All Episodes
Previous Next
June 25, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:50
June 25, 2012, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
You know, this is how, I don't know, silly, it may not be silly.
First blush, it seems silly to me.
This is how silly it is.
I had a lawyer, a powerful, influential lawyer, tell me today, hey, Rush, don't worry about this Arizona business.
If you're the Supreme Court and you're going to strike down Obamacare, you'd go ahead and protect Obama in a previous ruling so that you save the court's image.
The theory being that they gave Obama most of what he wanted on Arizona because they're going to skin him alive when it comes to health care.
Who knows?
There's no way of knowing.
But people are grasping at straws out there because everybody's confused.
I felt so bad today.
By the way, hi, folks, Il Rushball here at the Lindbaugh Institute.
Great to have you.
It's a full week of broadcast excellence, 800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
I felt so badly for Shannon Bream, who was the Supreme Court steps reporter this morning.
The ruling came out and they're tossing it to her.
And it's so confusing, until you've had time to get into it, that it was impossible to dissect this.
And she gave it the best she had, and it was good.
But I was just glad I wasn't her.
To have to explain this thing the moment it's been released, 70-some-odd pages.
Here's where we are on this.
This is essentially what happened.
The Supreme Court struck down Arizona's requirement for aliens to carry registration papers.
They struck down the law's application of criminal penalties for employing illegal aliens and the authorization of warrantless arrests for deportable crimes.
However, this is where it gets confusing because they broke this thing down into four provisions.
However, all eight of the justices voted to allow the mandatory immigration check requirement to go into effect.
It was unanimous, eight to zip.
What's her face Kagan recused herself from this case?
And that's what everybody thinks this case was about.
Most people don't know about these other three provisions.
Most people think that the Arizona immigration case was about whether or not the cops can stop somebody and demand that they prove their status.
And the court upheld that.
Now, the other three provisions are not insignificant.
It could be said, it can be said that the regime won three out of four.
And this one, this fourth provision hangs by a thread because the court said that even though we're going to allow the cops to stop people, do whatever they want to do.
This is the stop and check documents provision.
They upheld it for now, but they, in the ruling, invited litigation on that provision down the road if some kind of perceived violations take place.
So it could end up that this is going to be challenged and it'll be lost.
Can you imagine if the states were not free to stop people and ask if they're here illegally?
That could end up being the case because the fourth provision that was upheld, the thing that everybody thought this case was about, the court invited litigation on it.
So I don't know, folks, It's getting to the point here where you could say that we had Chief Justice Roberts and Kennedy joining the liberals on these three, on these three provisions, and it basically wipes out states.
This gives the federal government total purview over pretty much everything.
Now, as I said, Arizona's requirement for police officers to make reasonable efforts to determine the immigration status of people detained for other infractions was upheld.
And this was the most reported on and discussed provision of the law.
Most of the hysteria on the left regarding Arizona's law was directed at this provision, and that's what everybody really thought this law was about.
Arizona's law stipulates that in order for its provisions to apply, a law enforcement officer must first make a lawful stop, a lawful detention, lawful arrest in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city, town.
So basically, the state of Arizona can stop people and demand that they prove their immigration status or their immigrant status.
But that is subject to further litigation.
The court upheld for now the provision allowing local cops to check status.
They upheld the provision requiring a check of immigration status for people otherwise detained.
Ice cream parlors are not de facto detention centers for illegals.
So the president lost on that point.
Well, Stern, what are you talking about?
Grab soundbite number four.
What are you talking about?
Ice cream parlor.
Well, April 28, 2010, in Otumwa, Iowa, Indian Hills Community College, Obama had a town meeting, and he got this question.
I was wondering what your plan was for our undocumented workers who helped establish this country.
This law that just passed in Arizona, which I think is a poorly conceived law, you can imagine if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona, your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state.
But now suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to be harassed.
That's something that could potentially happen.
That's not the right way to go.
So the court upheld for now the provision allowing local cops to check status, upheld the provision requiring a check of immigration status for people otherwise detained.
And ice cream parlors are not now de facto detention centers.
So Obama lost the ice cream provision, parlor provision.
It would be the best way to look at it.
Look, even the wise Latina herself, Sonia Sothomayor, voted to uphold stop and check.
The other provisions, all morning long, when they came out with four different, well, not rulings, four provisions in the ruling, I was asking myself, how many people even knew that there were three other provisions besides this one?
The only provision anybody ever talked about was the one that was upheld.
Now, the Attorney General of Arizona, and by the way, Governor Brewer, she's released a statement calling it a big win, which you would expect.
On CNN this morning, John King talked to the Attorney General Tom Horne, and his thoughts on the matter are thus.
You can always have an applied challenge later on, but I think it's a big win because this was the big issue, which is the requirement that a police officer who legally stops or arrests someone and has reasonable suspicion their person is serious illegally must check with ICE.
He doesn't have discretion.
He must check.
I've been predicting we would win that one.
The other three, there was very little discussion at oral arguments, so it was kind of hard to predict.
But the other three, I think, are minor compared to the big controversial issue, which was the requirement that police officers who lawfully stop or arrest someone and have reasonable suspicion the person's here illegally must check with ICE as to the status of that person.
Right.
And again, I don't mean to be redundant, but there's so much confusion.
I want to remind you that the court left open, wide open, the litigation aspects of that ruling.
For example, a cop's in Arizona could stop somebody this afternoon, and that person could sue on the basis it was illegal, violated some right or whatever, it could be litigated.
And depending on how that goes, the fourth provisioner could fall.
Well, it theoretically could, but they vacated it back to the Ninth Circus, essentially.
Well, basically, they told the Ninth Circus, it's your ballgame here.
If this thing comes up again, it's going to be litigated.
And yeah, it could end up by Supreme Court, depending on what the Ninth Circus happens to do.
It's all guesswork for now.
For example, if Obama, here's a way to understand it, if Obama, President Kardashian, if you're under 25, if President Kardashian were arrested for driving without a license, say, in Kenya, would he object to them checking to see if he's a Kenyan citizen or not?
His grandparents were in Kenya before most people were in Kenya.
Just like people were in the ice cream parlors in Arizona before there was an Arizona.
That's what he said in the Tom Ohio.
People in Arizona before there was an Arizona.
And Obama, I'm sure, has got relatives in Kenya before there was a Kenya.
Now, the Supreme Court doesn't need to invite further lawsuits.
The ACLU and La Raza would have sued over this anyway, but they did specifically mention Jeffrey Toobin, the ACE legal analyst at CNN.
By the way, did anybody, you know, I love, I didn't.
I T-voted.
Well, I DVR'd it.
I don't have T-Vote.
I DVR'd it, it didn't watch.
Anybody watch the HBO news show called The Newsroom or something?
What did you, you didn't like it?
Yeah, it's one of these introspective things.
It's Aaron Sorkin who wrote this thing.
It's what he, I actually saw, stirredly, I actually saw in the voluminous things I read yesterday, I don't remember what it was, but it was Washington Post or some noteworthy place suggesting that this show is the model for what CNN needs to do to return to form.
That Aaron Sorkin, in his brilliance, has written the script for CNN's return to relevance.
If they just do what...
Now, this show on HBO is about a news anchor in a newsroom.
And...
And the way that there's a formula now to go after Republicans, and that is like this anchor is a deranged lunatic at show open.
He goes nuts.
He's at a journalism seminar at some university, Northwestern, I think.
And some student asks him about greatness of America.
There's nothing great about America.
America is not great anymore.
And we're not great anymore.
And he launches into this diatribe.
And it's the thing that refocuses his career.
He'd just been teleprompter reader up to a bet.
That focuses his career.
Gives the executive producer and ex-girlfriend, by the way, chance to reformat the show using this guy's newfound experience.
And he is, of course, a Republican ticked off at his own party.
That's how they do it.
A moderate Republican ticked off at the extremism of his own party.
So anyway, I just had that fly off the top of my head since we got CNN bites here today.
I think it's amazing.
CNN's in such trouble that somebody really thinks that a fictional television show is the model for their return to glory.
Anyway, Jeff Toobin, the Ace Legal Beagle, CNN, was asked by John King this morning, well, what do you think here, Jeff?
The Arizona Attorney General says it's a big win upholding that fourth provision.
What do you think, Jeff?
I think he's right that this was what's known as a facial challenge, which means the federal government asserted that these laws were unconstitutional in all circumstances.
As you've been discussing, three of the four provisions were found to be unconstitutional, were found to be a violation of the federal government's prerogatives when it comes to immigration.
However, the most controversial part of the law has been upheld.
The so-called show us your papers provision has been upheld.
I think it is genuinely a mixed verdict.
Even now, folks, people are trying to understand it and analyze it.
It's going to be later today or tomorrow before the libs.
Like the ACLU has got their statement out, but it's full of maybes and what-ifs.
All the leftists are looking at this, trying to figure out the best way to massage this for Obama.
Not the country.
It's always, it's about Obama.
So we're not going to get the full liberal take on this for a little while.
Jerry Sandusky guilty on Friday night.
They took him to jail.
Did you hear what happened in jail?
They sequestered him in the sexual pervert wing, but it was within earshot of the rest of the prisoners.
And the rest of the prisoners had a song for him.
In fact, I'm not going to tell you what the song.
I'm going to see if we have it on the profit system.
I'll take a break.
And if we have it, I'll come back because the inmates sang a song for him once he got there.
Let's take a brief time out.
We'll come back.
I'll check and see if we've got it.
We should.
I mean, I know we do.
Right after this.
Don't go away, folks.
Just getting started here on a Monday at the EIB network.
Jerry Sandusky goes to jail and the inmates sing a song to him from Pink Floyd.
Hey, teacher!
Leave the kids alone!
They sang it to Sandusky.
They sang it to Sandowski when he got to jail Friday night.
Cut a brick in the wall.
Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone.
Hey, head Sandusky on Suicide Watch on Friday night.
What does that actually mean?
They have somebody actually watching.
They patrol you.
I know they take the belt away and sharp objects.
They actually have eyeballs on the prisoner.
There were other Supreme Court rulings today, folks.
Supreme Court reaffirmed the libs.
Wait till they hear about this.
This is going to tick them off.
Big time.
Supreme Court today reaffirmed its two-year-old decision allowing corporations to spend freely to influence elections.
Citizens United, when they get past Arizona here and they get to this, whatever good vibe they got from Arizona is going to be totally destroyed.
They are going to be livid over this.
Five to four vote by Anat's eyelash.
The court's conservative justices, it says here, said that the decision in the Citizens United case in 2010 applies to state campaign finance laws and guarantees corporate and labor union interests the right to spend freely to advocate for or against candidates.
So super PACs were upheld.
And now including at the state level.
This was the, I think this was the Montana case.
And it's just, this has sent the libs into its, because the unions always have been able to spend endlessly for any candidate, any issue, or what have you.
But you say the word corporation to liberals and you are doing the equivalent of showing Dracula the cross.
They hate the word corporate.
And then if you really want to irritate them, just say, well, corporations are just people.
And they really lose it.
They lose their minds over it.
So 5-4, very, very close.
Same five justices said in 2010, corporations have a constitutional right to be heard in campaigns.
The decision paved the way for unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions in elections for Congress and the president, as long as the dollars are independent of the campaigns they're intended to help.
The decision was grounded in the freedom of speech, appeared to apply equally to state contests.
Now, Montana aggressively defended its 1912 law against a challenge from corporations seeking to be free of spending limits.
State Supreme Court sided with Montana.
State courts said the history of corruption showed the need for the limits.
U.S. Supreme Court said, sorry, Montana, no dice.
And so now super PACs are permitted in state elections as well as federal.
The libs are not going to be happy.
Well, that didn't take long.
Pelosi just tweeted about the Citizens United case.
Basically what happened here with the Montana ruling is the Supreme Court declined to revisit Citizens United.
They upheld it, extended it to the states.
Pelosi said, South Carolina, the Supreme Court's terrible decision, upholding Citizens United will keep the floodgates open to special interest money.
They hate it.
They hate it.
They can't stand it.
Corporations exist.
Corporations spend unlimited.
They can't stand it.
Let the union spend all they want, but not to corporation.
They hate the corporations.
I guarantee this Arizona business, it'll be forgotten to the end of the day.
This is what they took them off.
And they are still quaking in their boots over health care, which is slated now for Thursday.
I guess it could be tomorrow, Wednesday, but the smart money is on Thursday.
So they could issue the ruling and then get the heck out of Dodge once the fur starts falling.
I want to, they're flying.
I want to go back to this Obama soundbite from Ottumwa, Iowa.
He was at Indian Hills Community College at a town hall meeting, and he got this question.
I was wondering what your plan was for our undocumented workers who helped establish our country.
Now, that question obviously is loaded.
The meaning of the question is that it was undocumented people who built this country.
We built it.
What about us?
The undocumented, we were undocumented before there was a country.
This country was built by people that are now being penalized, blah, blah, blah.
And here Obama gave this ice cream parlor example, and it's a classic illustration of deceit.
This law that just passed in Arizona, which I think is a poorly conceived law.
You can imagine if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona, your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state.
But now suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to be harassed.
That's something that could potentially happen.
That's not the right way to go.
Now, this classic deceit, this ice cream parlor example, it was premeditated deceit.
Police were never empowered to interrogate anybody about having their papers.
The police can't go into an ice cream parlor and scout out the place and see some people that they might think are illegal and demand to see papers.
That can only happen after an arrest or lawful detention.
And an arrest on a legitimate violation, traffic violation, what have you.
You're not violating a law eating ice cream in an ice cream parlor.
So you had here Obama deliberately distorting this Arizona law to divide.
It's painted the police as a bunch of sinister bigots.
But you know, the political ramifications of this.
I'm listening, reading, I should say, after the court decision was announced this morning.
You can go to certain places.
You can find establishment Republicans wringing their hands in frustration because they think any discussion of this is going to lose the Latino vote.
I know the objective of politicians to win elections.
This is one of the problems we conservatives have with politics.
We want to win elections.
So should we pander?
Should we make it sound like we're for undocumented people being allowed to stay here, amnesty, all these things, just to win elections?
Because that's what the Republican establishment essentially wants to happen.
They're not saying it directly, but gotten to the point now where any public statement that's oriented toward upholding the rule of law is considered hurtful to Republican electoral chances.
I don't know how you get around that.
What are we supposed to do?
Compromise on the law for the sake of winning elections?
And then people in the Republican establishment will tell you, yeah, it's exactly what we're supposed to do.
And then we become no different than the left, pandering to this coalition with this message, that coalition with another message, that coalition over there with another message, or that interest group, what have you.
You and I have always believed that standing for the rule of law, what bothers me is the assumption or the presumption that every Hispanic in this country, every Latino, is for breaking the law.
I just don't believe it.
I just don't believe that's the case.
Well, they're of the opinion that every Hispanic voter in this country is demanding that there be no law about illegal immigration, that any Hispanic person from anywhere in the world should be allowed to come here.
And if you don't support that, I'm voting the other guys.
Now, I could be dead wrong.
Maybe all Hispanics are that way, but I just don't believe it.
Well, I know I don't believe it because I know several Hispanics who every bit believe in the rule of law as much as I do.
And they consider themselves Americans.
Not Hispanic or Latino or whatever.
They consider themselves Americans.
But I guess we're to assume they are in a minority and we're just, you know, all this to every issue.
The moderates, the consultants, the establishment says you better pipe down.
You're going to hurt Republican electoral chances.
You're going to hurt the Republican brand.
Standing for the rule of law hurts your brand.
Well, if that's true, then all is lost anyway.
If standing for the rule of law is a penalty, then there's no reason for any law.
Can't just cherry-pick which ones you want.
So racial special interests were to pander to what their whims are.
Gender special interests, sexual orientation special interests, you name it.
Ethnic special interests.
We either pander to everybody or pander to nobody.
Equal pandering under the law.
And I don't know.
If that's what we have to do to win, we've lost the country.
I just don't believe we've lost the country.
I think these are techniques or efforts to intimidate us into shutting up because everybody wants to win elections.
It's like the old saw that better not be critical of Obama.
The independents, they don't like that.
They're going to consider you a racist.
They're going to run around.
The last poll I looked at, Obama's losing independence in droves.
Big time.
By the way, we had this story for much of Friday, but I think it's worth repeating.
Along the lines of Fast and Furious, I think it's worth repeating.
Who was it?
Dana Milbank, somebody today wrote a piece, some drive-by big name wrote a piece that Fast and Furious is not a big deal.
People don't care about it.
But the media wants a scandal.
The media would love a real Obama scandal.
Now, what more of a scandal do you need?
Allowing guns, in fact, coming up with a program that would see to it that guns were walked across the border to drug cartels for the express purpose of creating a crime.
How many people don't know that?
And if you just said, did you know that the Obama administration purposely came up with a policy that purposely permitted assault weapons to be put in the hands of drug cartel leaders so that they would purposely commit crimes with them?
You know what the reaction ⁇ they did what?
The Obama administration did what?
Yeah, they did that.
Why did they do that?
Because they want they can't get any other support for getting rid of the Second Amendment.
The American people are for the Second Amendment.
They don't want tighter gun control laws.
The administration doesn't like that.
They want guns out of the hands of people.
They send these guns over to the drug lords in Mexico.
So they use them to commit crimes, two, 300 people killed or wounded.
You're supposed to say in reaction, once that news hits, my gosh, we've got to tighten up our gun laws.
But at the root of it is the Obama administration walked guns across the border, allowed it to happen, didn't track them, didn't tell the Mexican government about it, and created crimes.
And the proper reaction of people that don't know is they did what?
And there's another one of these, again, from Friday.
You got a birthday, anniversary, wedding coming up.
Let your friends know how important this election is to you.
Register with Obama 2012.
And instead of a wedding present for yourself, ask for a donation to Obama.
It's a great way to support the president on your wedding day or your birthday.
Plus, it's a gift that we can all appreciate and goes a lot further than a gravy bowl.
The Obama administration actually has a website asking newlyweds and people celebrating birthdays to forego presents and have people who would give them gifts instead donate to Obama.
They did what?
Yeah, they did that.
No, Rush, you can't.
No, they did it.
They did what?
They put a website up asking newlyweds to forego wedding presents and instead have all of the guests give money to Obama.
No, they didn't do it.
Yes, they did.
It was Friday and right here I have it.
They did that.
Yes, they did that for people getting married and having birthdays.
They did what?
I'm telling you, they set up a website called the Obama Event Registry.
It says, got a birthday anniversary or wedding coming up.
Let your friends know how important Obama is to you.
Forego your gravy bowl.
Forego whatever registry you have down at Nordstrom's or wherever it is.
And instead tell your guests to send a donation to Obama.
They did that.
Yes, they did that.
Did that in Friday?
I don't believe it.
Well, they did it.
It's on the website.
Go look at it.
Birthdays, too?
Damn right.
Birthdays and weddings.
And next is going to be when you die, instead of giving money to your family, give it to Obama in your will.
They're going to do that.
They probably will if they're asking newlyweds to give up everything for Obama.
They really did that.
Yeah, they did that.
I got that.
That needs to be the reaction.
You know, all this stuff Obama's done.
They did that?
Because most people don't know this stuff.
But then, folks, one other thing I was thinking about this wedding event thing, you and I think this is absolutely over-the-top, narcissistic, selfish, ridiculous.
Could not conceive of even coming up with this idea ourselves.
Somebody did.
Somebody thinks this is a brilliant idea.
Somebody thinks this is a helpful idea to Obama.
And somebody, probably Obama Michelle, approved it.
It didn't just happen in a vacuum over there.
There are people who think this is smart, good, wise, whatever adjective you want to use.
I have to take a break.
I just looked at the clock.
Be back in a minute.
They did that.
Yes, they did.
They put up a website asking you if you're a newlywed to forget presents and to ask people you're inviting to your wedding to instead donate an equivalent amount of money to Obama in his reelection.
Let's go one step further.
How about this?
How about the next addition to this website?
The Obama campaign will then ask newlyweds to forego consummating their marriage and instead put that energy into screwing the Republicans.
After you have seen to it that your guests give you nothing and instead send it all to me, then don't consummate.
Save that energy, redirect it into screwing the Republicans, and we will tell you how.
And then, of course, up next will be the will.
When you die, don't leave money to your worthless kids who are just going to waste it.
Send it to Obama.
It was Dana Milbank.
It was Soundbite.
I was reading the Soundbites and I thought I'd read something on a blog.
Dana Milbank on Reliable Sources yesterday on CNN talking to Howard Kurtz about Fast and Furious.
And Kurtz said, what's wrong with this scandal?
Meaning, Dana, why don't we in the media elite care about it?
Why don't we in the media elite see this as a scandal?
It's a scandal of government and it's not a political scandal.
And when you take it and you say, what's the worst case here?
Well, the Obama administration was continuing something basically that was going on under the Bush administration.
You know, did they try to cover up some embarrassing things afterwards?
There's just, there's nothing conceivable that would bring this into a major political scandal here.
And I think that's why people have been slow to get on board.
It's not an ideological thing.
I think the media would love to have an Obama scandal to cover.
What an idiot.
What an absolute blithering idiot.
And I say that with all good intentions.
Wide receiver went through this on Friday.
Wide receiver Bush plan ended in 2007.
Wide receiver tracked guns, tracking devices in the guns.
It was an effort to find out how these guns were getting to wherever so they could be interdicted and stopped.
The program ended in 2007 as a failure.
In 2009, the Obama regime picked it back up, but there wasn't any effort to track the weapons.
It was many more guns.
It was many more cities, many more states involved.
They did not try to track the guns.
They didn't try to interdict them.
They wanted the guns in the hands of the drug cartels.
They wanted the guns used.
It's not, this guy is a member of the media leave and he's clueless.
He doesn't understand.
He doesn't know.
He's accepted the talking point that it's an Obama talking point.
Bush started it.
Oh, we just continued when we didn't even know about it six months after we took office.
None of that's true.
If you don't like this, how about Solyndra?
What about giving General Motors and Chrysler to the unions?
What about the stimulus that was nothing more than a money laundering slush fund?
No scandal because it's the government, it's a scandal of government.
What the hell was Watergate?
It's not a political scandal.
There's no scandal in purposely walking thousands of automatic weapons to drug cartels to be used in crimes that were facilitated by the guns.
Two Border Patrol agents killed, 300 people killed and wounded.
Not a scandal?
You're eager for a scandal, but you just can't find.
You got a pretty high bar for scandals, Mr. Milbank.
In his dissent, Antonin Scalia in the Arizona case, quote, if securing its territory is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state.
I dissent.
If securing its territory is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state.
Gotta go.
Much more straight ahead, as you know.
▲
Export Selection