All Episodes
Previous Next
June 17, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:37
June 17, 2013, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Greetings to you, music lovers, drill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain.
Great to have you here.
I am Rush Limbaugh, your guiding light.
There are times of all the confusion and the disorder and the distress and the tumult and the chaos and all of that.
And I'm also your guiding light during the good times.
So I'm happy to be here with the lights on.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, is 800-282-2882 and the email address, lrushbaugh at EIBnet.com.
So everything has been, I had a printer go bad this morning and to jury rig a second printer.
I've had a bunch of other minutia that has in minor ways distracted my show prep attention.
But nevertheless, ready to go.
One of the things that's happened here, just right before the program started, the Supreme Court has said that Arizona's proof of citizenship law is illegal.
And I haven't had time.
I haven't even seen the opinion.
All I've seen is news stories on it.
I have not had a chance to delve into it on the surface.
It appears to be one of these things that's infuriating, yet it was a 7-2 decision.
Justice Scalia voted with the majority.
And apparently, the whole thing is that federal law trumps state law when it comes to federal elections, and the states can't say anything about it.
And Scalia basically says, look, the states are using federal forms in elections, and there really isn't an issue here that Arizona, no other state, can trump federal law when it comes to federal elections.
So if the feds down the road ultimately require no evidence of citizenship, then that could end up being a problem.
But as I understand, and this is really premature, folks, this ruling couldn't have come at a worse time in terms of show prep for me today.
And in terms of being able to delve into it, really, all I have here are the news stories.
And here's one from I've got two.
AP, and this one is from Doomberg.
And Doomberg is the better of the two.
U.S. Supreme Court threw out an Arizona law that required evidence of citizenship when people register to vote in a victory for minority rights advocates and the regime.
The justices voting 7-2 said that Arizona's proof of citizenship law runs afoul of a federal statute that sets out registration requirements.
That makes sense to me that the states can't trump the feds in federal elections, which is what the Supreme Court here has said.
The ruling limits the role played by the states in national elections and raises questions about similar laws in three other states, Alabama, Kansas, and Georgia.
And we all know why this happened.
We all know why Arizona did this.
We all know why Arizona was sued by the regime.
Arizona feels overrun.
And they feel like federal law is not being enforced.
So they attempted to take matters into their own hands and provide corrective procedures at the state level.
And essentially, the Supreme Court says you can't do that.
You have no authority in federal elections.
Nice try.
A U.S. appeals court had previously invalidated the Arizona law.
They pointed to a 1993 federal law that says states must accept and use a standard registration form developed at the national level.
And that so-called federal form instructs prospective voters to swear that they're citizens under penalty of perjury.
Scalia, writing for the courts, said the federal government has broad authority to displace state election rules.
And he pointed to the Constitution's elections clause, which says that Congress may override states in establishing the times and the places and the manner of holding elections.
Now, the regime had contended that the federal statute was designed to streamline the registration process and that the Arizona law would undermine that goal, streamlining.
The measure was challenged by a group, well, groups, including the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the League of Women Voters of Arizona, and the Intertribal Council of Arizona.
So, states use federal forms.
The Fed government has total authority over federal elections.
Scalia says there really isn't an issue here.
It really didn't take any time here to throw this one out.
So, it's a practical matter.
The federal form, the federal voter registration form as it exists, requires proof of citizenship.
Case closed, case covered.
If they don't enforce it, that's a whole nother matter, but the states have no recourse.
So, if the states or if the federal government in the future fails to require evidence of citizenship, then we would have a problem.
But we don't.
They haven't done so yet.
So, that's that.
And if there's any more to this, then I assure you, ladies and gentlemen, I will find it.
Limbaugh Theorem, Daily Caller, Obama is running the immigration bill from the White House, according to a new report.
White House is playing a much larger role in developing the Gang of Eights immigration bill than its supporters publicly admit.
And actually, this is according to an article forthcoming in the New Yorker.
Ryan Lizza, senior Obama official, told Ryan Lizza for the article, no decisions are being made without talking to us about it.
So the gang of eight is not writing the bill, Obama is, but it's the Limbaugh Theorem.
The Gang of Eight is assumed to be writing the bill.
In fact, who's really assumed to be writing?
Marco Rubio.
Marco Rubio, single-handedly, is at least the optics in the face of the bill is Marco Rubio.
When in fact, the regime's doing it.
According to the New Yorker now, Limbaugh Theorem, the Limbaugh Theorem shows up every day, sometimes multiple times a day.
So the story I have here, I don't have the New Yorker story.
It's behind a paywall, and I didn't authorize myself to go waste money on the New Yorker.
So I'm relying here.
I love that.
I didn't authorize myself.
Company budget and so forth.
So what I have here is the daily caller's take on the article from Ryan Lizza at the New Yorker.
Now, in addition to this being an example of the Limbaugh theorem, it unfortunately might be more evidence of how our side is being played.
It is this piece that features a quote from an aide to Senator Rubio about American workers, which is what everybody has noticed from the New Yorker article.
Quote, there are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can't cut it.
A Rubio aide is quoted as saying to Ryan Lizza, quote, there shouldn't be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer.
There are people in America just can't cut it, can't do it, don't want to do it.
So you can't obviously discuss that publicly, says the Rubio aide.
No, Rubio hasn't said anything like that, but Rubio's aid is quoted in the New Yorker piece.
Now, the problem with the Rubio aid being quoted, since all that matters anymore is optics.
That's all I mean.
Substance doesn't matter anymore in America.
All that matters is optics.
And the optics of this aide speaking out make it sound like Rubio thinks that too.
I mean, if Rubio has a guy working for him, for example, if Snerdley was out saying stuff in public, or if HR was out being quoted in public about something I was working on, you would assume that's what I think, right?
Because you would assume, well, why would these guys be working for me if they disagree with me, number one?
Why would these guys be saying this if I didn't authorize it?
That's what people would think.
The optics.
That's my point.
You guys wouldn't go out and say anything.
Well, I didn't.
No, no, you guys, don't, you can't fool me.
HR, you and Snerdley both, if you thought I was all wet about something, you'd find a way to plant that.
Yes, you would, just to try to get me steered back on what you think is the right path.
Well, you might talk to me, but if you thought I was a lost cause and I was damaging myself, you guys might go out there.
You might guys might go out there and offer.
Well, that's my point.
It isn't the same as me saying it, but when the Rubio aide is quoted as saying, everybody's going to think this is what Rubio thinks.
Snerdley just asked me if Rubio knows what he's doing to his career.
I have to assume so.
I have to assume that he knows what he's doing here.
He's there.
He's doing it.
We're not.
We're on the grandstand side.
We're spectators here.
We're sitting in the stands and we're watching what's happening on the field, commenting on it.
We're not on the field.
We're not on the team.
We don't know what's going on in the clubhouse of the dugout.
I mean, to use this analogy.
So when you ask me, does Rubio know what he's doing to his career?
I assume he does.
But not saying that that means he understands what you think it means.
I don't think these people go out and purposely sabotage themselves.
Now, our side does that unwittingly, but I don't think they do it on purpose.
Anyway, so you have this aid.
And by the way, when you go out and say, look, there shouldn't be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer.
There are people who just can't get it, can't do it, don't want to do it.
That's no different than saying that there's just some work Americans won't do.
Now, this is a little bit more insulting, but let me ask you a question.
How many people have quit working since the regime took office in 2009?
What's the labor force participation rate?
It's down by 9 or 10 million people, right?
You think it is not true that there are some Americans that don't want to work?
I think it's patently obvious there are.
I think it's patently obvious there's a bunch of Americans that don't want to work, that they're perfectly fine the way things are.
As long as Santa Claus still lives in the North Pole and still runs the federal government, they're fine.
So when you get right down to it, what's offensive about the quote?
What's offensive about the quote is somebody's telling the truth about some American workers, but there's also a presumption that every one of the illegals wants to work, is qualified, is ready to go, is capable.
So anyway, my point, the major take from this bill ought not be the Rubio staffer quote.
The major thing to take away from this bill is that Obama's running it, not the Gang of Eight.
That's the major takeaway.
To me, White House officials, this is from the story.
White House officials believe the emerging bill will be a huge success for Obama.
If a Gang of Eight-style bill is signed into law by the president, it'll probably be one of the top five legislative accomplishments in the last 20 years.
It is a huge piece of business.
The report points out other evidence of close White House involvement.
For example, Obama met with four top Democrats pushing the bill on Thursday and had direct input into what's going on.
So, folks, it is a classic illustration here.
And I don't mean to make it about me.
Remember, we're trying to persuade people here.
This is the Limbaugh theorem.
Obama running the Gang of Eight bill from the White House.
But nobody, in fact, the public perception, the optics are that Obama's doing everything but that.
Now, I saw it.
I had a moment to go through the soundbites.
I know we've got a George Will in here, but not the one I've.
There's a George Will.
Apparently, George Will said Sunday and this week that the immigration bill doesn't have a prayer.
If I'm remembering this right, I didn't see it.
But there's a quote out there, and it's got video attached.
George Will says that the House of Representatives will never go along with the Gang of Eight immigration bill as long as it continues to say that the White House is in charge of border security.
That if the bill says Congress is in charge of border security, then it's got a better chance of passing.
Now, that was interesting to me in the sense that I've not heard anybody bring that up.
The aspect of border enforcement.
Who's going to do it?
Border enforcement as a topic.
Yeah, don't misunderstand.
But I've never heard that opinion from anybody.
And I don't pay attention to a lot of other people's opinions, so I'm not saying nobody else said it.
If George Will's stealing from somebody, please don't send me a note saying Will is stealing from you.
That's not my point.
My point is that I hadn't heard it said before, and I've never heard advanced as a theory that the bill doesn't stand a chance in the House for that reason.
It was a new one.
Anyway, we've got some sound bites on this.
Obama's approval number down eight points, CNN, and Rasmus, and I mean, major, major.
New poll offers the most concrete evidence yet that Obama is paying a political price for the series of controversies that have dogged his regime at the start of his second term.
CNN opinion research poll published today shows Obama's approval rating dropping from 53 a month ago to 45 today.
Disapproval rate rose nine points to 54%.
The poll shows that Americans by a 61 to 35 margin disapprove of how Obama is handling government surveillance of U.S. citizens.
And I'll tell you where the bottom is falling out with Obama's young people.
And everybody's scratching their heads trying to figure out why.
What has happened in the last month or two?
Maybe it's a cumulative thing.
What's happened to cause the Utes of America to lose their fascination or to begin losing their fascination with Obama.
I got to take a break, ladies and gentlemen.
Last night was the Miss USA pageant, and it was on in our house.
I didn't say I watched it.
I said it was on.
I heard it.
I was at my desk doing show prep.
I heard it, and we've got a soundbite from Miss Alabama.
I don't think we're going to give Miss Utah.
What do you like Miss Utah?
You watched it too, huh?
You're giving.
What do you read about Ms. Utah?
Oh, goofed up her answer on education.
Grab soundbite 10.
No, I got to take the breaker.
I'm never going to get there.
Last night, the 2013 Miss UA, a USA competition.
This is Trump's deal.
Do you know where they're going to do Miss Universe?
Trump came out there last night and said, We're going to do Miss Universe, which he also owns, at some city hall in Russia.
I kid you not, I have to, Catherine, were they serious about that?
I was listening while I was doing show prep.
No, no, it was serious.
Miss Alabama, Mary Margaret McCord, is being questioned.
The judge in this case, the actress Wendy Malik, and she said to Miss Alabama, Mary Margaret McCord, government tracking of phone records has been in the news lately.
Is this an invasion of privacy or is it necessary to keep our country safe?
Why or why not?
And here is the answer from Mary Margaret McCord.
I think the society that we live in today, it's sad that if we go to the movies or to the airport or even to the mall, that we have to worry about our safety.
So I would rather someone track my telephone messages and feel safe wherever I go than feel like they're encroaching on my privacy.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alabama.
And the audience, which was at the Planet Hollywood Arena, which is where I judged a Miss America pageant some years ago, the audience at the Planet Hollywood Arena, as you heard there, went nuts cheering their support for the notion that Miss Alabama would rather have someone, government somewhere,
tracking her phone messages because that means that she would feel safe wherever she went rather than feeling as though her privacy was being encroached on.
No, you're using the wrong term.
in the wrong term.
It's the low information population there, Snergley, that's...
That's what that is.
I mean, hello.
By the way, speaking of you, low-information voters, we got big news on the Kardashian baby in the third hour of today's program.
Don't miss it.
Great to have you back, folks.
800-282-2882 if you want to begin the program.
Now, Mary Margaret, Mary Margaret, Mary McCord.
Miss Alabama, after I played this soundbite, you should have seen the staff on the other side of the glass.
They were shocked.
They couldn't believe what they're saying.
Listen to it again.
Mary Margaret McCord from Alabama.
Government tracking of phone records in the news lately.
Is this an invasion of privacy or is it necessary to stay safe?
Why or why not?
I think the society that we live in today, it's sad that if we go to the movies or to the airport or even to the mall, that we have to worry about our safety.
So I would rather someone track my telephone messages and feel safe wherever I go than feel like they're encroaching on my privacy.
Now I imagine a number of you were saying, what in the world?
How can the stop and think of something here?
Miss Alabama is in her early 20s, and the odds are that her educational experience has included years and years of how wonderful the government is.
She doesn't distrust it, particularly with Obama.
Obama loves her, but Obama is going to keep people safe.
Obama cares.
It makes total sense to me.
And then Snerdvy said, you realize somebody is going to marry her and then they're going to have kids and then where are we?
And I said, well, maybe, but the guy that marries her is not going to be asking her these kinds of questions, Snerdly.
So it doesn't matter.
And whatever questions he asks, whatever she says, he's going to agree with anyway.
But there was another, well, that's just the way of the world.
There was another contestant, Miss Utah, whose name is Marissa Powell.
And there's one of the judges was Nene Leaks, N-E-N-E.
And Nene Leaks asked Miss Utah, Marissa Powell, this question.
A recent report shows that in 40% of American families with children, women are the primary earners, yet they continue to earn less than men.
What does this say about society?
And Marissa Powell said, well, I think you can relay this back to education and how we are continuing to strive to.
And then she paused and people started getting nervous because she seemed lost.
She seemed to be in the middle of what some people know as a brain freeze.
And finally, she got herself back together and then she continued speaking.
She said, we have to strive to figure out how to create jobs right now.
That is the biggest problem.
And I think especially for men are seen as the leaders of this.
So we need to try to figure out how to create education better so that we can solve this problem.
Thank you.
And the audience cheered and thought it was a wonderful thing.
It was a beautiful thing.
Because we do need to create education better so that we can solve the problem because for men, as seen, are the leaders of this.
So the highlights of the Miss USA.
There was a third answer.
She came in third place.
She came in third place.
Do you think it's because of this answer?
Do you think I've been a judge of these things?
Do you know how much weight this counts for?
It isn't much.
I forget the exact percentage, but the swimsuit, the evening gown, the interview, that's not that doesn't.
Hey, are you really going to get lost in this and get all bent?
We are looking at her brain here.
That's what we're examining here, Snerdley.
We are looking at and examining her brain.
I haven't described, we are appreciating the brain.
I haven't described her appearance to you once yet.
I'm doing exactly what we're supposed to do.
We're talking about her brain and how she thinks we need to create education better.
Hey, you know what?
You need to lighten up.
She cares.
At least she cares.
Okay, now, here's the George Will soundbite, by the way, on immigration.
This is what, grab number 29.
This is what I was unaware of this.
And again, others may have said this.
If so, I missed it.
I'm not trying to not credit anybody.
This is just the first I ran across, and I didn't even see it.
I saw it in a summary last night of the Sunday shows.
It was on this week during the roundtable discussion.
The question of border security is now tangled up with the IRS and the Justice Department and the general pervasive distrust of the executive branch because what the bill says is the executive branch will certify if the border is secure.
I don't believe that the Republicans in Congress are going to take that.
They're going to say they're going to vote for a bill or against a bill whether or not it has Congress shall certify, not the executive branch, because no one trusts the executive branch anymore.
I had not heard that line of thinking from anybody, that this immigration bill will be determined by that.
Who has ultimate authority over border security?
Will's opinion is that the Republicans in Congress are not going to approve of something that turns border security over to the executive branch because they don't do anything right anymore.
If that were the reason for not voting for legislation, I don't know how the House can be voting for anything because the executive branch, he's right, nobody trusts, well, that's not true.
A lot of people do trust.
Ms. Alabama trusts the executive branch.
And Ms. Utah trusts the executive branch.
And a lot of low-information people trust the executive branch.
But Will says that Congress doesn't.
And if it doesn't say in the bill that Congress will certify that the border is secure and they're not going to vote it.
I just hadn't heard that.
It's interesting.
Now, speaking of security, we've got some immigration soundbites I'm going to get to after the next break.
ATT has begun rolling out wireless emergency alert updates for the iPhone 4S and the iPhone 5.
Now, if in the past couple of days you had a blue alert message on your phone that said carrier upgrades are now available on your phone, they didn't tell you what the carrier upgrades were.
A carrier upgrade is an update or an upgrade sent out by ATT or Verizon or T-Mobile, whoever they care, not Apple.
It's not a software upgrade.
My phones all I got, I got this blue alert on Saturday.
Well, one of them on Sunday.
I happen to know what it was because I read the tech blogs.
But if you got one of those blue alerts, the alert didn't tell you what was happening.
And when you click OK to release the alert, you are not taken to what has been upgraded or added.
So here's where you find out.
If you have an iPhone 4S or an iPhone 5, go into settings and then notifications and scroll all the way to the bottom.
And if your phone has received the carrier update, what you will see are two on-off switches that are related to government alerts.
One is Amber Alerts.
The other is emergency alerts.
And you can either leave them on or you can turn them off.
There is a third alert that was part of the carrier update that you can't turn off.
And it's called the presidential update.
Any warnings, notifications will come as a text message.
That's how they will appear.
So the next time the feds issue an amber alert, you're going to hear about it on your telephone, on your iPhone 4S or your iPhone 5, if you're ATT.
And Verizon 2, my Verizon phone got it.
If there is a weather alert, if, for example, the feds issue some emergency tornado warning for X area, you will get that on your phone.
It will look like a text alert or look like a text.
If, by the way, you have no choice, this happens.
You can turn the two alerts off, but you can't keep them off the phone.
Are you scrolling in there, Snerdley, to see if your phone has the alerts?
You're not doing it yet?
You don't have it yet?
Well, you will.
And it'll just happen.
You'll get that blue alert box that says you now have a carrier update.
It's been installed, and you click OK and it goes away.
You find whether or not you've had it in notifications.
The presidential alert is anytime Obama wants to talk to you.
It is part.
I remember when the federal law was passed, and it was not that long ago.
But if Obama ever wants, or any president now, ever wants to issue a presidential alert, it's thought of as very, very rare and only in the most dire emergencies.
But that ability now exists for the President of the United States to send out emergency text messages essentially to every telephone.
Yeah, that's how they come.
You can turn those two off if you want.
You have that ability on Dawn's phone, too.
You didn't even know it, right?
Didn't even know it had happened.
It happened.
They started rolling it out on Friday.
And you might have seen that blue alert and thought it was something.
You see them all the time, just released it, didn't even read what it was, but that's what it is.
Again, if you have an iPhone 4S or an iPhone 5, and this goes for Verizon too, by the way, just go settings, notifications, scroll all the way to the bottom, and you'll see if they've been installed on your phone.
Amber alerts and emergency alerts.
You can turn those two off.
The presidential alert doesn't display.
You can't turn that off.
Quick time out.
Back with much more after this.
Don't go away.
Hi, how are you?
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
These alerts that I just told you about, they are federal government alerts mandated by the federal government.
The telephone companies are required to provide them on every phone that is a new enough model to accept the technology.
So in the case of iPhones, it's the iPhone 4S and the iPhone 5.
I don't know what Samsung phones accepted, but some of them obviously qualify.
Right now, these alerts are just text.
But the plan is that the alerts in the future will be audio and video.
You will not be charged any daily usage when these alerts are issued.
And probably the first alert that's going to happen, my guess is it's going to be an Amber alert.
I don't really know what constitutes a federal emergency alert.
It could be a terror attack somewhere.
It could be bad weather.
But the bottom line is that this is a federal law that was passed in April of 2012.
It was rolled out in New York and Washington first.
Now it's being rolled out to the rest of the country.
You have no say-so in the matter.
You can turn them off.
You can turn off the amber and emergency alerts, so they will not receive them.
We have now Marissa Powell, Miss Utah, from the Miss USA competition last night.
The actress Nini Leaks.
A recent report shows that in 40% of American families with children, women are the primary earners, yet they continue to earn less than men.
What does this say about our society?
I think we can relate this back to education and how we are continuing to try to strive to figure out how to create jobs right now.
That is the biggest problem.
And I think especially the men are seen as the leaders of this.
And so we need to try to figure out how to create education better so that we can solve this problem.
Thank you.
Yeah, Reno!
Radha!
Men are the leaders in this, and therefore we need to figure out how to create education better.
Let me grab a phone call.
I had intended by now to get into immigration audio soundbites.
But this phone call is about one.
Let me grab, this is Albert in San Francisco.
Albert, I'm glad you called, sir.
Great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
I had a question with regard to what Lindsey Graham said yesterday on, I believe he was on Meet the Press.
He basically came out and said that the Republican Party is in a downhill spiral.
And if we don't pass immigration and get in the good graces of the Hispanics, that the party is basically dead.
So my question is, one, is what you thought about that?
And two, why are they, I guess, why is he saying that now after months and months of all the Republicans in this gang of age?
No, no, no.
No, we're not doing that.
Hold it a minute.
That's exactly what he means.
Well, I guess my question is: after months and months, we all knew that that was the case, but after months and months, why, and the Republicans kept denying that was the case.
Why now?
Why say it now?
I guess maybe that's my question.
I don't know that they've denied it.
I mean, well, Rubio was on your show and he denied it.
When you asked him point blank a few months ago when he was on your show, he said, I'm not doing this for political reasons.
So then I'm kind of confused.
Why now, though?
Maybe that's my question.
Well, why would Lindsey Graham go on television and say the purpose of this is to get in the good graces of Hispanics?
Yes, and then why now, though?
Why is it saying now, though?
I guess more of that's my question.
I don't know.
I'm having trouble only because this isn't news to me.
Yeah, it's not news to me either, but it's just more, I guess, why at this point in the talks, you know, when it's going to be voted, well, it was voted last week, but I mean, when they're so let's say, grab somebody 20.
This is what he's talking about.
We've got time to squeeze the soundbite in.
Let's listen to this.
If we don't pass immigration reform, if we don't get it off the table in a reasonable, practical way, it doesn't matter who you run in 2016.
We're in a demographic death spiral as a party, and the only way we can get back in good graces with the Hispanic community, in my view, is pass comprehensive immigration reform.
If you don't do that, it really doesn't matter who we run, in my view.
Okay, so that's not news to you, right?
I mean, you know that that's what the thought of the lawyer.
You just wonder why he's saying it now?
Yeah, I'm sure.
Yeah, it's not definitely not news to me, but it's why now, though, and especially since I guess maybe more Rubio, and I guess Rubio didn't say it, but he did not.
On your show, though, he said he wasn't doing it for that reason.
And now it's coming out now.
I've got to, again, I'm up against on time.
Let me think about this.
I just don't want to give you an answer off the top of my head, even though it'd be better than most anybody else's answer.
I still need to think about it a minute.
Not enough time here to answer the guy's question.
I still don't have one.
I'm not sure I know what the big deal is anyway, because it isn't news to me.
But anyway, we'll tackle this in greater detail in mere flash moments.
▲
Export Selection