All Episodes
Previous Next
April 26, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:04
April 26, 2012, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Talent on lawn 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 us telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-288 to the email address lrushbo at eibnet.com.
One little observation, and when I make this observation, then what I'm going to tell you hasn't happened will obviously start happening.
Coco up at the website just reminded me, we haven't had snerdly.
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 going to hate Romney and I'm going to sit at home.
If people are this stupid and deserve to have this country go to hell in a handbasket, and I'm going to sit at home and let Obama win and see how bad this is going to 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.
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're flooded with them.
When they're unhappy with what's happening, well, hell with it, Limbaugh.
Hell with it.
Hell, I'm just going to sit home.
Hold on, I sit home.
Let Obama win it again.
Let the stupid people in this country find out exactly how rotten these people are.
And the Northeastern liberal, too.
We normally get those calls.
Haven't had those.
And of course, my theorem is that the Andy Obama enthusiasm is much higher than anybody wants to admit.
I didn't know this.
And my brother sent me a YouTube link today.
Herman Kane tested 2F 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 Cain endorsed him and was in doing an appearance for him.
And Bill Randall handed Herman Kane a bottle of 2F 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 iced tea.
He was in the restaurant business.
Herman knows that 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 Listerine.
But here's how it sounded.
I'm going to ask you genuinely just to get your reaction tasting that for the first time.
Two if by tea.
Want to take a quick taste?
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, Unpaid spokesman, one-time spokesman for two if by t 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 nine days ago, and we are going to be contacting the grand prize winners very soon.
Just to give you a heads up, a little tease.
For example, if you are listening, Dee Dee in Texas, stay by your phone.
Just a little teased, just a little teas.
That's the point.
Snurdley says that could be half the population in some towns in Texas.
Dee Dee in Texas.
How many D D's 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'm so confused.
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 New York Times piece on Tuesday.
It was the most amazing piece.
Arthur Brisbane, who is the public editor, the ombudsman, I guess, had this most amazing piece.
He said 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 poll 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 the 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 the media would just do their jobs, wouldn't have to worry about all of this.
But I have all the respect in the world for Dick Morris.
If the media turns against Obama, it's going to 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.
Now, there are, 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 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 PMS NBC.
How much longer do we have to pretend that these POTUS events aren't campaign events?
Not there isn't anything wrong with campaigning.
I find that one fascinating.
Here's this guy.
He's in the tank for Obama, obviously.
How much longer do we have to pretend that these things aren't campaigns?
Meaning, when's Obama going to 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.
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.
Just call it that.
Sam Stein, well, yeah, campaigns should pay for campaigning.
So there are some, even Jacob Tapper.
Carney seemed offended by questions about whether electoral factors in POTUS travel sked seemed, I'm sorry, that's it, seem offended by questions about whether electoral factors in POTUS travel.
So 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 on 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 is so imposing, so fearful.
They wouldn't dare.
So they tweet this stuff to themselves to show how tough they are.
But they won't ask Obama these questions.
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 president 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 going to jinx something.
But there are a lot of people that do.
I don't believe in a jinx factor.
So O'Reilly said, oh, really?
Well, 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 13 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 magazine editor, Jan Winner, was being interviewed by the BFF of Oprah, Gail King.
He said, 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 Wenner, and Obama.
But you said he seemed a little somber in this interview.
He's, I think, just really stressful.
At a point, it just gets worrisome 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.
Does Hillary look tired?
I mean, even three years of just a job, as you can't imagine.
So Obama and Hillary are tired and they're running scared.
And this guy loves them.
Jan Winner loves Obama and loves Hillary.
But he can't help but acknowledge these people have had it.
Look tired.
Such a tough job.
It's, oh, man, it's just a job that you just can't imagine.
So Charlie Rose, not happy to hear what Jan Winner 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 going to make the stakes.
You go in there like every last vote counts.
I think that's the way they mean to take it.
Jan Winner, the latest expert on Obama, because he did an interview.
Okay, a brief time out here, folks, an obscene profit time out here at the EIB network.
We'll be back.
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.
He's going to make it sound like he's going to only take money from the top 1%, but he's going to 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 in Los Angeles on Monday.
I had to kill some time out there, and 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 going to give him some.
George in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
It is indeed an honor to speak to the all-knowing, all-caring Maharashtri.
Thank you very, very much.
It's great to have you with us.
Yes, sir.
You heard your brother 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 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, and here's what he's talking about.
This is Obama, January 2008, San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board meeting.
What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody 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 going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
Barack Obama telling the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board he's going to put the coal business out of business by making it impossibly expensive to be in business.
You couldn't believe, 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 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 than stay here and try to go into business.
Well, what makes you think they're on the bus?
Well, probably not, but I think they're taking the Hoof Express.
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, the most listened-to radio talk show in the world, the most talked about show in the world, the most talked about host in the world, and the most listened to, the most feared, the most loved and appreciated.
We cover every conceivable base that there is.
One of the Reasons I was given earlier today by somebody an 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 in the vote turnout is illustrative of this.
Well, something big happened in Pennsylvania, nevertheless.
Planned Parenthood took it on the chin twice.
Redstate.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 eye-popping $100,000 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 resonance, 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 $100,000 worth of ads in a single congressional district, Pennsylvania.
McKenzie, $100,000 spent against him, won 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, Ann 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 percent, 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, that'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 oral arguments yesterday on the Arizona immigration law.
It's a story by Adam Liptek.
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.
I'm 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 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 it was Judge Roberts who said to Varilli, 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, you don't even sound like you're interested in knowing who's in the country.
So let's go to the audio soundbites.
It hasn't been a good six weeks for Jeffrey Toobin.
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 Toobin.
John King said, among those who think that this is a tough day in court for the federal government, for the regime, is our senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin.
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.
Arizona law doesn't force the government to do anything, doesn't tell the government to do anything.
Federal power isn't disturbed, and that's all that matters.
Now, if 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, he just, no matter which judge asked questions, it seemed 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.
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 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.
I listen to Jeffrey Toobin 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 Armander's two years ago in Dish, Texas, describing how they're going to squash big oil.
I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement.
It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer the villages in the Mediterranean.
They'd go to a little Turkish town somewhere and they'd find the first five guys they saw and they'd crucify them.
Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.
And so you make examples out of people who were, in this case, not complying with the law.
So if the five people who are not complying with the law, you hit him as hard as you can.
You can make examples out of them.
There's a deterrent there.
Al Armanderas talking about how he's going to crucify oil and gas companies just because they exist.
And I said earlier today, this is Obama.
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 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 what he said is clearly not representative of either this president's belief in the way that we should approach these matters or in the way that he has approached these matters, either from this office here in the White House or at the EPA.
Not true.
So this guy is saying, hey, this Al Mendez, he doesn't speak for Obama.
He does speak for Obama.
We've got the tapes of Obama describing how he's going to put the coal business out of business.
He's going to make it too expensive to operate.
How electricity rates are going to 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.
President, they're not representative of this.
It is.
He's a political appointee.
Armandaris is there for a reason.
And that is he is Obama.
Obama said he was going to crucify the coal industry.
To the San Francisco Chronicle.
This Armander is guy crucifying little oil and gas companies like Range Resources doing Obama's bidding.
They're all on the same team.
▲
Export Selection