back before you know it.
Doo doo doo doo.
So they're telling us that NBC doesn't know by now all the details of their effort to influence a criminal investigation and spread hate.
NBC still can't figure out how they did that.
It's been a week now.
▲
Export Selection