All Episodes
Previous Next
June 25, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:24
June 25, 2012, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, I'll be right with you.
Hang on here just a second.
All right.
Okay.
Hi, folks.
Welcome back.
Great to have you.
Broadcast Excellence.
As performed by me, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-concerned, all-feeling Maharashi, ensconced firmly in the prestigious Attila the Hun chair here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882 and the email address, Elrushbo at EIBnet.com.
So once again, we see which side Obama comes down on in the question of whether there is a country of the rule of law or the rule of man.
With Obama, it's not the rule of law.
He is implementing law that the Congress defeated, as in the legalization of the amnesty for 800,000 young illegals.
Congress defeated that, the DREAM Act.
He said, hell with it.
I'm going to make it the law.
I'm just going to do it.
Obama wants the enforcement of every federal law to hinge upon whether he agrees with it or not.
And if he doesn't agree with the federal law, he's not going to enforce it, like the Defense of Marriage Act.
It's the law of the land.
The regime announced within the past year that they were no longer going to enforce it.
It's a dictator's wet dream to do what Obama is doing.
If he doesn't agree with the law, voila, it's no longer enforced.
It may as well not even exist.
That's who he is, folks.
Now, before the ruling on Arizona immigration came down this morning from the Supreme Court, I had assembled here as part of the show prep stack of stuff a number of stories about the impending decision on health care.
And it is amazing how fatalistic the left is on this.
They are convinced they're going to lose it.
That was before Arizona came down.
I suspect we might have different opinionator pieces later this afternoon, tonight, and tomorrow.
But for example, here at the Politico, a hugely consequential week.
It's all about Obama, though.
Don't forget it.
It's all about Obama.
The Politico headline, a hugely consequential week.
This week is about who and what we are as a country.
Saw the other day Politicos losing readership.
Doesn't surprise me.
You want consequential.
Let me give you consequential.
Try asking these questions.
What will the Commerce Clause mean after this week?
Will the federal government have the constitutional authority to tell the American people what to purchase by force of law?
And if we don't, to be subjected to fines and imprisonment.
That's pretty consequential to me.
If the federal government will be granted that power.
And by the way, this next, I don't say this jocularly or jocularly, let's be precise.
If we have laws on the books That the federal government's not going to enforce regarding immigration.
Why should election law be enforced?
No, no, no.
Seriously, we've got precedent, folks, from this administration.
We have it.
DOMA, immigration law, any number of other instances.
What if Obama decides that the 22nd Amendment is no longer relevant, limiting presidents of two terms?
What if he just decides it's not relevant anymore?
That's part of this antiquated Constitution doesn't take into account the will of the people.
Well, I think it's worth throwing out.
You might, come on, Rush.
There's no way Obama would ever dispense with elections.
Yeah, there's no way Obama would ever not enforce immigration law.
No way Obama would ignore the Constitution and just write a health care law that basically pee is all over it.
No way Obama wouldn't do any of that.
Democrat Party, no, no, they respect the rule.
They wouldn't do anything like that.
No, of course they wouldn't.
Why should civil rights laws be enforced?
Once you start cherry-picking these things and once the laws you enforce or don't enforce strictly because whether you like them or not, what if we started obeying laws on that basis or not?
If the president of the United States can choose to enforce or not enforce law because he likes them or doesn't like them, what about us?
What if we disagree with the speeding law?
What if we disagree with the driving while drinking law?
What if we disagree with the drug laws?
Mr. President, I don't like that law.
I don't like law that says I can't smoke all the marijuana I want.
Screw you.
Well, we know what would happen to us.
We don't have the ability to choose which laws we obey or not without consequence.
He does.
The only consequence for him is at the ballot box.
It's the only consequence he faces, and that's once every four years.
Will the federal government have the constitutional authority to tell the American people what to purchase by force of law?
Will we have private health care in five years if Obamacare is upheld?
Who will be the first American negatively affected by a death panel?
There was a story last week out of the UK that it's been discovered, shouldn't be a surprise, that the health system, national health, whatever they, NIH, national, whatever they call the health care system in Great Britain, 135,000 people are dying every year simply because they're not being treated.
It's a form of euthanasia.
They already have the death panels.
It's the doctors.
Cost control.
Exactly right.
Just determine patient.
No prayer.
Unplug it.
Tell the family we did everything we could.
Thank you, doctor.
Anytime.
135,000 times, I think is what I read.
What if we don't like paying income tax?
Go frankly, I hate it.
What if I just decide, screw it?
Well, what happens is they come after me to let get me.
I'll be sitting, no, I'll be sitting, yeah, sitting next to Wesley Snipes, wherever he is, with Nicolas Cage due in soon.
Well, it is, it's what's happening.
It's what's happening.
Top UK doctors chilling claim NHF, National Health Service, kills off 130,000 elderly patients a year.
I'd like the freedom to be able to ignore the laws I disagree with because there's some really dumb ones out there.
There's some really, really stupid laws out there.
But of course, we don't have that ability.
So it's a hugely consequential week for Obama, says the politico to that.
It's a hugely consequential week to America, is what we're facing.
The New York Times has a story here, supporters slow to grasp health laws, legal risks.
Peter Baker came out on Saturday.
Supporters slow to grasp health laws, legal risks.
Just one of at least a dozen articles in the mainstream press over the weekend that are second-guessing Obama's legal strategy in defending Obamacare if it loses.
And this piece from the Times is in their second column lead, which even the politico notes is unusual for a non-breaking citizen.
I'm just all anticipating losing health care.
Oh, no.
What's Obama going to do?
Oh, no.
What are Obama's supporters going to do?
Oh, no.
Obama's supporters are slow to grasp the legal risks.
In a nutshell, the New York Times is claiming nobody ever questioned the constitutionality of Obamacare because it's so constitutional, even Pelosi sees it as constitutional.
Now, what the Times is doing in their story from Saturday, they're pushing the Kardashian regime talking point.
And the only problem is that nobody imagined how activist the conservatives on the court would be.
That's right.
When they were sitting down to write Obamacare, they never thought about whether or not it was constitutional.
They arrived at that late after oral argument because they didn't think that the right wing had gone net nut case until they heard oral arguments.
And now, according to the New York Times, Obama's supporters are not prepared because they knew their law was constitutional.
Now we're going to have a bunch of fruitcakes on their right that might say it isn't.
And poor old Obama and his supporters aren't ready for this.
So, as I say, numerous articles like this, where they are wringing their hands.
Audio soundbite.
Grab number seven is Jan Crawford, the former Jan Crawford Greenberg.
So you might know her.
She's CBS News.
She was on CBS this morning at a report about the possibility Supreme Court would overturn Obamacare.
Charlie Rose said, Jan, if the Supreme Court does say it's unconstitutional in part or whole, who are the winners and the losers?
No one really agrees.
There are a lot of people who say, and I mean Republicans who say this, that while it would be a humiliating defeat for the president, his signature legislation, he's a constitutional law scholar, if the court repudiated this law that he staked his first term on, it also wouldn't be so great for Mitt Romney either.
Remember, Romney has campaigned against this law.
He's saying that he's the only thing that stands between Americans and socialized medicine.
So not really a clear call on who this would benefit.
What?
What?
What about the American people?
If Romney has said he's the only guy that stands between Americans and socialized medicine and the law struck down, how is that not a win for Romney?
Because it is socialized medicine.
And what good is Obama being a constitutional law scholar?
When he cherry-picks it, he's a constitutional law scholar who taught people how to get around it.
That's what he's good at.
That's right.
All you got to do is be elected and then pick and choose what you like.
It's easy.
That's all you got to do.
Obamacare loss bad for Romney.
Oh, it's bad for everybody.
No, it's bad.
It would be a day of celebrity.
Do you realize?
You remember I said on Friday, we had a call here.
Who was it, Boehner on Thursday, said they weren't going to spike the football if they won.
And I said, he can do that if he wants.
I encourage people to celebrate.
Don't get celebrate liberty much anymore.
I said, go for it.
And there were stories over the weekend about how to touch on it.
That was not good for me to say that.
That was tantamount to throwing raw meat to a bunch of savages.
I kid you not.
Limbaugh ginning up fears or whatever the hell it was.
A constitutional law scholar?
Give me a break.
Can these people really be this stupid, ignorant?
I mean, they're really this uninformed?
I guess so.
Bill Richardson, the former governor of New Mexico, meet the press on Sunday.
They're having a discussion about the possibility of the court overturning the health care reform law.
Liberals are paranoid, folks.
That was before this morning.
They're paranoid.
They're going off oral arguments.
They're paranoid.
Here's what Richardson said.
I think it's a huge defeat of the Supreme Court that moves forward to strike any part down, even just the individual mandate, for the American people.
Just this week, several million kids got their health insurance.
I think there's going to be a real uproar against a politicized Supreme Court.
You know, here they're making political decisions.
This is a clear constitutional issue.
The interstate commerce clause of the Congress dictates that this can happen.
It's got to energize the Democratic base, and that is important.
What's going to energize the base is this Supreme Court decision today is what's going to energize the base.
This Supreme Court decision this morning is going to guarantee even more Republican turnout in November.
You wait.
What do you mean?
It's a politicized court, governor.
It's a political, the whole, the political class has turned every controversial decision over to the Supreme Court.
They don't want the final result in their lap.
This is exactly, folks, it's exactly what I told you they would say.
A bunch of Republicans on the court taking your health care away.
Look at he just said it.
Just this week, several million kids got their health insurance.
Just this week, oh, Lordy.
Just this week, several kids.
You see them there playing in the dust, eating dirt.
They're so poor, scrounging lizards.
And just this week, they got their health care.
And here comes the Supreme Court.
That's exactly what they're going to do.
And it's going to energize the Democrat base.
Jeff Zelany at the New York Times on Fox News Sunday, question.
Let's run through various scenarios.
You give me your take on what this, then that.
How does it play if the court strikes down the whole law, Jeff?
If the court strikes down the whole law, there's no question that this is an immediate, at least a short-term hit for President Obama and probably a pretty serious one.
He had a Democratic House and Senate, and it was supposed to be a central achievement, and it failed.
So, no matter what spin you hear, it all ends up with how it's going to affect Obama.
It's all that matters to him.
We got to go.
Be right back.
Hey, look at that, folks.
The European Union just said.
I don't know why most people are going to agree with him.
What am I saying?
European Union just said the European Union.
This is like the United States Congress just said that if you get sick while you're on vacation, you get to take another vacation.
Well, guess how many people are going to get sick on vacation now?
I don't know if you're going to need a doctor's note or not.
I would hope so.
Otherwise, everybody's going to be getting sick on vacation.
European Union gets sick on vacation to get another one.
22% believe government has the consent of the governor.
It's a Ras Mussen report.
22% believe government, that's not very many people.
In other words, most people believe that we don't matter.
Government is out of control and on its own.
Only 22% think things are working.
And they're the minority.
There's your Obama base.
Had a story last Friday that might be worth reminding you of today, like the wedding stuff.
Obama's white support is too low to win.
It's by David Paul Kuhn.
President Obama does not currently have enough white support to win reelection, even if he retains his minority base from 2008.
Is that likely to change?
Well, I'm just asking in light of, by the way, when Richardson was talking about millions of kids just got their health care, he's talking about these 800,000 that Obama just legalized.
That's what he meant.
There weren't millions of kids that got health care last week.
There wasn't any new implementation of Obamacare.
That was, it was the it was Obama's amnesty for 800,000, which will be more.
Obama's white support is too low to win.
Pull quote: It includes white Hispanics, yes.
Whites help white's white whites helped give Obama his capital.
He began his presidency with at least six and ten whites behind him.
His white support first fell, as with independents, below 50% in the summer of 2009.
In 2010, whites backed Republican House candidates by a 60 to 38 margin.
It gave Republicans an historic landslide.
The white margin two years ago roughly matches the break-even point today, and that's because presidential electorates are browner and blacker, though possibly not enough for Democrats.
But that's what he's, I mean, he's dividing the country, and he's going for the fringe of every minority group, every That's not the right way to put it.
Every fringe group, he's trying to build a winning coalition among real fringe minority group.
He's, why is he running?
Have you ever heard of power?
He's running in for power.
He finished the job.
That's what he said.
He wanted to finish the job in America.
He's got no opposition in his second term.
He's got, if he chooses not to run again, they have to worry about reelection.
If he cancels the elections in 2016, and if he tries that, the biggest obstacle he's going to run into is at Clintons.
Oh, no, no.
But white support too low to win.
And as I said Friday, they announced this last November.
Thomas B. Edsel, they announced, the Obama campaign announced they were not going to seek the votes of the white working class.
The bitter clingers.
Gallup.
I don't know why this strikes.
Just 34% of Americans correctly identify Obama as a Christian.
Most Americans cannot name his religion.
Now, most Americans know where he went with Michelle on their first date.
But most Americans can't identify.
Folks, it's the president of the United States that we are talking about here, and most Americans cannot identify his religion.
That's new.
That's undone.
That's unprecedented.
Isn't it?
Can't identify his religion?
Most Americans can't identify where he was born.
I don't know the answer to that question.
You just like to stir it up in there.
49% of young voters grade Obama poorly.
Washington Examiner, nearly half of the nation's new voters aged 18 to 24 think Obama's done a fair or poor job as president.
That results in a 13-point drop in support.
Still leads Romney in the demographic, but his support is waning.
Rockville, Maryland.
Hi, Barry.
I'm glad you waited.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Yeah.
Hey, listen.
I am really honored to speak to you, Maharashi.
Thank you, sir, very much.
And Mega Free Republic dittos from the People's Republic of Maryland.
Yes, I appreciate that.
And let me just get to my point.
I thought the Supremes gave us very clear instructions and a little bit of warning, excuse me, when they upheld that part of the Arizona law.
Look, if you or I are driving through Arizona and have a busted taillight and get pulled over, they've got to occasionally ask people like you and me to show that we're citizens or ask us where we're born, et cetera, et cetera.
They have not they have to avoid profiling brown people that look and sound like they're from Central America.
They can't do that.
Then they'll wind up back in court and they'll lose.
They've got to show documentation that they ask African Americans who look and sound like Americans, white Americans.
Normally, what will happen in a situation like that is that you'll have a driver's license.
And that pretty much closes the deal, whether you're a citizen.
Not always.
Not always, but usually.
And then they see license and registration, and you need to see your insurance.
There's a lot of stuff that they don't have to ask you if you're a citizen per se.
Don't have to ask you to prove your citizenship per se.
Theoretically, if you have a driver's license, that you've accomplished that.
But it might be a fire that a woman could have left it in another handbag.
I mean, things like that happen.
So they've just got to ask those people.
And if they do, they're showing that they're enforcing the law.
So you're offering them a suggestion here.
I am, sir.
I am.
It's sort of like patting down grandmothers at airports.
A little bit like that, but it's not quite as intrusive.
You pat down grandmothers, you look up their skirts, and that shows you're not biased.
Exactly.
Yeah, okay.
We'll pass it on.
We have a lot of people in that bureaucracy that listen to the program, but that's I mean, to show that they're avoid being accused of targeting Muslim terrorists, you make grandmother lift her skirt.
It works.
Okay.
Who's it?
Tom in Mishawaka, Indiana.
It's great to have you, sir, on the EIB network.
Hello.
I'm excited.
I have something here that I don't think you might be aware of.
Very dangerous thing to say.
That is a very, very dangerous thing.
You think you've got something I might not be aware of?
I do.
Okay, try me.
And don't fight me on this.
All right.
Okay, this is about our buddy who has done it again.
He has gone and praised the Islamist takeover.
It says here, he congratulated Egypt's president-elect Manat Mohammed Morsi in that country's presidential election.
Call it a milestone in the country's transition to democracy.
It's even more hideous than you know.
This is the new president of Egypt.
He's from the Brotherhood.
It was a military coup, per se.
And if you remember, the Arab Spring was characterized as a breakout of democracy, freedom, and all that wonderful stuff.
And getting rid of Mubarak, and that's what the Arab Spring was, was going to happen.
Now what's happened is that a Sharia Islamist has won the election in Egypt.
No democracy.
I'll tell you what he's going to say, he's going to follow the course that has taken place in Turkey over the last 10 years.
You could almost say he's going to follow the Obama course.
The prime minister in Turkey is an Islamic supremacist by the name of Erdogan.
And it's taken him 10 years of gradualism to return Turkey to the Islamist camp.
Basically, he has perverted, subverted all of the intentions of a predecessor by the name of Ataturk, which Ataturk wanted a moderate regime that was not Islamist or Sharia in nature.
And Obama did call the guy, congratulate him.
Obama called the Brotherhood guy and congratulated him.
Now, there's a step here that everybody is missing.
My buddy Andy McCarthy had a story at the Corner National Review today.
Obama administration imperative that Egyptian military hand over power to this new president.
Obama and Hillary are demanding now that the Egyptian military, which was running the country, hand over power to this elected president.
To the Muslim Brotherhood guy.
Obama and Hillary are demanding that everybody get out of the way for the Muslim Brotherhood guy.
It's a myth that it isn't going to help democracy.
The Muslim Brotherhood's not about democracy.
They're about Sharia.
This is about taking Egypt, as I was just saying, in the direction of Turkey.
Look, I have to take a break here.
I'm really up against it on time.
I'll try to make this a complex thing, but we try to make it understandable.
I'll give it a shot when we come back.
The Obama administration said today, Janet Napolitano, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, the Obama administration said it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the homelands.
Security Department may get from Arizona cops.
Janet Nepalitano has just sent out a directive.
Don't call us, Arizona.
We're suspending whatever agreements we have.
Don't call us about illegals.
We're not helping you enforce federal immigration law.
Federal authorities are to decline the calls reporting illegal immigrants.
Stop and think of that.
Just today, after the Supreme Court decision, Napolitano tells Arizona, don't call us anymore.
Arizona can't do anything about it with the Supreme Court decision today, and the feds have just said, don't call us.
We're not doing anything about it.
So Arizona's an open border.
Drop dead.
We're not taking your calls.
It's right here.
My formerly nicotine stained fingers administration officials speaking on condition they not be named told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls, but they're not going to change Obama's decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.
Drop dead.
Look, this election in Egypt, I don't have the time to give you everything about this right now.
All you need to know is Mohamed Morsi, this according to Russia Today, the guy that's the president now of Egypt, told the students at Cairo University, the Quran is our constitution, the prophets our leader, jihad is our path, death in the name of Allah is our goal.
That's the new president, and that's who Obama called to congratulate.
Now, there's a lot more to this regarding the military and this guy ending up in power and what the objective in Egypt is, but there's not enough time to do.
I'm going to put this at the top of everything tomorrow.
And it may not be the first thing, depending on what else happens, but I will, I don't want to leave you hanging, but I must.
I'll explain this In greater detail, because there's a background necessary to understand what Hillary and Obama are doing here in insisting that the military hand over power to the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt.
What Obama and Hillary are calling up, they're telling the military, surrender power to the Brotherhood, is what we are, our official government position is the Brotherhood runs the place, that's who we're going to endorse.
And we're telling the Egyptian military that runs the country, surrender.
But there's background to it that I want to delve into when I have more time.
If the Mubarak candidate had won in Egypt, you can be very certain Obama and Hillary would not be demanding that the Muslim Brotherhood back down.
And they wouldn't be demanding that the military back down if the Mubarak candidate had won.
But now that the Brotherhood guy is the president, the military is supposed to stand down.
▲
Export Selection