All Episodes
Previous Next
June 27, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:40
June 27, 2013, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings to you music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists on the cross-state fruited plane.
It's Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, and the Limbaugh Institute for advanced conservative studies.
Great to have you here as we head on down the tracks of the busy broadcast week.
Fastest week in media, already Thursday.
I really cannot believe how the time flies.
But it is 800-282.
2882 is the number if you want to be on the program.
Hey, Sterdley, did you hear that CNN is bringing Crossfire back?
Yeah, CNN's being Crossframe.
They're bringing Crossfire back, and guess how they are promoting it?
I don't understand why you're so defensive, Rush.
What's wrong?
Because I take my business as seriously as you take yours.
And the term radical implies irresponsible.
It implies dangerous and all this to you.
From 1990, that's Crossfire with the younger Rush Limbaugh making his case as a guest.
I'm not having anything to do with this program.
I have nothing to do with Crossfire, but they're going to bring it back.
Newt Gingrich will anchor the conservative side of this, and Stephanie Cutter will anchor the left side for the Democrats on this.
And of course, I have nothing to do with it, but there they are using me.
What is this younger?
Younger Rush Limbaugh making his case as a guest from the tired and worn-out Piers Morgan, who was never anything here.
But I've got nothing to do with the program, but it's just the every network uses me to sell their warmed-over shows that nobody wants to watch.
You can see Crossfire every night, day, whatever on any cable TV channel.
That's all it is anymore.
Anyway, I just wanted to throw that in there.
Yeah, Howard Kurtz is going to Fox.
That's right.
Howard Kurtz is going to the Fox News channel as a media analyst.
John Scott, who does the media analysis show at Fox, is leaving to go do something else at Fox.
I think at Fox.
And so, yeah, they've hired Kurtz.
Get this, folks.
This is classic.
This is from the Daily Caller Today.
Shortly after the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU, announced a new initiative aimed at, wait for it, winning Republican support for gay marriage at the state level.
Are you listening to that?
And the ACLU's campaign will be led by Steve Schmidt, who ran McCain's campaign in 2008.
The ACLU's campaign aimed at winning Republican support for gay marriage at the state level will be run by a Republican consultant who held senior positions in the campaigns of both McCain and George W. Bush.
Schmidt also managed Schwarzenegger's campaign, his reelection campaign in California.
Did Schwarzenegger win his re-election campaign?
Did he win that or did he lose it?
I can't recall.
Additionally, the ACLU announced the hiring of GOP Proud, or GO Proud, co-founder and former executive director, Jimmy La Salvía.
Las Alvillas' task will be outreach to gay conservatives, according to a statement released with a group.
The two Republicans hired as part of a broader initiative challenging state, legal, and constitutional provisions.
So, what's happening here?
Republicans are being brought aboard the ACLU.
Immigration and now gay marriage, the left is hiring Republicans or co-opting Republicans into advancing the left's agenda.
So, as ostensibly, I know what the thinking here is, and you do too.
Well, look, we got to get the gay issue behind this.
The gays hate us.
So, we can't be for gay marriage.
I mean, love is love, and marriage, marriage is all about love.
It's not about sexual orientation, and who can oppose love?
The Republicans can't get anywhere.
They're going to be opposing love.
I mean, everybody loves love, everybody wants to be in love.
So, the Republicans can't be seen as denying love.
And if it's two people at the same sex that love each other, the Republicans got to be so the Republicans have to, in order to survive, in order to survive, the Republicans have to throw away their position on gay marriage now.
In order to survive, the Republicans have to throw away their position on illegal immigration.
What's going to be next?
Well, there's a war on women being waged out there.
And what do you bet that there is an effort?
Probably, well, we know this effort's been underway for a long time.
Republicans for choice used to be headed up by a Republican woman by the name of Ann Stone back in the 90s, but it's been around for a long time.
But that will be the next area the Democrats and the left attempt to co-opt the Republicans under the guise of helping them.
So, yeah, this is the Republicans got to do this.
In order to have a chance at gay money, in order to have a chance at gay votes, Republicans have got to do this.
They've got to come out and got to put this issue behind them.
And pretty soon, there isn't going to be a Republican Party.
This is one reason why I predicted, what, two, three weeks ago, that Chris Christie will seek the Democrat presidential nomination in 2016.
There isn't going to be, if these guys get their way, folks, there isn't going to be a Republican Party as it's now known.
Yeah, I know Arnold won his second term, but are they term-limited out there to two terms?
I'm trying to see he was gone.
Okay.
I was trying to determine whether Schmidt's campaign was victorious or not for Schwarzenegger.
So, I just wanted to pass that on.
In the meantime, I mentioned to you yesterday or the day before, I touted one of the great blogs that we use here in Show Prep every day, the Morning Bell from the Heritage Foundation, and their post today, the Supreme Court's marriage decisions by the numbers.
And this is an interesting post.
The morning after two important and troubling Supreme Court decisions in the Prop 8 and the DOMA cases, here's the lay of the land.
The important takeaway: the marriage debate is every bit as live today as it was yesterday morning.
That means it's time to redouble our efforts to stand for marriage across America.
Some key numbers following the decision.
I'm doing these stories back to back on purpose because here we have the Daily Caller story: ACLU, two Republican consultants have gone to work for them.
I don't mean to be shouting.
I'm trying to be emphatic.
Two Republican consultants have been hired on, gone to work with the ACLU to win support for gay marriage in the Republican Party at the state level.
Steve Schmidt.
Okay, there is that story.
Here's the Morning Bell blog and key numbers following both decisions yesterday.
50.
The number of states whose marriage laws remain the same after the court's marriage decision.
In other words, the decisions yesterday did not affect the law on gay marriage in any state.
Didn't change.
38.
A number of states with laws defining marriage as that between a man and a woman, and that includes California, where the scope of the Prop 8 decision, beyond the specific plaintiffs, will be the subject of an ongoing debate and most likely further litigation.
Number 12, the number of states that can now force the federal government to recognize their redefinition of marriage.
The court struck down Section 3 of DOMA, which means that it must recognize same-sex marriages in states that redefined it.
1.
The number of sections of DOMA struck down yesterday, Section 3.
Section 2, which ensures that no state will be forced to recognize another state's redefinition of marriage, is still the law of the land.
And 0.
The number of states forced to recognize other states' redefinition of marriage.
Zero.
So the point of the Morning Bell post here is that nothing really changed yesterday from state to state in terms of the number of states whose marriage laws remain the same, 50.
The number of states with laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, 38, no change.
12.
The number of states that can now force the federal government to recognize their redefinition of marriage, 12, no change.
1.
The number of sections of DOMA struck down yesterday.
It was Section 3.
Section 2 is still law.
And Section 2 ensures that no state will be forced to recognize another state's redefinition of marriage, and that's still law.
And 0.
The number of states forced to recognize other states' redefinition of marriage.
Well, in a sense, you might, I don't know.
No, it's not legally, it's not the same as Roe versus Wade.
That's their point here.
Roe versus Wade was a sweeping, essentially, constitutional finding with massive change.
Their point here is that despite these two decisions, there really isn't anything that's changed by the numbers, which means that the debate is every bit as live today as it was yesterday.
Their point is that in the debate, no ground was lost.
In the debate, on the ground, no ground was lost.
That's their point.
They're trying to stay encouraging here at the Heritage Foundation.
The important news that you may not be hearing is that the U.S. Supreme Court did not redefine marriage across the nation.
That did not happen.
It does mean that the debate about marriage will continue.
And in that sense, yeah, it could be the next Roe versus Wade, meaning a never-ending argument.
Once again, the reason Roe versus Wade is so divisive is that it has not been decided by the people.
It's been forced on the people by the Supreme Court, as this looks like it eventually will be too.
If the court gets their way, if the five justices in the majority had their way, they would redefine marriage and make it constitutional, but they didn't yesterday.
Scalia predicts it's heading that way.
But that was one of the many points Scalia made in his dissent yesterday, which was, let the people decide this.
The people of the United Kingdom have voted on abortion.
And it's not nearly the divisive issue there.
I mean, they argue about it, but it isn't nearly the divisive polarizing issue there that it is here.
And that's because they voted on it.
The people opposed to it had a legitimate shot.
That hasn't happened.
The people opposed to abortion have no chance.
Nine people wearing black robes said, this is the law.
This is constitutional.
And there's been nothing anybody could do about that.
So as we sit here today, the states are free to uphold policies recognizing marriage as the union of a man and a woman so that children have a mother and a father.
Now, admittedly, I mean, they're not trying to falsely spin this.
What happened yesterday is problematic.
The court did not respect the authority of California citizens in Congress.
They overrode that.
And they're clearly willing to when given the chance.
Proposition 8, the citizens of California who voted twice to pass Proposition 8 should have been able to count on their governor and attorney general to defend the state's constitution.
The only reason this thing with Prop 8 happened yesterday is because the people that were there defending it were said to have no right to, called standing.
And that's because state officials refused to defend it at the Ninth Circus and then at the U.S. Supreme Court.
And the U.S. Supreme Court said they didn't have any, the people that showed up to argue this didn't have any standing.
They had no right to.
So in the case of Proposition 8, the citizens of California voted twice to pass it.
Marriage is that between a man and a woman.
California passed it.
And it was essentially overridden because the governor and the attorney general refused to defend it, just like Obama said to hell with it.
I'm not going to defend NOMA anymore.
So the will of the people was overridden in California.
But in terms of gay marriage, marriage in general, across the country, nothing changed by the numbers.
Don't know, I am not doing a Pollyanna thing here.
I'm just telling you the way the Heritage Foundation is looking at this because the debate's going to continue, as evidenced by the ACLU hiring these two Republican consultants to now go out and put pressure on Republicans at the state level.
They're not even going to mess around with Congress on this.
These two guys are going to gin up an organization using the ACLU's power and reach and intimidation to put the pressure on Republicans in all 50 states to cave.
And so the Republican Party is being told, look, you've got to get this gay issue behind you.
You just got it.
You're never going to get any gay donors, any gay votes.
You've got to get this behind you.
You've got to come out for gay marriage.
Oh, okay.
You're not going to get any Hispanic voters.
You're just not ever.
You're never going to win the presidency unless you come out and get rid of this business as you oppose amnesty.
You've got to favor this citizenship.
Oh, okay.
And by the way, you guys, you know, the women in this country hate you, Republicans.
You're going to have to do something about it.
You're never going to get elected another president again unless you change your attitude and conception and abortion.
It just didn't get.
Oh, okay.
So by the time this process ends, the Republicans theoretically are going to be the most loved people ever.
Remember, remember the Betsy McCoy story about all the money in California for the exchange, how it's actually going to be used.
NAACP getting $600,000, SEIU getting $2 million, AFL-CIO getting $1 million, some group called Covered California, all these Democrat groups getting money from the so-called health exchange fund to basically engage in Democrat voter registration and Democrat get out the vote efforts.
The LA Unified Screw District will use a grant to train teenagers to promote Obamacare to family members.
This is how Covered California is going to use the money from the state exchange.
They're going to go to the LA Unified Scruel District and use a state grant from the exchange fund, $910 million, to train teenagers to go home and sell mom and dad on Obamacare.
Covered California, the state's health insurance exchange, announced grants of $37 million to promote the nationally unpopular law.
So the exact essentially using school kids as paid state agents.
Well, the kids aren't going to be paid.
Propagandists, right?
Propaganda.
A little marching propagandist.
They learn what they learn in the classroom.
They head home and they sell mom and dad on supporting and believing in Obamacare.
Money for that coming from the money to set up the exchange in California.
Apparently, folks, Hollywood movie stars, players from the National Football League and the NBA are not enough to sell Obamacare.
Now, California screws are going to be training kids to sell Obamacare using money from the exchanges.
How about Aaron Hernandez of the New England Patriots?
Wow.
There are 27 NFL players who have been arrested just since the Super Bowl.
Another one, Cleveland Browns player, I think, is charged with murder.
There is clearly, clearly something happening within the NFL's cultural feeder system that they're going to have to get their arms around and deal with, or they're going to be in deep, deep doo-doo.
27 NFL players have been arrested since the Super Bowl.
And, you know, a lot of people are going to say, Rush, it's the concussions.
A lot of the lawyers are going to say, it's the concussions.
It's the brain injuries.
Other people are going to assign this to other things.
But clearly, folks, clearly, there is something that has been effervescing out there, been bubbling up within the feeder system for the National Football League.
I mean, Here's an example.
Michael Bowley, New York Giants, February 8th, arrested child abuse Atlanta.
DaQuan Bowers, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, arrested for having a gun in his luggage at LaGuardia.
Al Netter, the Fortiners, arrested for DUI, California.
Desmond Bryant, Cleveland Browns, arrested criminal mischief, Miami.
Jamarcus Webb, Chicago Bears, arrested for marijuana possession in Illinois.
Charges were dropped.
Javaris Lee, the Arizona Cardinals, arrested for failing to appear in court in Florida.
Quentin Carter, the Denver Broncos, arrested for allegedly cheating at craps at a Vegas casino.
Case dismissed.
Cody Grimm, a Tampa Bay Buccaneers, arrested for public intoxication in Virginia twice.
Evan Rodriguez, the Chicago Bears, twice arrested for resisting an officer in Miami.
Charges dropped, then later for DUI, speeding an improper lane usage.
Trumane Johnson, the St. Louis Rams, arrested for misdemeanor DUI in Montana.
Brandon Barden, Tennessee Titans, suspicion of DUI.
Amari Spivey, Detroit Lions, arrested third-degree assault in an alleged domestic violence incident.
William Moore, Atlanta Falcons, simple battery after allegedly grabbing a woman by the shoulder in Atlanta.
Rolando McClain, Baltimore Ravens, disorderly conduct resisting arrest in Alabama.
And it goes on.
Quentin Groves, Cleveland Browns, arrested, solicitation in the prostitution sting in Ohio.
Osar Walcott, Cleveland Browns, arrested for attempted murder after punching a man outside a club in New Jersey.
And they're going to say that it's the concussions and stuff.
Now, the Patriots handle the Hernandez thing quite differently than the Baltimore Ravens handled the Ray Lewis thing.
The Baltimore Ravens went as far as they could in defending Ray Lewis.
The New England Patriots, last week, it was reported that if Hernandez was arrested for anything in this case, they were going to drop him.
And they did.
The game is changing.
Let's go to the audio soundbites, ladies and gentlemen.
The Trayvon Martin, the George Zimmerman trial.
Don't roll your eyes in there, Snerley.
Not yet.
There will be plenty of time to roll your eyes here coming up.
We're going to go to the audio soundbites.
I want you to, I want, this is the United States of America 2013.
This is probably an Obama voter.
This is probably a classic example of a low-information citizen.
Her name is Rachel Gentel.
She's a friend of Trayvon Martin's.
This is the murder trial of George Zimmerman.
And Rachel Gentelle is who Trayvon Martin was talking to the night he was killed.
She testified yesterday, testifying again today.
During the cross-examination, while asking what she knew about a possible arrest in the case, Defense Attorney John Adon West asked her this.
There wasn't any talk at school.
There wasn't any talk at the wake.
And we're trying to figure out about it.
Nothing in the news that you heard.
I don't watch the news.
The only time I watch the news was for the weather.
Had you seen any press conferences or any news whatsoever where his attorneys watch news.
I do not watch news.
And we can believe it.
We can certainly believe it.
That's a pretty convincing admission.
I told you, I don't watch the news except the weather.
So, this next sound by this one, Rachel Gentel claims that Trayvon called Zimmerman a creepy ass cracker.
During the cross-ination cross-examination, Rachel Gentel and the defense attorney Dan West had this exchange.
I asked him how the man looked like he looked like a creepy ass cracker.
Okay, let me make sure we got that.
Creepy ass cracker.
Cracker.
Yeah.
Okay.
Is that what you recall him saying?
Yes.
Okay.
And is that to mean you mean like a white individual?
Yes.
The attorney said, okay, let's make sure we got that.
Creepy ass cracker.
That's right.
Okay.
That to mean, you mean like a white individual?
Yes.
Creepy ass cracker.
But she didn't think it was racial.
She didn't think it was offensive.
Don West and Rachel Gentel continued after she admitted that Trayvon Martin referred to Zimmerman as a crazy ass cracker.
You don't think that's a racial comment?
No.
Do you think that creepy ass cracker is a racial comment?
No.
You may not consider it a racial comment, but it's certainly offensive, isn't it?
No.
You don't think calling someone a creepy ass cracker is offensive?
No.
No, of course not.
It's common parlance and statement of fact.
Zimmerman was and is a creepy ass cracker.
That's statement of fact.
It's not racial.
It's not offensive.
Creepy ass cracker.
She knows that she can't say anything that's offensive.
It's not going to ever be judged as offensive.
She's permitted to say whatever she wants.
Now, if Trayvon Martin had been referred to as a crazy ass something or else, that would have been big.
That would have been, and this may end up being big.
I don't know about the jury.
But statement of fact, creepy ass cracker?
What do you mean, lawyer?
Ain't any big deal.
It's not racial.
It's not offensive.
Statement of fact.
The creepy ass cracker.
Look at it.
Look at you.
You're a creepy ass cracker, you lawyer.
You creepy ass cracker.
You asking me all these questions?
You creepy ass cracker.
All you creepy ass crackers.
Everybody in here creepy ass crackers.
I'm in here because you're all creepy ass crackers.
This is the prosecution star witness, folks.
This is it.
Rachel Gentell.
The exchange then continued.
This is about a letter that she wrote.
Now, by the way, she's 19 years old, and she can't read cursive on a letter that she supposedly wrote herself.
She can't read it.
That's what this is about.
Are you unable to read that at all?
Some, I do not.
Can you read any of the words on it?
I don't understand.
Cursive.
I don't read curses.
Did you sign it at the bottom?
Yes.
She signed what she can't read because she doesn't understand cursive.
Is there any more here?
No, that's it.
That's it from the Trayvon Martin trial.
That's all I have.
Creepy-ass cracker and can't read cursive.
But you signed it?
Yes.
Does the lawyer, just asking, does the lawyer sound like he's putting pressure on her?
Does the lawyer sound like he's intimidating her?
Does the lawyer sound like he is trying to dominate her?
Does the lawyer sound like he's lauding it over her?
Does the lawyer sound like a creepy ass cracker that won't leave her alone?
Yeah.
They're going to call this guy a bully before this is all said.
This lawyer who is, I mean, he's desperately trying not to say anything.
He desperately wants the witness's testimony to speak for itself, but he's making sure he's asking her to repeat it, and he's going to end up being the bully.
You wait and see.
Creepy ass cracker bully.
That's what the lawyer is going to end up being here.
We don't have the bite right now, folks, but the star witness in the George Zimmerman trial, Rachel Gentell, said on the stand yesterday that she thought, I think it was yesterday, it might have been this morning, not sure, but she said that she thought that the creepy ass cracker was going to rape Trayvon Martin.
That's what she thought.
Creepy ass cracker was going to rape Trayvon Martin.
She's really having some problems with the truth on the witness stand.
But it's impossible, folks, to say anymore with jury's OJ trial and so forth.
Normal circumstances, you'd have to say that if this is the best the prosecution has, that really isn't going to be much of a case here.
But you can't say that.
You can't say that because all this taking place in a low information courtroom.
Let's go to the phones.
Where are we going to start?
Give me a line.
They got people up there.
You're going to start with Jeff in Maplewood, New Jersey.
You're up, sir.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush, big fan.
I was just going to call it the comment.
You had made a comment about the Heritage Foundation pointing out that yesterday's ruling didn't really change the law of the land in the 50 states.
And although that's technically true, I think as a practical matter, it's totally false.
That was an equal protection case yesterday.
Justice Kennedy started talking like it was going to be a federalism case, but in the end of the decision, he ruled on equal protection grounds.
And if he rules that it's an equal protection violation at the federal level, then the result at the end of the day is going to be that it's an equal protection at the same time.
Well, that's what he wants.
I mean, it's obvious.
And I think isn't that what Scalia was basically concluding?
Yeah, the Scalia was pointing that out.
I mean, they made the blanket statement in there.
Oh, this doesn't pertain to the 50 states, but that's only because the 50 states weren't party to this litigation.
Well, I understand.
Now, you know what the heritage people are doing here.
After this decision yesterday, look at the votes of the people increasingly don't mean anything in this country.
The power is being usurped.
Crony capitalism, corporatists are taking over the country, it appears.
The Republicans are caving and giving away on every issue.
And the heritage people are simply trying to put a little perspective on and say, wait a minute, we haven't lost it.
Don't give up yet is all they're saying.
Yeah, if the idea is to sort of buck up the troops, that's fine.
But I'm saying, as a legal matter, unless they do a 180 or we get a replacement judge, you know, in 2017 or something, you're going to see the rationale of this ruling be applied to the states.
Because what was really...
All you need is another case.
Yeah, well, there's tons of them floating out there.
There's whatever, 38 states that currently prohibit gay marriage, but it has to work through the system, so it takes a few years.
But the point is, what was really maddening about the decision, normally in these equal protection cases, they usually either say, well, in this case, sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny or there wasn't a rational basis for the law.
And that was sort of the tit-for-tat that was going on in the lower courts.
Justice Kennedy just blew right by that and just basically said, nope, the law violates equal protection, but he didn't give any reasons for it.
I mean, he gave a long-winded history of marriage.
He gave a long-winded diatribe on the fact that marriage was the province of the states.
Look, it wasn't just that.
It wasn't, I mean, you're absolutely right.
He then used the insulting characteristics of opponents of gay marriage as also a reasoning for the decision.
To hell with an injudicial.
Yeah, I think the statement you made yesterday was so apropos.
He basically acted the way liberals always do about conservatives in the sense that he sort of assumed that the motive behind the law was animus.
The motive behind the law was E.
It was like the Supreme Court became a primetime cable TV show yesterday in this case.
Yeah, but he didn't lay out and he said, well, look, you know, here, this happened, this happened, this happened, so therefore we believe that the reason they voted the way they did for DOLMA was out of animus.
No, he just sort of assumed it.
I mean, there was very little rational basis in his decision to support the contention that it was built on animus.
And so the basic bottom line is that any law that simply singles out marriage as being just between a man and a woman, if you go by the Kennedy decision, which is now sort of precedent, they should apply that rule to any of the states.
If you had a state case go before a district judge, say a month from now, he should look at that case and say, per Windsor versus U.S., the ruling was that you can't have a law that singles out discriminatory behavior for marriage based on sexual orientation.
That violates equal protection, end of the story.
And you would start knocking down each state law, and eventually it would work its way up to the court.
And if they use the same rationale, all those state laws will go bye-bye.
Right.
Well, I mean, that's, sadly, it's by design.
Yeah.
I mean, all they did yesterday in terms of not touching the states was sort of buy a little time, but it's a misnomer that it's not going to apply to the states.
Well, I know.
The Heritage people are simply saying that it didn't yet.
That what happened yesterday may have represented a desire, but it's not something that's been manifested yet.
And so there's no, don't, don't keel over and cave and think that it's over.
But again, on the other side of that, who can argue with what a court does?
The Supreme Court, they're the final arbiter now.
They determine what is and what isn't legal, what is and what isn't constitutional.
So, anyway, I'm gonna take a break.
Look, I appreciate the call, Jeff.
I really do.
Jeff in Maplewood, New Jersey, and we got a brief time out.
We'll take it.
Continue in mere moments.
Don't go away.
You read the Scalia dissent, and he said in part, in his opinion, that Justice Kennedy was basically begging someone to bring a case before the Supreme Court that would allow them to decide this on a national level.
Scalia predicted 10 years ago in a sodomy case, if this happens, we're opening a door to gay marriage.
He was right about it.
▲
Export Selection