All Episodes
Previous Next
April 5, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:48
April 5, 2012, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, folks, and welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence at Broadcasting Network.
Great to have you with us.
Our telephone number 800-282-2882 at the email address LRushbaugh at EIBnet.com.
And the Justice Department got their homework assignment in on time to Judge Smith at the Fifth Circuit Court in Houston.
He demanded a three-page single-paged letter.
And that really ticked off the left that this judge would essentially issue a homework assignment to the Department of Justice.
What really ticked off the left was that the government lawyer acknowledged, oh yeah, judge, there's judicial review, and we accept that.
And the judge, the left says, should have accepted that.
Instead, he issued this order that the department itself issue him a three-page single-spaced letter memo explaining their understanding of judicial review.
And it is three pages long, and it is single-spaced.
And it was signed by Eric the Red himself, Eric Holder.
And in a nutshell, the Attorney General, Eric the Red, claims that the Department of Justice supports judicial review, and that Obama's comment shows that he did too.
That's what it says.
That's when you boil it down.
Which, of course, is untrue.
Obama did the exact opposite.
Holder says that laws passed by Congress are presumed I've never heard of this word, presumatively constitutional.
Laws passed by Congress are presumatively constitutional, even though Holder's own DOJ is fighting the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act as we speak.
This is one of the ironies of this.
While Obama's out there saying that courts never overturn, they're asking a court to overturn DOMA.
Even though DOMA was passed by Congress, a duly elected Congress, duly constituted bill, whatever.
But both Obama and Holder have pronounced it to be unconstitutional.
There's a story here today, Reuters, White House in damage control over Obama's Supreme Court remarks.
They're not in any damage control.
He said exactly what he intended to say.
There's no damage control going on.
That's the illusion.
They want you to think that there's damage control going on.
That's exactly what Obama meant to say.
And we touched on this yesterday, but it is so truly hilarious.
Might be worth going into a little bit more detail because at the very least it shows Obama's ignorance and arrogance.
Yesterday, the White House spokeskid, Jay Carney, said that Obama merely made an unremarkable observation about 80 years of Supreme Court history, which is remarkably clueless, even for the Carney kid.
Obama's so-called observation was inaccurate in every aspect.
If it was so unremarkable, why are so many people remarking on it, including Obama?
Why do we have this story about damage control?
Obama was campaigning when he made this statement, and he was campaigning to the stupid.
I'm sorry to have to repeat this to you, but we may have people listening today that weren't yesterday.
This whole thing, Obama has decided that he's going to get re-elected on the stupid.
What he basically was saying was These guys on the court are going to take away your health care.
And they're not allowed to do that, but they're going to do it.
They want to take away your health care.
And they better not.
They better understand.
I'm warning them.
No mystery what Obama was doing.
And this idea that he's in damage control is just laughable.
Well, I don't assume the stupid are listening here, Snerdley.
Snerdley wants to know if the stupid enough, stupid are smart enough to know I'm talking about them.
I don't assume the stupid are listening.
That I'm well, I don't know.
Well, maybe the stupid will hear about it.
But then the question is, will they be smart enough to know that I'm talking about them?
It's sort of like when you ban the ugly and you say make it voluntary.
Then the question becomes, do the ugly know they're ugly?
There's no scientific data on that.
Do the stupid know that they're stupid?
Probably not, by definition.
The stupid think everybody else is stupid, but they're smart enough to know that Obama's looking out for them, not Bill O'Reilly.
They think Obama's looking out for him.
And so here's Obama telling them essentially that the court doesn't have the right to take away their health care, but they're thinking of doing it.
That's what he's telling them.
No damage control here.
What they're trying to do is structure this so that Obama doesn't have to take it back.
It's a campaign statement.
That's all that's going on here.
It's an attempt to massage this.
Now, let's move on to.
No, I haven't forgot CNN stuff, but this just happened.
We'll get to that here in just a second.
There was a story in a Politico today, Jeffrey Toobin, CNN, judges deranged by hatred.
After accusing a federal appellate court panel of having a hissy fit about Obama, outspoken CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said today that the order requiring the president to explain his beliefs about judicial review was a disgrace, and he called some Republican judges deranged by their hatred for the president.
I think these judges have done as a disgrace, Toobin said on CNN.
What President Obama said was entirely appropriate.
There's nothing wrong and nothing controversial.
He said, I signed a law that was passed by a democratically elected Congress, and I think it's constitutional.
Then these judges gave the—if that's all he's—who are we kidding here?
So Toobin has decided that he too wants his audience to be comprised of the stupid.
Which may well be the case in CNN.
But I, Snart, there's none of that.
He's still asking me, you sure there are no stupid?
If the stupid come to this show, they don't stay stupid long.
They either leave or they become smart.
By definition, the stupid don't listen here.
One of two things happens.
The stupid tune in, don't understand it, and leave and go back to E-Entertainment TV or try to find snooky reruns, or they get smart.
Pure and simple.
Now, this, Mr. Toobin, let me see if I can help you understand something.
Because you people on the left, by virtue of your reaction to some of the questioning and the oral arguments, you really, Mr. Toobin, you don't understand constitutionalists.
You don't understand people who love the Constitution.
You don't understand conservatism.
You don't understand conservatives.
You don't understand the concept of limited government at all.
Let me try to explain to you what might be going on here.
Mr. Toobin, you have, in the case of Judge Smith, I don't know him.
I'm assuming that Judge Smith loves the Constitution.
I think Judge Smith loves the Constitution far more than he hates anybody.
Why is it that every time that there is a political dispute, you people on the left have to assign hate to it, and automatically you exempt yourselves?
You are the haters.
You are the people that have this barely controllable rage coursing through your veins, not us.
Mr. Toobin, what's happening here, there is a battle for this country going on.
This is not insignificant stuff, and it's not a laughing matter when the President of the United States makes it plain that he doesn't think the court has the right to find his bill unconstitutional.
That matters to a sitting judge.
You think the judge did this for political reasons?
The judge did this to embarrass Obama.
The judge did this because of what the President of the United States said.
And it's about time somebody asked this guy, who are you and what do you really believe?
And that's what the judge was doing.
Mr. Toobin, there are some of us who are really worried about losing our country.
There are some of us to whom none of this is a game.
There are some of us who look at life through a prism other than will it help Obama get re-elected.
There are some of us who look at these events as being life-changing-changing, nation-changing, and in some cases unrecoverable.
This judge is not deranged by hatred.
If anything, the judge has a love of the Constitution and wants to see that it's upheld and he doesn't want it trampled on by the highest executive officer in the land.
But if the president wants to sound as though he's ignorant, which he did, if he wants to sound like he doesn't know what he's talking about, it's perfectly within this judge's purview to find out if we have a president who knows what he's talking about when it comes to the actions of the courts.
And whatever Obama's motivation was, when he came out and warned the court and when he told them that it's unprecedented to overturn laws that have been duly constituted or passed by a duly constituted body, that sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about, Mr. Toobin.
And that's frightfully dangerous.
So anyway, the letter has been turned over to the judge by Eric the Red.
And once again, said, hey, the DOJ supports judicial review.
Obama's comments show that he did too.
We believe that laws passed by Congress are presumably constitutional.
That's it.
We're fine.
Everyday school.
But they're deranged out there.
Judges deranged by hatred.
What these judges have done is a disgrace to give these, the judges give the Justice Department a homework assignment, a three-page letter, single space explaining what the president said.
There are people that want to know, Mr. Toobin, who this man really is.
There are people who want to know exactly what his intentions are.
There are those people.
Mr. Toobin, they love the country.
They are not consumed with hatred.
Okay, we'll take a brief time out.
We'll come back over to CNN audio and then your telephone calls.
All coming right after this.
We're back.
800-282-2882.
Rushland bought talent on loan from God Mitch McConnell.
The Republican leader in the Senate today has blasted Obama, telling him to back off the Supreme Court, back off these comments.
The president crossed a dangerous line this week, McConnell said to the Lexington, Kentucky Rotary Club.
And anybody who cares about liberty needs to call him out on it.
The independence of the court must be defended.
So McConnell was at the Lexington Rotary Club and launched on Obama.
Now, one thing about this, well, I can't see it anymore.
Never mind.
Let's go to the CNN piece.
I want to get into the, I'm not through with the racial component here, this Trayvon Martin.
The whole aspect of this being racial is repulsive.
It need not have ever been.
It was instituted, introduced by the media.
It's all fallen apart now.
And I want to expand on that, but I've been talking about the CNN stuff long enough.
Let me get to this here.
We're going to start with Wolf Blitzer.
This was last night on Anderson Cooper 10.
Wolf Blitzer filling in for Anderson Cooper, who was at the nail salon.
And during a discussion about the newly enhanced audio for the 9-11 call, Blitzer and Jeffrey Toobin had this exchange.
It's a major issue as far as the Justice Department is concerned.
That word, whether it was a bad word or simply saying it was cold, effing cold, because the Justice Department presumably wouldn't get involved in a civil rights case if the word is cold.
The only way the federal government has jurisdiction over this homicide is if they can prove there was some sort of racial hostility at the core of it.
This is obviously very important.
It's not the only piece of evidence in the case.
The Justice Department presumably will investigate every aspect of this, but certainly if the word is cold, not C-O-O-N, that is highly relevant.
Really?
Really?
So the original report here, the original hearing of the tape is sound like he's an effing raccoon.
But now if the word's cold, why there's no racial component?
Oh, no.
Oh, no.
That means the feds can't get involved.
Oh, no.
It also means the whole premise under which this was reported was wrong.
So then on Anderson Cooper 10, they played a portion of correspondent Gary Tuchman's report where he played an isolated part of the 9-11 call from Zimmerman to the cops the night Trayvon Martin was shot, believing it showed Zimmerman saying a racial slur.
Here's Gary Tuchman.
Rick, can we play just that second word, what we think the second word is, and hear if that sounds any different?
Okay.
I mean, it certainly sounds like that word to me, although you just can't be sure.
That sounds even more like the word than using it when it was a four before that.
All right, right.
Well, last night, CNN enhanced the audio.
Like NBC revisited their purposely doctored tape, and like ABC, enhanced their video.
CNN enhanced the audio, and they now conclude that Zimmerman was merely saying the word cold.
Let's play it a few times.
Now, it does sound less like that racial slur.
Last time I acknowledged possibility it could have been that slur from listening in this room, and this is state-of-the-art room.
It doesn't sound like that slur anymore.
It sounds like, and we wanted to leave it up to the viewer, but it sounds like we're hearing the swear word at first and the word cold.
And the reason some say that would be relevant is because it was unseasonably cold in Florida that night and raining.
Oh, Jefferson.
And some say this would be relevant.
The reason some people are saying it'd be relevant because you might have gotten it wrong.
It's a big difference if the word's cold instead of the other one because then the Justice Department has no reason to get involved.
I remember, and I wasn't the only one, folks.
There were a lot of people when this story broke.
Don't forget the Duke La Crosse case.
Don't forget it.
We know who the media are.
We know who the race hustlers are, and we know that they salivate over stories like this.
But the racial angle is repulsive no matter how you look at this.
Now, look, even if Zimmerman were a Klansman, he wouldn't be guilty for shooting somebody who was beating him savagely.
If Trayvon Martin were a black panther, it would still be wrong for Zimmerman to shoot him if he was not defending himself.
We are supposed to have blind justice.
It is not supposed to matter.
The racial component here is not supposed to matter.
We have a dead teenager.
We have a dead American.
We have somebody who shot him.
We still don't know the details.
All we have are a bunch of networks and race hustlers trying to create a stereotype out of this.
Going so far, the New York Times referring to Zimmerman, who's a Democrat, by the way, as a white Hispanic, just to create the template or the narrative or the whole stereotype, if you will.
Race is being injected into this case to enrich the race baiters, to whip up the Democrat base, to sell newspapers, to try to enhance television network audiences and to lay the groundwork for double jeopardy in case Zimmerman escapes state prosecution.
Because with race, you can claim civil rights violation.
You get the feds involved here, Eric the Red and the DOJ to go in there for a second time on the same crime.
If you lose the first time, you get DOJ in there on a civil rights violation.
I am still willingly naive in all the years that I have been on the radio.
It has never occurred to me to do what NBC did with a piece of audio.
It has never occurred to me just to make a point or just to further my agenda.
What good is it if it's a lie?
And had I, can you imagine?
But it never even occurs to me.
These people, not only does it occur to them, it's one of the first things they think about.
They see a story with a black teenager, and that's all, then they're off to the races.
Let's, in their mind, let's manufacture this.
Do we have an element here where we can manufacture a race hate crime out of this?
Because that's what they think this country is.
This is the real bottom line.
NBC, CNN, that's what they think of America.
That's what this country is still like.
Well, the Masters started today.
I'm not going to tell you anything about the Masters.
No spoiler alerts on the Masters, but yesterday, the annual pre-tournament press conference by the chairman of the club, Billy Payne, and he predictably got two or three questions on membership policy.
And here's the rub.
IBM is a corporate sponsor of the tournament, has been for a number of years, and the last four CEOs of IBM have been invited to join as members Augusta National.
Well, IBM just named a female CEO.
Now, the news media is assuming that the IBM CEO automatically is a member of Augusta National.
Billy Payne will not confirm or deny that because they don't discuss membership policy.
So the key to understanding the story, folks, is that the media is assuming that the CEO of IBM automatically becomes a member.
I don't think there is such a thing as an automatic member at Augusta National, but nobody knows for sure.
They don't discuss it.
But the media thinks it's automatic.
And they probably think it because IBM is an annual sponsor of the tournament.
That is not, I don't believe, and I don't, I shouldn't say I don't know, but I don't, I've never believed that memberships get parceled out that way.
That means they could be bought.
All you'd have to do is the CEO.
Say, I'll sponsor your tournament if I can get it.
I never thought it worked.
Maybe it does.
I don't know.
I really, I ought not have said that because I really don't know.
But I do know what the media thinks.
They think it's automatic.
And now there's a female CEO.
So it's Martha Burke time all over again.
When are you going to let a woman in?
Here you have the woman CEO.
You're going to deny her her rightful membership.
And there are no rightful memberships.
So anyway, guess who weighed in on it today?
That's right.
Barack Obama, President of the United States, has weighed in on it.
At the White House press briefing today, Jay Carney, the spokeskid, was asked about this.
And Carney said, well, it's obviously up to the club to decide, but Obama's personal opinion is that women should be admitted to Augusta National.
Obama believes Augusta should admit women.
We're kind of long past the time when women should be excluded from anything, said the spokeskid, Jay Carney.
So back during the Martha Burke days, when Hootie Johnson was the chairman, the president didn't get involved, stayed out of it.
But now here's Obama, the first black president who says, I think they ought to allow female members.
Be interesting to track this.
Now, Warren Buffett's a member of Augusta National, but I don't think his secretary is.
And what a slight that is.
I mean, Warren Buffett's secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does, and she's not a member of Augusta National, but Warren is.
And furthermore, Bill Gates is a member, and he violated policy by lobbying to become a member.
You're not supposed to do that.
But he begged, and they let him in.
So goes the story.
I don't really know any of this.
I ought not to be talking about it.
I'm going to take it all back.
I don't even know.
I do know that Buffett's secretary isn't a member, that Buffett is.
So now, Obama says they think they ought to have women in there.
What do you think is going to now happen?
You don't, you don't.
Okay, Snerdley says he doesn't think Augusta National will fold just because Obama has weighed in.
Well, maybe not.
I don't know.
I really don't know what they're going to do either, but I do know that this is going to, you have just ignited this like a rocket with the media.
I mean, every day now, Billy Payne can be asked, not from a media guy, but, well, a president says that you should, and they can force Billy Payne into responding to Obama now.
That's what changes this.
The media, by the way, just so you know, in some places, I've read this, the media, and Billy Payne can't, I don't think he would like this.
Snerdley's saying, you better shut up or you're never going to get.
I'm never.
Not a chance.
So I'm going to say, if he's going to make the Catholic Church pay for abortions, and if he's going to make the Catholic Church give away birth control pills, he can certainly get women into Augusta.
There's no question.
He can just order it.
The Catholic Church is a private organization.
It was separation, church and state, isn't it?
We have religious freedom in this country, do we not?
Don't we, folks?
Well, theoretically, we do.
We used to, but Obama, he's going to make the Catholic Church pay for abortions and abortification and birth control pills.
Certainly, after he tells the court what to do, he can tell Billy Payne what to do.
Now, the story is going to sit.
There's a couple stories out there.
Speculating that Payne personally is a modern guy and would love to have women in there, but the traditions of Augusta National have him shackled.
Personally, Billy Payne would like to have women in, but the traditions of this place won't permit it.
That's the angle.
They are mounting all kinds of pressure now.
Billy, what?
Have I ever, I still don't know where you're asking, have I been to where?
Spell it.
Never heard of it.
A women-only, have I ever been to Curbs, a women-only gym?
I've never been to gyms, period.
So I've never been to Curves.
Anyway, how far can we be from the Augusta mandate?
We have the health care mandate.
We've got the birth control mandate.
And pretty, we're going to have the Augusta mandate.
And then you've got this poor, well, not poor, but you've got the new CEO of IBM, who's a woman, is now being kicked around here.
And if she ends up getting in, because I do you know that she she golfs, but it's not a passion.
Her passion is scuba diving, the new CEO of IBM.
Well, Augusta has members that don't play golf.
It's not just a golf club.
But anyway, no justice, no tease at Augusta National.
Okay, Charles in Franklin, Massachusetts.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Great to have you here.
Thank you for taking my call.
You know, law enforcement dittos out to you.
Thank you, sir.
What you do with the teas, giving the money to the disabled law enforcement and Marines.
I'm calling because my nephews go to that Starbucks school, and it is, you know.
In Bellingham?
Yes, they do.
And it's the next town over.
And the rest of the world.
How old are your nephews?
One is 13 and one is 8.
Okay, so you've got a 13 and an 8-year-old.
Well, okay, do both of them go to this school?
Yes.
Okay.
And my daughters don't, thank God.
But the reaction that they had when the parents brought this to their attention and complained was like a five-year-old having a tantrum.
Wait a minute.
I'm confused.
I thought I was under the impression that the school just took it upon themselves to do this, that there weren't any complaints.
Am I wrong about that?
Yeah, it came out to the parents, and the parents complained, and then the school, in a knee-jerk, typical liberal reaction decided that there's going to be no songs at this event.
You know, they had a lot of people.
What happened was having a tantrum.
The report from Fox Eyeball News in Boston is that, however, what happened, when somebody complained about God, bless the USA, the school said, okay, we'll just say we love the USA.
And then that caused people to complain.
And then the school said, to hell with it, we'll just not do the song at all anymore.
Exactly.
And that's what they do in Massachusetts.
We're surrounded by these people.
And it's kind of like what the president did with the Supreme Court.
You know, he's having a tantrum in public so that people will see that he's trying to get his message across.
And that's what this principal did.
She said, okay, well, you know what?
Your eight and seven-year-olds aren't going to sing any songs.
It's ridiculous.
Well, yeah, let me tell you something.
I don't believe this story that you've got some administrator or principal, whoever, that's quaking in his or her boots, worried about offending people.
I think you've got a secular activist in there.
And they're a bunch of, they're like sleeper cells.
It's like almost like Karl Marx, they froze his sperm and they injected a bunch of women over these hundreds of years, and these people have been born over these hundreds.
And a bunch of little Marxists in the past 50 years have been born and grown up and now infiltrated all these institutions and are doing their dirty work.
I just don't believe that they're a bunch of NAMBAMB new castrati, fearful for everything people trying to be politically correct.
I think we've got secular activists here who are on a mission to get God out of as much of this country day-to-day activity, traditions, you name it, as they can.
Rush Lindbaugh with half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
It's the case all the time, every day here.
We love fairness, the EIB network.
Here is Tyler in Los Angeles.
Tyler, great to have you.
Welcome.
Hey, Rush.
I've been listening to you since I was in diapers, so it's nice to finally get to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
Very, very much.
I appreciate that.
That's a great vision.
Well, I wanted to say because it seems to me, and I know I can't be the only one that notices this, is that President Obama has waged war on every branch of the government.
So at first it was Congress because They're not passing the things he wants to be passed.
And so he had to go through and use executive order.
And now it's the judiciary.
And it's always been the rich Americans, which are still Americans.
So he seems to be in his election year.
I can't understand why he's waging war on all these Americans.
Let me see if I can explain this.
I think I have a theory.
Oh, the school in Massachusetts has buckled, and now the song is back in the program.
Well, it didn't take long, did it?
The secular activist at this school in Massachusetts has relented for a while.
Anyway, why is Obama lashing out during an election year?
I'm going to tell you, Tyler, my honest opinion, I think he's panicking.
I think it's hard, though, to kind of make all these enemies.
No, no, it's who he is.
The man has, and I've made this point since 2007.
Obama, to me, is somebody who his whole life has been sheltered, shielded, never told no.
In school, his C's were turned into A's.
He's always been special.
He's led a charmed life in this regard.
He is also an Alinskyite totalitarian.
The point is, he gets his way.
He has always gotten his way his whole life.
He ran a campaign as a messiah.
People were simply going to kneel down.
He believes this.
He is a genuine narcissist.
The opposition is probably of this nature is the first he's encountered.
And he looks at it as insolence.
He looks at it as disrespect, personal.
He looks at it as how dare they.
And in that regard, he's lashing back.
And hell would you?
You can't treat me this way.
You can't do this to my bill.
You can't.
What are you?
Who do you think you are?
And I think there's panic because the mysticism of 2008 is gone and it's been replaced with a record here that's embarrassing.
It's a record of utter failure.
And he can't run on it.
And so he's got to have enemies.
Liberals have to have demons, Tyler.
They have to have enemies.
And his enemy will float.
One month it's me.
The next month it's Supreme Court.
The next month it's George Zimmerman.
Now it's going to be Augusta National for a while.
Every day, there's a new enemy or two to take the focus off his failures.
Now, I think their polling data is bad.
I think it is horrible.
I think they're in huge trouble and they know it.
And they've got people in the White House, Tyler, who've never lived in the real world a day in their lives.
They're academicians, they're theoreticians, they're professors.
I think that this is a circumstance situation Obama's never found himself in before.
Not being idolized, not being treated almost with idolatry by everybody.
Listen to Carl.
Carl Rove was on Greta Van Sustran last night, and she had a question: Does the president seem concerned about the election or does he seem confident, Carl?
What is your now?
Remember who Rove is.
Rove is, well, you may not know.
Rove is a presidential expert historian.
He can dazzle you for hours with stories of presidents, details about men you have never heard before, and he wouldn't stutter or pause once.
Amazing.
He's also a brilliant election tactician.
He's among the best people that do what he does.
And if anybody can accurately portray what's going on in the White House with Obama, it would be Carl Rove.
Here's, let's listen to what he said.
He's nervous, and he has every reason to be nervous from his fundraising, which is underperforming dramatically, to the polls.
Look, he's the incumbent president of the United States.
And look at these polls.
He's at 47, 48, 49, 46.
His generic ballot is 45 Obama, 44 generic Republican.
That is not a good place for the president to be, and he knows it.
That's why he's spending so much time on the campaign trail.
Despite the fact that's the wrong answer for the problem only changes.
If you want to be strong as president, be a strong president.
He can't.
He doesn't have a foundation of strength to stand on.
His record he can't stand on.
Plus, it's not who he is.
He's a liberal.
He needs enemies.
He'll manufacture them if they don't exist.
And he'll lash out at the court and he'll lash out at Congress and he'll lash out at George Bush.
He'll lash out at predecessors left and right.
This is just who he is.
But Rove's right.
These numbers are not good.
And don't forget the New York Times' most recent approval poll had him at 41.
That's not good.
Another exciting, busy broadcast hour has come to an unfortunate finish.
Well, no, the finish wasn't unfortunate.
The fact that it's finished is unfortunate, but it really isn't because there's more.
There's always more.
We never really are finished here.
We never really stop.
We just take a breather now and then, as we now must.
But we will be back in mere moments before you know it, revved up and ready to go much more straight ahead here on the EIB network, folks.
▲
Export Selection