All Episodes
Previous Next
June 18, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:44
June 18, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, folks.
Great to have you here.
Great to have you back.
I'm Rush Lindboy, your guiding light through all times.
Good and bad.
It's great to have you here.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program is 800-282.
2882, and the email address lrushbow at EIB net.com.
Let's talk about j just for a second.
I mean, I don't want to spend a whole lot of more time on this, but the idea that Republicans suppressed the black vote.
I think even Jesse undercut his own argument.
He mentioned that the black turnout for Obama was greater in 2012 than 2008.
What suppression of the black vote?
And in case you have forgotten, in 59 Philadelphia voting districts, divisions.
Precincts, whatever you want to call them in Philadelphia.
Mitt Romney got zero votes.
Zero in 59 districts.
Many of them African American.
And yet people want to talk about vote suppression.
On this business of Obama.
Well, he didn't tell people the IRS to do it.
The manager does not tell the pitcher to throw a brushback pitch after one of his gets beaned.
The pitcher just knows to do it.
Obama doesn't have time.
Look at I've got people that work here at the EIB network who do their jobs every day.
I never once tell them what to do.
They already know.
And it's identical in something as powerful as a presidential administration.
A couple of sound bites.
Vice President Bite me is out there trying to pick up the slack from President Obama.
President Obama has abandoned the campaign trail and thereby putting in jeopardy the idea that he is unaware of all these things going on and is campaigning against them.
This afternoon in Washington, the White House South Court Auditorium.
Vice President Bite Me delivered remarks on reducing gun violence.
We have two sound bites.
Number one here.
Ladies and gentlemen, since Newtown, more people have died at the end of the gun than we have lost in Afghanistan.
It's pretty astounding.
Pretty astounding.
And Iraq, as a matter of fact.
Over 5,000.
There's no way to run a country.
And where are most of these shootings happening, Vice President Biden?
Aren't they in places run by people in your party?
Like in Chicago.
And like in Washington, D.C., where you happen to be, where are most of these gun acts of violence taking place that are outnumbering the combined deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Pretty astounding.
Who's running things where these shootings are taking place?
Huh?
And don't these places have the strictest gun control laws already in the country?
Heck of a way to run a city.
Heck of a way to run a state.
Heck of a way to run a district.
You see, Obama's not on the campaign trail, so they've got to send bite me out there.
Thank you.
Gotta send bite me out there, because of course this gun violence can't be anything to do with them.
Mr. Vice President, you know, since Newtown.
Um how many how many existing gun laws are not even being enforced.
You guys uh you ever thought about endorsing the laws we already have on uh on uh guns and uh gun crimes.
Maybe me just enforcing those kind of like immigration, Mr. Vice President.
I think maybe we just enforce the laws we've got instead of saying we've lost control.
Here's the second bite me bite.
No matter how long it takes, we're determined to do something about it.
Let me close by thanking my colleagues in the administration and my friends in the Congress for uh not giving up on this.
We got a majority, but not the supermajority needed.
We will get it.
We will be back.
We're gonna get your guns.
We got to win in 2014.
We gotta pick up the House in 2014.
Hey, Chuck, hey, Chuck, want to stand up, Chuck Let them.
Oh God, bless you.
Oh, God, Chuck can't stand up.
What am I talking about?
Or Chuck, Chuck to the wheelchair.
Jet sells also stand up for Chuck.
Chuck, nobody's gonna get a gun at you, buddy.
We're gonna make sure it doesn't happen.
We're gonna get that supermajority in 2014.
We're gonna get those guns.
We're gonna make it happen.
We will be back.
Right.
More Gloria Borger, ladies and gentlemen.
More limbaugh theorem on display, these people talking about it while not even knowing it.
This is yesterday afternoon on CNN during the uh Wolf Blitzer show newsroom.
But the anchor was Don Lemon yesterday.
And they're talking about Obama's new poll numbers because it's a CNN poll and the poll numbers are bad.
I mean, a serious, serious deterioration for Obama.
Here's what Gloria Borger said uh in analysis.
Honest and trustworthy.
This is another big problem for the president because he's down nine points from May, and even if people didn't like the president, they kind of always gave him the benefit of the doubt because they thought that he was generally a good guy who meant well and was trustworthy.
Now you see how that poll, that number is dropping precipitously, and I think they're starting to link the president and their lack of trust in him to the government.
Oh no!
She just let the cat out of the they're starting to link the president to the government.
Who would have thought that would ever happen?
That was Don Lemon, you heard who added with the scandals.
What she was saying is, I think they're starting to link the president and their lack of trust in him to the government.
So what is she saying?
Folks, forgive me.
If I don't pat myself on the back as rarely as I do it, nobody else will.
And I'm telling you, these people are all confirming the limbaugh theorem.
She's doing it right here.
And I think they're starting to link the president and lack of trust in him to the government.
Meaning they've never linked Obama to what's going wrong in the government.
Because he hasn't been appearing to run the government.
He's campaigning against it every day.
It was Don Lemon who said, after she said, I think they're starting to link the president or lack of trust in him, Lemon said with the scandals.
That's when she said to the government.
So Gloria Borger is essentially admitting that up till now, Obama's success has been he hasn't been linked to any of this.
She's so right and doesn't even know what she has swerved into there.
Ted Cruz did not wait long to mount a legislative response to the Supreme Court's ruling against the Arizona voter registration rule yesterday.
Ted Cruz submitted an amendment yesterday afternoon to the Senate's immigration bill that'll permit states to require proof of citizenship for registration to vote in elections for federal office.
Cruz's measure would amend the National Voter Registration Act.
He posted on Twitter that today the Supreme Court ruled that federal motor voter law preempts Arizona proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration.
Well, I'm gonna file an amendment to the immigration bill that permits states to require ID before registering voters and close this hole in federal statutory law.
And that's a great response to this ruling yesterday.
In fact, the uh I think it's it's somewhat outrageous that the motor voter law was passed without requiring any proof of citizenship in the first place.
But that was no accident.
The Democrats want as many people voting as possible.
They wanted.
What the Democrats wanted out of this was anybody can register.
Anybody can get on the rolls.
That's what they wanted.
Now they didn't get that in the ruling, but they wanted it.
They want anybody to go register.
What's the point of motor voter?
What is the point of register when you vote?
What is the point of registering when you go buy milk?
Just to get as many people on the voter roll, because they know that the rolls are never purged.
And they know that in the places they control the polling place, they're going to okay anybody who walks in.
Now about this ruling.
Yesterday I told you when the ruling came down that I was ill-equipped and unprepared to comment on it because it happened close enough to the start of the program that I was unable to look at the ruling the decision, and I had only had an AP story.
And all I knew when the program started was that it was a seven to two decision with Scalia writing for the majority.
And of course, I have implicit trust in Justice Scalia.
So I finished the program yesterday thinking that the ruling yesterday was really not a big deal because he essentially said that there wasn't an issue here, that the states have no authority over federal elections.
But then, ladies and gentlemen, I read the dissent.
The dissent was two people, Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia.
If you get a copy, if you get a copy of the concurring opinion in the sense it's a PDF file, if you start at page 25, that is the dissent written by Justice Thomas.
So I read that.
And glad I did.
Remember now the ruling yesterday stated that the state of Arizona had exceeded its authority in requiring certain things to happen in registering voters for federal elections.
The ruling was that the states do not have such authority.
Yeah, they were the dissenting opinion.
Did I say the majority?
No, they were the dissent.
They were the two.
That was that was just verbal dyslexia.
Nobody Scalia wrote for the majority.
So I read the dissent.
And it made me really thankful that I didn't jump in feet first yesterday, not knowing what this was really about.
Here are the relevant excerpts, Justice Thomas's dissent.
The voter qualifications clause provides that the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature in elections for the Federal House of Representatives.
The 17th Amendment, which provides for direct election of senators, contains an identical clause.
That language is susceptible of only one interpretation.
States do have the authority to control who may vote in congressional elections, so long as they do not establish special requirements that do not apply in elections for the state legislature.
The electors are to be the same who exercise the right in every state of electing the corresponding branch of the legislature of the state.
Congress has no role in setting voter qualifications or determining whether they are satisfied, aside from the powers conferred by the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments, which are not at issue here.
This power is instead expressly reposed to the states.
So what Thomas and Alito said was that Arizona was perfectly within its rights To determine the qualifications of electors, i.e., people that vote.
We're not talking about the electoral college.
Don't get confused by the uh constitutional language here of electors.
So the dissent opinion, Thomas and Alito made clear that constitutionally, the states are within their rights to determine the qualifications of voters, i.e.
prove that they're citizens.
So they disagreed with the majority.
And Scalia as well, and Anthony Kennedy.
Uh that the states, in this case, Arizona did indeed have the right to determine to require citizenship.
Furthermore, Justice Thomas wrote that the history of the voter qualifications clause's enactment confirms this conclusion.
The framers did not intend to leave voter qualifications to Congress.
Instead, James Madison explicitly rejected that possibility.
And then he quotes Madison in Federalist No. 52.
In fact, the Constitutional Convention did recognize a danger in leaving Congress too dependent on the state governments by allowing states to define congressional elector qualifications without limit.
To address this concern, the committee of detail that drafted Article 1, Section 2 weighed the possibility of a federal property requirement as well as several proposals that anyway, it's a history of the voter qualification clause and how it came to be and what it means.
This is a great example of how constitutional interpretation can somehow end up being 180 degrees separate.
The majority is no issue here.
State of Arizona can't have any say so in federal elections.
Thomas and Alito said they do, and it's right there in the Constitution that the Congress cannot determine the qualification for voters in the states.
So the remedy here, we had a caller about the remedy here is for the states just to go ahead, since most federal elections occur on the same day to state elections.
What the states can do is to continue to register people according to state requirements for state elections and thereby accomplish the same objective.
Without saying that's what they're doing.
But is a fascinating.
I mean, is this a great divide, 180 degree difference in interpretation of the Constitution.
But Ted Cruz said to hell with it.
We're just going to amend the immigration bill.
I'm going to amend the voter-voter law that permits states to require ID before registering voters and close this hole.
Federal statutory law.
Be back after this.
Hi, folks, how are you?
El Rushbo serving humanity simply by being here.
And as usual, half my brain always tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair.
Because we love fairness here at the EIB network.
USA Today, new policy banning purses from football games.
The NFL announced a policy late last week.
No.
It's Sunday they announced this, I guess, because this is Tuesday, yes, it's Sunday.
The NFL announced a new policy that forbids anybody from carrying a purse that's larger than a paperback novel into football games starting this preseason.
However, there is an alternative.
You can use a one-gallon clear plastic freezer bag like Ziploc instead.
That's right.
I know you don't want to put your tampons in a clear ziplock bag, but you're gonna have to.
You can't unless we just squeeze squeeze them into a purse no bigger than a paperback.
That's the maximum size purse that women are going to be allowed to take into NFL stadiums this year starting in preseason.
But as an alternative, one gallon size clear plastic freezer bags will be permitted.
Well, uh the reason is uh the bombings at the Boston Marathon, uh keeping people safe at large events like this, uh, and avoiding big long lines checking all the stuff that's in bags that women are bringing in.
If you can see through the bag, you don't have to empty it.
Big purses have to be searched, so it's all about streamlining the experience for the fans.
And the belief, look, if there's a football game here, what the hell do you need your purse for anyway?
Now, the the conflicting part of this is that the NFL on the other end is making an outreach to women, and they're trying to get people in the stadiums.
They're doing all kinds of things, try to replicate the experience at home.
Big new video boards improved Wi-Fi connectivity in the ballparks.
A new study.
What was that?
Uh no beatings from your husbands in the stadium will be permitted.
That's right, because men beat their wives on Super Bowls.
Yeah, so the NFL, no beating your wife at an NFL game.
Tailgate, fine, but not in the stands.
Just kidding, folks.
He really said it and he means it.
CBS News Pittsburgh.
Why do women go into menopause?
Well, their ovaries basically shut down, says Emily Liebovitz of the West Penn Hospital.
She's an OBGYN.
But why do the ovaries shut down?
Well, they don't know, says Emily Liebovitz.
However, a Canadian researcher says that women go into menopause because of men.
And because of competition.
Using computer modeling, the Canadian researcher found competition among men of any age for younger mates, left older women with less chance of reproducing.
He says the result is that genes favoring menopause got passed down to the generations so that now it's a normal part of the female genetic blueprint.
But it says here there are problems with this theory.
Honest to God, menopause is now men's fault.
The competition for a hot babe is leading women into menopause.
Baldness drug.
Fox News, some men who take the drug, propecia, to slow a receding hairline may also find it reduces their interest in consuming adult beverages.
Almost two-thirds of the men in the study noticed that they were drinking less alcohol than before they took propicia, said the study researcher, Dr. Michael Irwig, an endo chronologist and assistant professor of medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine.
So a baldness drug eliminates the uh massive consumption of adult beverage.
I asked a question earlier, why is Dingy Harry hurrying the immigration bill?
And Byron York says, well, there's a couple interesting things that have happened out there in the conservative media that might be hastening this.
And he cites two things.
The editors at National Review have come out against the gang of eight bill, as have the editors at the Weekly Standard.
The weekly standard editors uh featured a post that suggests it's time to walk away from the gang of eight bill.
The National Review editors say the gang eight bill does not serve the economic interests of the U.S. So in Washington, these are prominent conservative media outlets, and they've come out against the gang of eight bill, and they at one time I mean the the the at one time both publications had a number of people that you could consider to be open borders crowd, like the Wall Street Journal.
And that they have now come out against the bill has frightened, according to Byron York, possibly frightened dingy Harry.
Because now these publications might provide Republicans with some cover to not support the bit.
Just a theory.
Just a theory.
Here's Matt from Indianapolis.
Matt, glad you waited.
Great to have you, sir, on the EIB network high.
Megadiddoes from a man who named his first dog rush.
It's an honor.
Well, great.
Thank you.
Uh thanks.
Thanks very much.
I really appreciate that.
You're welcome.
Hey, I wanted to talk to you about in the first hour you're talking about favorable poll numbers, or I guess uh disfavorable for Obama in these recent poll data.
And how you know that the polling doesn't really give me a whole lot of confidence these days since the you know the 212 election when we had favorable polling data on our side for you know a lot of the swing states that turned out to be you know pretty wildly inaccurate compared to what we're used to seeing.
Um you know, I think when people get behind that.
Well, maybe so I was talking about the national polls that were they were talking the the presidential race, and virtually all of them, there was just one or two outliers.
They virtually all of them had it close, and some of them some of them had Romney winning.
None of the polls.
All right, take it back.
Take it back.
Take it back.
The the polls all called it right.
I'm thinking of a different election.
The polls in his last race, we thought that it was a much closer race than it was, and we thought Romney was even gonna win.
And all of these national polls had Obama winning by they were from five to eight points, and I remember myself saying, This is I I accused them of media bias in the polling data because they weren't considering a 2010 turnout.
And it turns out those polls were right on the money.
Yeah, I think I think a lot of people have a hard time, you know, to identify themselves as Democrats, you know, even if they disagree with policies or you know, a polling question, once they get behind that booth, they just have a really hard time pulling that lever for a person with an R behind their name.
Even if they disagree completely with the guy with the D behind their name.
So it's just uh the 2014 election will I you know tell us a lot about whether these polling data are right again or not.
Okay, I'm not I'm not sure I'm following you because I'm having trouble hearing you, or I'm uh I hear you, I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying.
So I'm having to read a transcription of what you're saying, and I'm I'm way behind you.
I'm trying to do two things at once.
Are you are you saying people lie to pollsters?
Yes.
That's your point.
Yeah.
Uh because they don't want the pollster to think they're racist, or they don't want the pollster to think they're Republicans, so they they tell them things that aren't necessarily true just because they're so concerned what the pollster is going to think of them.
Yeah, or or just go again, you know, um go with the flow of of you know what the media coverage is of the time.
You know, because this current one is that Barack is, you know, unfavorable in these polls, but so you're you're but your point with this is what?
Is that um basically the the polling data that shows its favorability for um Barack right now, I just have a hard time believing it based upon the fact that um people once they actually go behind you know uh a lever to to vote against him have a hard time pulling the lever for someone who is a Republican.
What out.
Um okay, well now um uh oh oh you're talking about the okay I f I I'm sitting here thinking he's talking about the 2012 presidential polls.
You he he doesn't believe the current polling data is right.
He doesn't uh oh okay, okay.
You don't think Obama's actually down in the polling data right now.
I no, I don't.
I have a hard time believing it.
And because you think people Well, why would they lie about that?
I would think they'd be more inclined to lie about their support for Obama.
Um because right now, you know, public support I mean, the perception is again, we talk about perception, is that, you know, he's been involved in some tricky things lately.
Um, you know, they they want to make it seem like, well, you know, because of these things that may not or you know that side of the argument again.
Um, maybe there's a trust issue.
Okay, I'm lost.
I I but but uh I don't understand the logic because if if people don't tell the pollsters the truth because they don't want the pollsters to think ill of them, it seems to me that in a presidential approval poll, you would lie and say, I love Obama.
I think he's doing great.
I'm not I don't have any problem with the IRS scandal.
Um but they're not supporting Obama in the poll is the point.
They're they're they're for the for the first time expressing dissatisfaction uh with uh with Obama.
Anyway, uh I have to take a break.
I'm glad look, Matt, thanks for the call.
Appreciate it.
Brief timeout, folks, back with more after this.
Don't go away.
Okay, it took me a while to figure it out, but what our previous caller was saying was that no matter what people are saying in these polls, in the end, they're always gonna support Obama.
They might say yesterday or last week that they disapprove of the way Obama's doing this or that, but if there were another election, they'd vote for him anyway, so the polls are meaningless.
That the snapshot doesn't mean anything.
Uh even if these people are saying it, that they don't really mean it, that they still love Obama, they're always gonna love Obama, they don't know that we can do about it.
Get used to it.
They're gonna love Obama, they hate us, and don't ever think anything different.
That's not me.
I think this is real.
I think the late-night comedians are starting to make fun of Obama.
I think Obama stopped can't I think everything that's insulated him from being attached to his own policies is shifting.
That 17-point drop among young people is the first thing.
That's the uh uh this nearly half believe Obama ordered the IRS targeting these are big, big jumps.
I don't know if it'll hold up next week or not.
Guy of the caller could be right.
Uh, but it doesn't matter because Obama's not going to be a battle anymore.
The only reason the polling data has any interest to me is of course you and I are interested in whether or not the public's gonna wake up.
But I'm not living in any fantasy land about that.
Now, by by the way, folks, we have again starting Wednesday, we got a three-day huge big deal, three-day sweepstakes, two if by tea.
Because it's our birthday.
It's the second annual birthday.
Well, it's a second birthday for two of my tea, and we've got the fourth of July coming up.
And so in honor of our birthday and of course Independence Day, we've got this giant blowout, three-day sweepstakes.
Now you can go to the two if by tea.com website, and you won't see anything about the sweepstakes yet.
We haven't put it up there.
It'll be up there on Wednesday when we start tomorrow.
Um but if you haven't ever visited the 2FIT.com website, it's cool.
It's a different entity than Rushlinbaugh.com.
They're two separate entities.
And it's got the history of the T. Catherine and I started it.
Um, who we both are, uh some of the things that we have done, some of the patriots that we've recognized.
Um it's a it's a really it's a fun.
Great pictures there at the 2FIT.com website.
So I've got a call I don't have time to take, but I can relate to you what he wants.
Say Scott and Grand Rapids, Michigan.
And he wants to describe all the pent-up fury out there across the country among conservatives.
And all he says conservatives want is for somebody in Congress to get as mad as all the rest of us are, instead of all this milk toast sugar-coated crap talk that we get.
He wants somebody to come out, react to the liberals the way we do.
Somebody who is elected and in Washington, and I understand exactly what he means.
▲
Export Selection