All Episodes
Previous Next
April 26, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:06
April 26, 2012, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Talent on loan from God.
Rush Limbaugh, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Filled here with vim and vigor.
An uncontainable source of energy.
It's great to have you with his telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-288-2.
The email address L Rushball at EIB net.com.
One little observation, and when I make this observation, uh, then what I'm gonna tell you hasn't happened will obviously start happening.
Coco, up at the website, just reminded me.
We haven't had Snerdley.
You tell me if we've had one, you haven't put it up.
Have you had any calls from people who have said, you know what, to hell with it?
I'm just gonna.
Hey, Romney, and I'm gonna sit at home.
If people are this stupid and deserve to have this country go to hell in a handbasket, and I'm gonna sit at home and let Obama win and see how bad this is gonna be, and we'll get rid of all these liberals and moderates forever.
Have you had one of those calls?
You've had two since the beginning of the cycle.
Well, when is the beginning of the cycle?
Since the beginning of the primary.
So in a year, you've had eight months, you've had two people.
Normally, we get we're we're we're flooded with them when they're unhappy with what's happening.
Well, hell with it, limbo, hell with it.
Hell, I'm just gonna sit home, all ought to sit home, let Obama win it again, and let the stupid people in this country find out exactly how rotten he people are in the Northeastern Liberal too.
We normally get those calls.
Haven't had those.
And of course, my theorem is that the umbi-Obama enthusiasm is much higher than anybody wants to uh admit.
I didn't know this until my my brother sent me a uh a YouTube link today.
Herman Cain tested two if by tea and liked it.
And there's a YouTube video of it.
Here is the audio.
It happened in March at Wake Forest, North Carolina, as a fundraising event for Bill Randall, who's running for the U.S. Congressional District 13 seat there, and Herman Kane endorsed him and was in doing an appearance for him.
And uh Bill Randall handed Herman Kane a bottle of two if by tea and asked him for his reaction to it.
Now, this could have gone either way.
Now Herman and I are good buds, but Herman knows ice tea.
He was in the restaurant business.
Herman knows, and he's from the South, and the Southern people know iced tea.
This we didn't know was happening.
Now you've got to see the video, because I mean Herman really gives it the old taste test in there, swishes it around like it's list uh Listerine.
But here's how it sounded.
I'm gonna ask you genuinely just get your reaction.
All right.
Two if by tea.
Mr. Limbaugh, this is for you.
Being a man from the South.
I know good sweet tea.
And this is good sweet tea.
Good job.
It is good.
Great.
It is good.
Herman sounds surprised.
It is good.
It is good.
So Herman Cain.
Yeah.
Herman Cain, an unpaid endorser.
Uh unpaid spokesman, uh, one-time spokesman for uh for for two if by tea.
Uh, by the way, speaking of two if by tea, you might recall we had uh just last week, our first tea season promo.
Did it on April 17th, about uh nine days ago, and we are going to be contacting the grand prize winners very soon.
Just uh give you a heads up, a little tease.
Uh for example, if you are listening, D D in Texas, stay by your phone.
Just a little tease.
Just a little that's the point.
Snurdly says that could be half the population in some towns in Texas.
Didi in Texas.
How many DDs now standing by their phones?
U.S. relaxes drone rules for Yemen, the regime, Obama regime, given the CIA and the U.S. military greater leeway to target suspected Al-Qaeda militants.
I am so confused.
I th I thought the regime told us the war on terror was over this week.
Didn't they?
I know I saw it on drugs.
They said the war on terror is over.
But now we've got new instructions and orders for the drone guys.
The CIA and the military has more leeway.
Dick Morris, former Clinton advisor Dick Morris, said that New York Times public editor Arthur Brisbane's criticism of the New York Times biased reporting may signal a shift in how the media covers Obama.
Morris is predicting the liberal media will turn against Obama.
We mentioned this this New York Times piece on Tuesday.
It was the most amazing piece.
Arthur Brisbane, who is the uh the the uh public editor, the ombudsman, I guess, had this most amazing piece.
They said it was it was the job of the New York Times to tell its readers who Obama is.
Four years after Obama started campaigning, the New York Times has promised to tell its readers who Obama is.
Dick Morris saw that.
And here's a pull quote from his story.
One is that the reporters are liberal, but the other fact is that the media tends to react to what it last did badly.
So for example, it was relatively mild toward Bush during the early years of his administration after 9-11.
Then it overcompensated, the media did, by being too harsh on Bush during the Iraq war.
Then when Obama got elected, they said, Oh wow, we just ruined a presidency with Bush.
Maybe we'll be nicer to Obama.
And I think you'll begin to see a bit of a pendulum swing against Obama, even though the media itself is liberal.
Look at all the contortions we're going through.
If if the media would just do their jobs, wouldn't have to worry about all of this.
But I I've I have all the respect in the world for Dick Morris.
If the media turns against Obama, it's gonna be for one reason.
That they're bored and they're trying to help him out.
That's the only reason they'll turn against him.
They'll turn against him under the guise of giving him advice in the form of criticism.
I just I now there are there's there's a uh there's a story from the Washington Free Beacon, liberal media mock Obama for faux campaign.
This is happening.
Obama is running around to all of these swing states speaking to all these college students, talking about student loans, and the taxpayers are picking all this up, even though it's campaigning.
And the media knows he's campaigning, and they think campaigns ought to pay for this, not the not the taxpayers.
Members of the media are questioning the regime's numerous official business trips to swing states during which Obama has been giving stump speeches and raising campaign funds.
High profile Washington reporters engaged in a line of questioning on Twitter yesterday.
That seems to indicate that even staunch supporters of Obama think that the use of taxpayer funds for campaign trips getting out of hand, and here are some Twitter examples.
Mike O'Brien of uh PMSNBC.
How much longer do we have to pretend that these POTUS events aren't campaigned events?
Not that there's anything wrong with campaigning.
I find that one fascinating.
Here's this guy, he's a he's in the tank for Obama, obviously.
How much longer do we have to pretend that these things aren't campaigned?
Meaning when's Obama gonna cut us some slack and stop putting us in these risky situations, compromising our integrity.
We're loyal to you, Barack, but my gosh, you're making our jobs harder.
That's what O'Brien means.
Uh Sam Stein, Huffing and Puffington Post, White House correspondent.
Seriously, this is campaigning.
Just call it that.
It's not that dirty a word.
RNC regional press secretary R. C. Mahoney on Twitter.
Well, sort of is when taxpayers pay.
Seriously, this is campaigning, he just call it that.
Sam Stein, well, yeah, campaign should pay for campaigning.
So there's there are some even uh uh Jacob Tapper.
Carney seemed offended by questions about whether electoral factors in POTUS travel schedule, I'm sorry, that's it, seem offended by questions about whether electoral factors in POTU's travel.
So they're they're they're questioning Obama's numerous official business trips to swing states.
See, here's the problem.
They know they're being used.
They're in the tank for Obama, he's out campaigning.
He's not admitting it.
He's making it look like he's an official business.
They have to report it that way because they're in the tank for Obama.
But they're afraid people are going to notice.
The thing that's fascinating about this, these courageous journalists, they tweet their real questions.
They don't dare ask Obama these questions.
They don't dare ask Carney these questions.
Jay Carney's so imposing, so fearful.
They wouldn't dare.
So they they they they they tweet this stuff to themselves to show how tough they are.
But they won't ask Obama these questions.
They won't say, Mr. President, don't you think you ought to admit you're really campaigning here and not just really unofficial business?
But they'll tweet that.
Here's Dick Morris, by the way, audio soundbites.
Fox News channel, the O'Reilly factor last night.
O'Reilly said Jimmy Carter was running, as you said, an economy that was just terrible, inflation off the charts, unemployment was high, and then he looked bad with Iran, but he still led Reagan after all that in the polls.
He was still well ahead of Reagan, but Reagan basically got him in the debates.
I think that's what's happened.
That Reagan came across much more confident, much more credible in the debates than Carter, and that's what turned it for him.
Certainly the debates helped.
All of this bill is based on a fundamental misreading of what the situation was back then and what it is now.
People are not reading these polls accurately.
They are saying that right now it's very close, and in most polls, Obama is somewhat ahead.
Totally untrue.
Obama is way behind.
He's right.
That New York Times poll of three weeks ago, 41% approval.
The likability numbers are up, but Dick Morris is right.
You've got an incumbent present below 50% approval.
The White House knows it.
They are in a state of panic.
And very few people on our side are confident enough to say that.
Confidence, of course, not something I have a problem with.
But many other people do.
And plus there's the jinx factor.
See, I don't believe in jinxing.
See, for example, I don't think if I tell you that they're panicking in the White House that I'm gonna jinx something.
But there are a lot of people that do.
I don't believe in the jinx factor.
So O'Reilly said, Oh, really?
Well, uh, why is the president losing independent support?
Don't forget now, the Fox News poll came out yesterday, and Obama is losing independence to Romney by thirteen points after the war on women, after all this phony trumped up stuff for the last six weeks.
O'Reilly wanted to know from Morris why is the president losing independent support.
The president is running an absolutely stupid campaign.
His campaign is based on the assumption of not appealing to the middle, not even regarding the middle.
He's just going after the left.
He's trying to recreate the coalition that elected him in 2008.
He's trying to recreate that environment.
But instead of using hope and change and uplift, he's using envy and fear and dislike and distrust.
In the course of it, he looks horrible.
His personal approval ratings are dropping.
That's exactly right again.
There is no hope and change.
There's just fear, envy, class warfare, all that stuff.
Not playing.
This morning on CBS this morning, the uh magazine editor Jan Winner was being interviewed by uh uh the BFF of Oprah, Gail King, said in the in the four years that Rolling Stone's done the interview, you've had it the last three years with the president.
So I'm thinking there must be some kind of rapport between you, Jan Winner, and Obama, but you said he seemed a little somber in this interview.
He's I think just really stressful.
And at point just gets wearisome and tired.
You know, and he's been pounded back and forth like that.
Not that he you know he's more somber, the stakes are higher.
I don't know how to describe it.
It's tough.
Hillary looked tired.
I mean, even three years of just a job that you can't imagine.
So Obama and Hillary are tired and they're running scared.
And this guy loves them.
Jon Winter loves Obama and loves Hillary.
But he he can't help but acknowledge these people have had it.
Look tired, such a tough job.
It's oh man, it's uh just a job that you that you just you just can't imagine.
So Charlie Rose, not happy to hear what Jon Winter was saying, said, Well, do you think that they're running scared or not?
The Obama people?
I think everybody is running scared.
You have to if you're not running scared, you're crazy.
If you go with overconfidence, you're gonna make mistakes.
You go in there like every last vote counts.
And I think that's the way they mean to take it.
Jan Winter, the latest expert in Obama, because he did an interview.
Okay, a brief timeout here, folks, an obscene profit timeout here at the EIB network.
We'll be back.
Uh be back right after this.
Not only, folks, can Obama not run on his past.
He very likely can't even run on his future.
He has no plans to address Social Security.
He has no plans to address Medicare.
He's got no plans to address the debt.
He's got no plans to address any of the problems we've got.
All of his plans, and he can't run on these either.
All of his solutions boil down to one thing, and that is taking more of our money.
And that's not a very good selling point.
Except maybe for people who are so poor they don't have to worry about it.
Now he's gonna make it sound like he's gonna only take money from the top one percent, but he's gonna be taking everybody's money.
That's his plan.
That's his solution.
That's all he's got.
I saw the other day, I was um uh I was in Los Angeles on Monday.
I had to kill some time out there, and I'm I'm driving around town.
I saw a down and out homeless looking guy holding a cardboard sign that said, Please give money or I'll vote for Obama again.
Honest, because this guy hadn't figured out Obama's gonna give him some.
George and Charlotte, North Carolina, welcome to the EIV network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
It is indeed an honor to speak to the all-knowing, all-caring Maharashi.
Thank you very, very much.
It's great to have you with us.
Yes, sir.
Your uh other uh about an hour ago playing that part of Obama.
I had never heard that about what he said on the coal companies.
I cannot believe that a man that is supposed to be a even a U.S. citizen, which I doubt, would even say that we will tax you to death, or we will fine you to death, or we will put you out here business.
Grab audio sound by number two, Ed.
Here's what he's talking about.
This Obama January 2008, San Francisco Chronicle editorial board meeting.
What I've said is that we would put a uh cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody's else's out there.
So if somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can.
It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're gonna be charged a huge sum for all that uh greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
Barack Obama telling the San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board he's gonna put the coal business out of business by making it impossibly expensive to be in business.
You couldn't bel you've never heard that quote.
No.
Rush.
Yep.
If we do not in November get this dictatorship socialist regime out of office.
You had mentioned earlier how many millions of uh illegals are going back to Mexico.
Yeah.
We will be better off to get on the bus with them with their gross national product, twice what ours is then stay here and try to go into business.
Well, what makes you think they're on the bus?
Well, probably not, but uh think they're taking the hoof express.
He's probably going to pay for their fare back.
No, no.
He wants them.
Yeah, oh, back, yeah.
He needs them here.
Absolutely.
See, that's great.
George had not heard that quote.
We will be back.
Hi, welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network, a most listened to radio talk show in the world.
The most talked about show in the world, the most talked about hosts in the world.
And the uh most listened to, the most feared, the most loved and appreciated, we cover every conceivable base that there is.
One of the uh reasons I was given earlier today by somebody in email about why I'm wrong, Obama losing in a landslide because there just isn't any enthusiasm for Romney was the evidence of the low turnout in Pennsylvania.
The primaries.
That there just isn't any enthusiasm, and the vote turnout is ill illustrative of this.
Well, something big happened in Pennsylvania, nevertheless.
Planned Parenthood took it on the chin twice.com with the details, an untold story following Pennsylvania's primaries is what a bad, bad night it was for planned parenthood.
In Pennsylvania's 134th House District, they spent an I-Popping 100,000 dollars on a TV ad campaign trying to sink the candidacy of Republican Ryan McKenzie by linking him to ultrasound legislation that was before the Pennsylvania legislature.
As Politico noted, it was seen as a trial balloon of sorts.
Most state legislative races and ad campaigns don't necessarily have any larger residents, but Democrats have been working to make the ultrasound bill the kind of liability for Republicans in Pennsylvania that a related proposal became for Republicans in Virginia.
Well, that trial balloon popped when McKenzie targeted with a hundred thousand dollars worth of ads in a single congressional district, Pennsylvania.
McKenzie.
One by an 18-point margin, 59 to 41.
Planned Parenthood taking it on the chin.
In Pennsylvania's 31st district, former Planned Parenthood CEO and board member, a Republican, Helen Bosley, lost in the primary to a pro-life Republican woman, Anne Chapman.
Thanks to the help of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, abortion played a central role in the race, and again, it was no contest.
Despite Helen Bosley's endorsement from the Bucks County Republican committee, the pro-life Ann Chapman won with 63 to 37%, a 26-point margin.
So two planned parenthood ad campaigns bombed royally.
A pro-life Republican beats a pro-choice Republican by 26 points.
For those of you Republicans inside the beltway, it's the social issues.
That's the social issues.
Republicans are supposed to get blown out.
Win by 26 points.
The New York Times, ladies and gentlemen.
A tantamount admission of defeat.
Regarding the Supreme Court, the oral arguments yesterday on the Arizona immigration law.
It's a story by Adam Liptech.
Justices across the ideological spectrum on the Supreme Court appeared inclined yesterday to uphold a controversial part of Arizona's aggressive 2010 immigration law based on their questions at a Supreme Court argument.
I'm not going to read to you the whole story, but you're just going to trust me on this.
This amounts to an admission of defeat from the New York Times, which prior to this seemed to be convinced that Arizona's immigration law would never survive a review by the Supreme Court.
But not based on any legal arguments.
Just because it's so darned unfair for Arizona to try to actually enforce U.S. immigration law.
The New York Times found it impossible that Obama could be defeated by some idiot governor.
Obama doesn't lose.
Obama sues Arizona.
Arizona should cave.
Arizona should say uncle.
Just because it's so unfair, even the New York Times had to admit justices across the ideological spectrum appeared inclined to uphold.
Its central and most controversial part.
And you know what that is?
You know what the central and most controversial part of the Arizona law is?
It's the provision requiring law enforcement to determine the immigration status of people they stop and whom they suspect are here illegally.
In fact, the uh the wise Latina herself, Sonia Sotomayor, even told the U.S. lawyer, Solicitor General Varilli, you can't see this isn't selling very well, talking about his argument.
Things went so badly yesterday that the Times in its article here spends much of the article suggesting fallback positions after they lose.
They float the idea that if the court upholds the law that Obama should just sue Arizona again, and this time say that the law encourages racial profiling.
I kid you not, that's what the New York Times says.
When the government loses, Obama needs to sue Arizona again, and this time claim that the Arizona law cannot be accomplished without racially profiling illegals.
Most of the argument yesterday concerned a requirement that state officials check immigration status.
Several of the justices noted that states are entitled to enact such provisions, and that they are already commonplace.
Even Justice Breyer suggested that he would uphold the provision if the process of checking immigration status would not mean detention for a significantly longer time than in an ordinary case.
This law really, all it does is ask the federal government to do something.
And that's why I think it was Judge Roberts who said to Verrilli, the Solicitor General, you don't even sound like you're interested in who's here.
Because that's all the Arizona law does is identify who's here illegally.
That's all it does.
And then ask the feds to do something about it.
And the feds don't want to do anything about it but sue Arizona.
And Justice Roberts said to Varilli, uh you don't even sound like you're interested in knowing who's in the country.
So let's go to the audio sound bites.
It hasn't been a good six weeks for Jeffrey Tubin.
First, he was gobsmacked with the oral arguments on Obamacare.
And yesterday, he was flabbergasted and gobsmacked with the oral arguments in Arizona.
Because these guys live in their little bubble where the only thing that exists is liberalism, and it always wins and triumphs.
And they never hear opposing or alternate arguments, as in conservative arguments.
And so when they do hear them, it's essentially for the first time, and they scratch their heads.
What?
Whoever thought of that?
Even though it's all around them.
So we go to the audio Soundbites.
Last night, CNN's John King, USA speaking with their legal analyst Jeffrey Tubin.
John King said, Among those who think that this is a tough day in court for the uh for the federal government for the regime is our senior legal analyst Jeffrey Tubin.
Jeffrey, why do you think this was a tough day in court for the regime?
The justices just did not seem sympathetic to the argument that this was an invasion of federal power.
All the justices who spoke, including the liberals, seemed to say, look, all this law does, at least the part that they were talking about, is it identifies who is in the country illegally and then informs the federal government that those people are in the country illegally.
It doesn't force the government to do anything.
It doesn't tell the federal government to do anything.
So federal power is not disturbed.
That seemed to be a broad consensus, perhaps even a unanimous consensus of the court, and that's not good for the position the Obama administration was taking.
Imagine that.
Doesn't tell the government to do it.
Federal power isn't disturbed.
And that's all that matters.
Now, federal power was disturbed, and these guys would be upset because nothing, nothing is supposed to take away from federal power.
Well, he said the consensus from the justices' questioning seemed unanimous.
Not that the decision is going to be.
He wasn't predicting that.
He just, no matter which judge asks questions, he's saying they all agreed that there's nothing wrong with this law.
And why are you up here arguing?
Why did you sue this state?
There's nothing wrong with this law.
That's the consensus that Toobin interpreted from the questions that were asked by the justices.
So John King, probing ever deeper for even more analysis, asked this, well, Jeffrey, this is about state versus federal power.
Where's the line, Jeffrey?
The health care challenge is about state versus federal power.
Where's the line?
How important is this court going to be on that question when we get these two and a couple of other decisions?
Well, this is just a term of epic, epic importance.
Frankly, I think this case is less significant because the issues are more narrow.
They're more technical.
The health care case is about the power of the federal government, period.
In an area where the federal government has been operating health care for decades, that case could redefine the nature of the federal government.
This case, I think, is much more about how the government, the federal government and the states operate at the margins.
It's important, but I don't think it's nearly as important as the health care case.
See, I think this is all wrong.
I think they're both equally important.
You have the federal government suing a state.
That is huge, if you ask me.
When all the state is doing is seeking to inform the federal government who's here illegally so that they might help them out?
And you've got the government suing a state over learning this information?
But notice what Toobin said about health care.
The health care case is about the power of the federal government, period.
In an area where the federal government's been operating health care for decades, that case could redefine the nature of the...
No, the nature of the federal government.
Jeffrey, Obama is trying to redefine the nature of the federal government.
And that's the problem.
Obama is trying to redefine the Constitution.
It's case.
Health care could redefine the nature of the federal government.
It's Obama trying to do that.
Not the court.
That's the key to understanding that.
You know, I listen, I listen to Jeffrey Tubin whenever we have sound bites of him, CNN, expressing shock over what he sees at the Supreme Court.
And it's astonishing.
Just astonishing how the news media's legal analysts are always the last to know anything.
I wonder if they live in caves.
I want to go back, audio soundbite number one, Al Armanderis, two years ago in Dish, Texas, describing how they're gonna squash big oil.
I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement.
There's kind of like how the Romans used to conquer the villages in the Mediterranean.
They'd go to a little Turkish town somewhere, they find the first five guys they saw, they crucify them.
So you make examples out of people who were in this case not complying with the law.
You hit him as hard as you can.
Make examples out of them.
It's a deterrent.
Al Ermandarez talking about how he's going to crucify oil and gas companies just because they exist.
This guy is an appointee.
Obama wants him there.
These are the kinds of people that Obama has populating these agencies.
So today at the White House press briefing, the Fox News Channel chief White House correspondent Ed Henry said to uh Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, the president's approach going back to the campaign of 08 was about hope and change, setting a new tone, somebody saying we should crucify the oil industry.
Why is that person still working at the EPA?
He's a political appointee.
What's going on here, Jay?
He apologized, and he's uh what he said is clearly uh not representative of either uh this president's belief uh in the way that we should approach these matters or in the way that he has approached these matters, either uh from this office here in the White House or at the EPA.
Not true.
So this guy is saying, hey, this uh Al Mandeiras, he doesn't speak for Obama.
He does speak for Obama.
We've got the tapes of Obama describing how he's gonna put the coal business out of business.
He's gonna make it too expensive to operate, how electricity rates are gonna skyrocket.
So he's got an appointee at the EPA crucifying oil and gas companies.
And Carney says, Well, no, no, that's not the president.
It is, he's a political appointee.
Ermandarez is there for a reason.
And that is he is Obama.
Obama said he was gonna crucify the coal industry to the San Francisco Chronicle.
This Armander's guy crucifying little oil and gas companies.
Like range resources, doing Obama's bidding.
They're all on the same team.
See you tomorrow, folks.
▲
Export Selection