All Episodes
Previous Next
June 27, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:40
June 27, 2013, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings my friends and welcome back Rush Limbaugh the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address, LRushpo at EIBnet.com.
My pronunciation guide says Gentel.
Shut up about it.
Everybody knows who I'm talking about.
We are here again, my friends, with Broadcast Excellence.
It's all yours for the next two hours.
You know, what's going on in New York is somewhat fascinating.
This whole Anthony Weiner thing.
In fact, all of this that's happening here is not just Anthony Weiner, but this George Zimmerman trial.
You know, no matter where we look, we look at the disintegration of this country, no matter where we look, we're seeing the crumbling, the literal tearing down of the foundations that have built this country and maintained it.
And that is what's so unsettling to everybody is that there doesn't seem to be anybody else concerned about it.
And what we're told, now you got to get with it, Rush.
The country's changing.
It isn't the country it was when you grew up.
It wasn't.
It's not the country it was 20 years ago.
And you're going to have to get with it, Rush.
You're just going to have to flow with the times.
You're going to have to change, Rush.
You know, this is just, it's just not, you can't sit there and just continue to be an old funny.
The country's changing, and you got to get with it.
And the fact is, it is changing.
There's no question it always does.
But the things that constitute the change today are resulting in the breakdown of the backbone of the foundation, the guardrails, whatever, the limits that have always existed that would protect against disintegration and so forth.
And it just seems to, even the economy.
You know, while all of this is going, all this immigration stuff, and it's big, and the Zimmerman trial, that's big, and the gay merit, the one thing that I think the vast majority of people in this country are concerned about, not even talked about anymore, not even addressed, and that's jobs.
The economy, the pursuit of a career, the American dream, the attempt to provide for your family.
I mean, that's the thing that I think is really on people's minds, and it's of hardly any consequence, it seems, or any interest anywhere else.
The job situation, and one of the reasons for that is that even the people out of work are eating and they're driving and they're watching TV and they're using cell phones.
And now we're going to, apparently people get their way.
We're going to dump how many millions more people into this economy while we are undertaking new energy policies that are going to do even further damage to the job market.
And it just doesn't seem that there is any, I don't know what the word is, sympathy, concern for the people I've always judged to be those who make the country work.
So you sit here and you witness it and you watch it and listen to people say when you express concern, but come on, Rush, get with it.
Country's changing.
You didn't like it in the way it was when you were growing up.
And that's, of course, true for everybody.
Country is always evolving and changing, but that's why there are standards.
Decency, decorum, behavior.
But it is clear there is an all-out war, I think.
And it's been going on for a long time.
I think it's just the idea that it is now having a little bit more success than we would like.
The all-out war against religion, the war against God.
Because if you, God, religion, the Bible, that is the source for morality.
That is the source for right and wrong.
And that is the source, the source material for much of the ethics or the ethic in this country.
And because it is so disliked and hated by a bunch of people who judge themselves not to fit into it, they always want to tear it down.
So there is no judgmentalism.
There is no perceived right and wrong.
Nobody has the right to determine what's good, decent, bad, or just everything's okay, whatever you want to do.
Fine and dandy.
Have had it.
Which is all well and good, except when you start demanding everybody else pay you for it.
Now, here we got in New York.
We've got Anthony Weiner, who is running for mayor.
One of his opponents is a woman named Christine Quinn.
I've got a story here from the New York Post, and she's pictured here as a bride in her 2012 wedding to her girlfriend, who is now her spouse.
And this mayoral race in New York was once hers to lose.
And in New York, you would think that Christine Quinn would be the hands-down favorite.
She is the quintessential liberal woman.
She's a lesbian.
She's far left in her politics.
And yet, the people of New York are going to reward Anthony Weiner.
The women of New York are polling stronger for Anthony Weiner than they are for one of their own.
The mayor's race, once Christine Quinn's to lose, has turned into a virtual dead heat among the contenders, according to the latest Quinnipiac poll.
Yep, it's Quinnipiac.
After leading the pack at 37% in February, Quinn has dropped steadily to 19% in the latest survey.
Weiner and Bill Thompson hot on her trail at 17%.
I think, I don't know, to me it gets humorous.
It's shocking that she is not the clear favorite of liberal women in New York.
Because the policies aren't any different from any of these people, one to the next.
The Senate poised to pass comprehensive immigration reform this week with upwards of 70 votes, except wait.
The gang of eight is backing off of their 70-vote goal.
Now, Senate poised to forge ahead with the final vote on the immigration bill as an impasse over amendments, all but ensured that the elusive goal of 70 votes will slip from the gang of eight's grasp.
Speaker John Boehner told the House Republican conference on Wednesday morning that the Senate bill remains a non-starter in the House.
Matt Salmon, Republican Arizona, among those spreading this word.
He didn't say it.
He didn't say unless it gets 71 votes.
He said it's dead on arrival.
Senate vote dead on arrival in the House.
Well, before you start doing handstands, understand that that is part of a theory that people have, that the House is going to pass an immigration bill that's largely acceptable to a lot of people.
They won't take up the Senate bill.
They'll do their own.
And then you've heard it, then we go to conference, and that's where the Senate bill triumphs, is in the conference.
And at that point, all the Republicans, hey, we made sure the Senate bill wasn't taken up here.
We took care of that.
We didn't cave.
There's a lot of people who trust the Republican leadership on this right now.
They're very, very worried about what the process is going to lead to.
Paul Ryan is going to try to sell immigration reform to House Republicans, but he says it ain't going to be the Gang 8 bill.
He's not going to sell that.
And he's also saying, along with Boehner, that the House is not going to take up the Gang of Eight bill.
And when Ryan says that he's going to try to sell immigration reform to House Republicans, he's not talking about the Gang of Eight bill or the Rubio plan.
He's going to be ostensibly selling something that would demand real evidence of improved border security before proceeding to legalization.
The Senate bill does just the opposite, legalization first, and then proceeding to border security.
Now, if a bill like that really exists in the House, where they really do the border security first before legalization, why do they need anybody to sell it?
Unless there's a faction of Republicans that doesn't want any kind of a bill for whatever reason, because they just assume say no.
You know, why do we have to do anything dramatic in an emergency frame of mind?
Why?
Just because the Democrats want to?
Why?
I mean, there is that frame of mind or point of view about it in the House.
But my point is, if somebody in the House already has a bill that demands border security first foremost provable with real triggers and so forth before any legalization happens, you shouldn't need any big name to sell that.
Just an observation.
I'm not speaking out against Ryan here.
I'm just honest is my reaction.
But at the same time, Ryan is still maintaining that whatever happens here, it is an amnesty.
Whatever ends up being done, Senate bill is not amnesty.
Whatever happens in the House, not amnesty.
He's hell-bent on persuading people that.
So let's go to the audio soundbites.
Grab number three.
This is Bob Corker.
No, take it back.
Take it back.
Yeah, three, and then I think I've got Beth if I put him.
Yep.
Bob Corker first from Tennessee.
This is yesterday.
Sorry, this morning on the Senate floor.
And he's talking about his constituents, Tennessee, and others.
I was asked yesterday by a reporter just about folks back home in Tennessee and how they feel about this legislation.
I believe that Tennesseans at the end of the day will look at this legislation and study it and not just listen to what's been said by numbers of blogs and people who are trying to spend things in such a way as to create confusion.
And at the end of the day, I believe when Tennesseans see what is in this legislation, I believe the majority of them, the large majority of them, will feel like that this legislation improves the conditions from where we are today.
I really believe they're going to do that.
So it doesn't matter what you think right now.
You'll get over it.
Does it really matter?
It's like the Obamacare.
We get this thing done and you see what's in it.
It's going to be okay.
Tennesseans are going to be cool with it once they find out what's in it.
We just can't tell them before the vote because we don't even know.
It's over a thousand pages.
Nobody really knows everything in this thing because it doesn't matter what's in it.
We're going to pass something and then we're going to make it happen the way we want it to happen.
And those people are going to become citizens.
Do you understand it?
And they're going to become part of the workforce.
And they're going to be lower than minimum wage and that's just the way we want it.
It's going to happen.
Get used to it.
It's the only way we're ever going to win the presidency again.
Here's Boehner.
Also, this morning on Capitol Hill weekly press conference, reporter says, Mr. Speaker, you said a couple weeks ago to George Stephanopoulos that you believe immigration reform would pass, and you seem more confident then than you seem now about it passing.
What do you see as the path forward for reaching what you talked about a couple of weeks ago?
I've made clear that we're going to go through regular order.
The Senate's going to pass their bill, it looks like today.
We're going to go home for the recess next week and listen to our constituents.
And when we get back, we're going to have a conference on July the 10th to have a discussion about the way forward.
That's not what they want.
They don't want people going home listening to constituents.
The Senate does not want that.
I don't mean Boehner, the Senate.
Dingy Harry, Obama, the Democrats do not want anybody going home and listening to you about this.
So they may not have any town hall meetings.
Let's take a brief time out.
We'll come back and continue much more straight ahead here on the EIB network.
Do not go away.
Okay, back to the phones we go.
Lisa in New Orleans.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hey, Rush.
How are you doing today?
Just fine.
Thank you.
Good.
I had called in.
You were listing the laundry list of players who have had trouble in the past in the NFL.
Yeah, I stopped.
I didn't go through all 27.
It's starting to sound monotonous.
I was getting bored.
I understand.
It called to mind, I had heard Tony Dungy in an interview on a national sports show after Bob Costas gave his little commentary on guns a while back.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
And he was speaking about how there's very much a gun culture within the NFL players, and a lot of it he likened to their upbringing and, you know, the environments in which they were raised.
Tony Dungy did?
Yeah, it was an interview he gave, and I remember because I really like Tony Dungy.
I think he's got a great head on his shoulders, good influence for these kids.
But he spoke about how beginning of the season, he would go in the locker room, talk to the players, and point blank ask them with a show of hands, how many of you all own guns.
And I think the number he gave was 70, 80% would raise their hand.
And really all he could contribute to it was how to protect the shield of the team, how to protect the NFL, with don't bring it to the training facility, don't bring it to the game.
What you do on your own time is up to you.
And to me, I know you like societal indicators.
To me, when you have a city like New Orleans that's as violent as it is, we have shootings on MLK Day.
We have a second-line shooting on Mother's Day.
These players matter to these kids.
Whether you want them to or not, they do.
When you've got a guy like Tony Dungy who's spelling it out, and these kids who are in such positions with the money they're making, I'm talking the 23, 25-year-old NFL players.
You got this Hernandez kid.
I don't know if he did it or not, but these guys matter to these kids.
And we see it every evening on the news in New Orleans, every evening on the news.
Okay, where are you going with this?
We need to get rid of guns.
What do we need to do?
No, I don't.
No, we're a Second Amendment household, I can assure you.
I go back to, you know, societally, what the president does.
Are you trying to say something that you're afraid to say?
No, I'm not afraid to say anything.
Believe me, you can ask my kids.
Because you started out by saying that Tony Dungy said that the problem with all this is that these young NFL players are coming from upbringings and neighborhoods or whatever from a culture that's oriented around guns.
Yeah, that was his commentary back when Bob Costas was talking about the gun issue back when, you know, during the season when he gave his little chat on guns during an NFL broadcast.
Later that week, or within that time span, they were interviewing Dungy, and he was saying that it exists, it's there.
Well, what did he say we should do about it?
Well, he offered, you know, he is a gentleman.
He's a class act.
He offered that something has to change.
You know, that was the impression he left with me was something has to change societally for these kids.
What has to change?
Not gun laws, not invoking more gun laws.
It's just, you know, let's face it.
Now, these are my words, not his.
We need dads in the home.
We need these kids, these boys, brought up to men in the right way.
And culturally, that's where it's falling apart with a lot of these players when you see it having so many problems.
I mean, you just listed and you didn't even finish the list.
So, no, I don't believe we need more gun laws, believe me.
We need to stay away from that.
It's not just NFL players, though.
Look at Chicago.
Well, sure, sure.
Oh, yeah, that's what we're doing.
People using guns there, young people there, and they don't have a prayer of ending up in the NFL.
Exactly.
Well, and then you look culturally, what's the cause the first lady took on?
obesity.
Well, if they really wanted to affect some sort of...
You know, the first lady is over in Senegal.
You know what she's telling me?
She's over at the Martin Luther King School in Dakar, Senegal.
And this is the place that Drecard Noir Colón's named after.
And she's telling these kids that she knows exactly what they're going through.
She grew up just like they are.
She grew up with no money.
She grew up with parents that weren't educated.
She grew up with parents and people who thought going to school was a waste of time and it was too much.
She's telling these kids that she knows exactly what they're going through in Senegal because she was raised just like they are.
So it's either obesity or poverty or something.
Well, even the NFL itself took on her cause with their Play 60 stuff and their get fit and their get away from the video machines and all that.
Well, they did that before the first lady came.
If they really wanted to affect any sort of change with gun violence, I don't mean gun laws.
I mean the gun violence, they would start from the top down and do something for these inner cities.
What, with the commissioner?
Sure.
Why shouldn't he get on board?
He's on board with the program.
Well, they need to affect these players.
And then it would trickle through.
I'm only to, I have to take a break.
Look, Lisa, thank you.
Seriously, we'll be back, folks.
Don't go away.
And now they're saying that Aaron Hernandez, Boston officials, the cops, Aaron Hernandez might be involved in a double murder.
Might have been involved in another crime involved a double murder, double murder cover-up.
Look, all of these guns that Tony Dungy is talking about that the players in the NFL have, they're all legal.
Vast majority of these guns are legal.
You know, in that, there's no winning here, folks.
You know, you can't win talking about this.
You literally can't win talking about it.
The NBA guys wish they were gangster rappers.
The gangster rappers wish they were NBA guys.
The NFL guys want to be all part of it, too.
You know, they just, they all want to be part of the hip-hop East-West Coast Tupac.
It came one pack before they killed him.
Tupac Shakur driving around chewing a gum with a pistol.
Well, Tupac was shot in the street in Las Vegas, right?
So he pulled up aside to drive by shooting, bam, bam.
All over rap music or whatever the hell it was.
But there's glamour.
You got Jay-Z now is just trying to build a sports agency firm where he represents players and so forth.
So it's a, it's, I don't know what you want to call cultural thing, but the guns that they own, just to get back to what Dungie said, the guns that they own, probably, the vast majority of them are quite legal.
But clearly, I mean, the NFL does have a problem with its feeder system culturally.
You know, I can't, I got, you remember when last time I got in big trouble talking about this?
What do you think I'm talking about?
When was the last time I got in big trouble talking about this?
Crips and bloods, right?
Here's what it was.
There was a playoff game out in San Diego.
In fact, it was the Patriots.
This is some years ago now.
Patriots, San Diego Chargers, playoff game.
And if I remember right, the Chargers had this game pretty much in the bag, except a defensive back for the Chargers engaged in a post-play.
Well, it ended up in a penalty, which prolonged the game, which led to Patriots tying it up.
They went to overtime.
The Patriots won.
But the player involved got the flag because he thought he'd been dissed by a player from the Patriots and took action that was away from the play after the play was over.
And the NFL, they threw flags and so forth.
And I said at the time that the NFL is trying to maintain control of the game.
That's why the referees are throwing flags on this taunting stuff, but why they're getting really paying strict attention to all of these away-from-the-ball fouls that involve being disrespected and this kind of stuff.
And I did say that times looks like it's the Crips and Bloods out there.
Well, I mean, the left-wing apparatus in this country descended on me for the usual things, alleging the usual things that they claim I'm guilty of and so forth.
And all I was pointing out then was that, because I remember part of the controversy was the flag itself, the referee throwing the flag.
And I opined on the program the NFL is trying to keep control of the game on the field.
They're trying to make it remain a football game out there.
It's a business.
And that just led, I mean, it wasn't deep doo-doo, but when the Rams thing came up, the potential ownership, that came back, that quote thrown out there totally out of context in conjunction with an owner's meeting.
And this, you can't talk about this stuff.
You just can't talk about it.
So Dungy, Dungy, in the interview on NBC after one of the incidents, and there were two big gun incidents in the NFL's past year.
One was the Chiefs player who killed his wife, ex-wife, and then committed suicide.
And there was another one.
Oh, no, no, that was the big one in the NFL.
It was, I don't know, Sandy Hook or something that Costas did his halftime commentary on that.
Everybody flipped out over.
And that's when Dungy did in the interview and said, well, there's a culture of guns in the NFL.
And he did say that beginning of every season, he grabs the players and puts them all in the locker room and says, okay, how many of you have guns?
And she said the caller leases, 75, 80% raised their hands.
That's it.
That's all that was said.
What does that mean?
75, 80% of the players in the NFL have guns.
Well, wait, you can't say that.
You can't say that.
You can't say that it's a culture of gangsterism out there.
I mean, even if, well, no, even if it is true, you can't say it.
That's the point.
That cannot be said.
When is the last time you said it that anybody heard you say it?
Sure, you can say it all day long.
Who hears it?
I do.
Not just razzing, Mr. Snirdley here.
Whoever, if somebody in public, if somebody were to go on cable TV tonight talking about this Aaron Hernandez thing, and if they haven't, oh, look, it's just part of the culture.
You've got these guys in the NFL.
They want to be gangsters.
There would be whoever says that, whoever would say that on cable TV that would be descended upon, would be hit on, And they would be intimidated into apologizing and then forever remaining silent about it.
Well, that's right.
You can't say it.
You can't say it.
You can point it.
It's in the music.
You can say it's in the music videos.
It's on the television.
Movies, it's there, but you can't say it.
You cannot say it.
You literally cannot say it.
It's just like smoking.
Nobody's in favor of it.
Everybody hates it.
Hollywood can get away with portraying everybody in every movie smoking.
Nobody comes down on them.
Oh, very few.
Nothing's ever going to really be done about it.
So you can portray any kind of thing you want in a movie, and it's called art.
But you let a social commentator say the same thing that a movie is displaying or showing.
And all hell is going to come down.
That's why I asked Lisa, what, I said, you're afraid to say where you're really headed on this.
Oh, no, no, I'm not afraid of saying anything.
After she made the dungie comment, that's why I was trying to refocus.
Where are we going with this?
What's the point?
They've all got guns.
So what?
A lot of people in the country have guns, but most of them are not accused of murder.
So what's the difference?
You can't talk about that.
Certain people can't talk about it.
Here's Jeff in Coldwater, Michigan.
Jeff, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
It's nice to speak to you.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Hey, I've been soaking up at EIB education going on 20 years like a sponge.
Well, and, you know, I've got to tell you, I've learned something.
I've learned a thing or two about these liberals, and I think I know where this gay marriage issue is going in America.
I think what I, you know, I know it sounds horrifying, but I believe this is what's going to happen.
We're going to have radical states like Massachusetts or whatever, and their legislature is going to enact legislation which says that they will not recognize a heterosexual marriage from some other state who does not recognize homosexual marriage.
Yeah.
Good.
I honestly believe this.
This is a great EIB Institute, Limbaugh Institute student.
You're exactly.
You're right on the money.
This is indeed quite possible.
A radical state in order to do two things to illustrate something and to facilitate something.
Okay, fine.
We're not going to recognize the heterosexual marriages of people outside of Massachusetts from a state that will not approve gay marriage.
I believe it because they are totally intolerant of any dissent.
They are politics as a blood sport to these people.
The issues are a blood sport.
I mean, I know that's where we're going.
I saw, you're right.
I saw a poll.
I don't remember where I saw it.
I didn't print it out.
It's in my scattershot reading today.
I don't remember the name of the poll, but I read it.
It seemed like it was something that I would trust.
26 in this poll, 26% of Democrats identified conservatives as the number one terror threat facing America.
I was surprised it was that low because I believe that most liberals actually look at Republicans and conservatives as full-fledged, real, not just political, but real enemies.
Enemies of what they want, enemies of what they think is right, real, not opponents, not people that are to be defeated in debate.
We're not supposed to be defeated and have people persuaded that we're wrong.
We are to be eliminated as a legitimate opposition.
That's Obama's modus operandi.
Obama doesn't want to debate anybody.
Obama doesn't want to triumph in a contest of ideas.
He just doesn't want there to be any opposing ideas.
And if they are, if there are opposing ideas, he wants the people who hold them to have been totally discredited and impugned.
The point they're all thought of as kooks and crazies and hayseeds that nobody's going to believe anyway.
That's how the left operates.
That's why you know it, and that's why, isn't it, that's why we're so frustrated Republican Party, trying to make peace, trying to be bipartisan, trying to go along with, trying to make them understand, like us, trying to make them understand that we're not what they say we are.
There is no area of commonality.
There's no overlap of anything in common here.
So the idea of bipartisanship, I don't even think it's possible.
Because we don't have anything in common, or very little on things that matter.
And the radical extremists of American liberalism are running the show and are defining what is the mainstream of the American left.
The radical extremists have become the mainstream.
And they run the Democrat Party and everything else.
And they're not interested in winning a debate.
They're not interested in persuading other people that they're right.
Their whole modus operandi is to one of two things, get rid of all opposition or to so impugn and mischaracterize people who oppose them that they're all thought of as racist, sexist bigots, kooks, freaks, you name it, that nobody would take seriously anyway.
They want to ban programs they don't like.
They want boycotts, all kinds of things.
They're not interested in bipartisanship.
They're not interested in cooperation, not interested in coming to a common agreement on issue after issue after issue.
And since Obama was elected, it has the pretense, there used to be a pretense that they were of that stripe, that they were interested in having debates, civil debates, and persuading people to disagree with them that they're right and winning mandates in that regard.
Ever since Obama's victory, that's all out the window.
That doesn't matter.
Now it's just eliminate.
And I don't mean kill.
I'm just talking about eliminate as a viable opposition anything to do or anyone that threatens them.
And they are threatened.
I mean, really threatened by people who disagree with them.
That constitutes a major threat to them.
Not a problem and not something to be overcome.
It is a real threat.
So when I see a poll that says 26% of liberals or Democrats consider conservatives to be the number one terror threat facing the country, I actually am surprised it's not higher than that.
Here was a Rasmussen report, a telephone survey, and it was the, 26% of Obama supporters view the Tea Party as the nation's top terror threat.
Honestly, Rassmussen.
I'm surprised it's not higher than that.
26% of Obama's supporters view the Tea Party as the top terror threat.
I guess, folks, it is the concussions that led Aaron Hernandez to do what he's alleged to have done, and that's kill somebody.
This afternoon on Fox News America Live with Megan Kelly, she spoke with noted psychiatrist and author Dr. Keith Ablow about the arrest of the former New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez.
She said he's being sued for shooting another man.
He may be investigated for a separate double murder.
We don't have that confirmed.
We'll see where it takes us.
Steroids rampant in sports, Keith.
A lot of athletes on them don't commit murders.
We don't know if he's on them.
But what are the thoughts?
What are your thoughts on whether steroids, that kind of drug, might be playing a role?
And she's talking about in the aggressive nature, the personality that might lead to murder.
I would wonder about steroids.
I would wonder about other drugs of abuse.
I would wonder whether the NFL has done enough to look at repeated head trauma in potentially violent people like Aaron Hernandez and how that evolves over time.
And I hope they'll reflect that this was entirely preventable because had he been hospitalized psychiatrically to look at him, this may never have happened after he allegedly shot a man in the face.
That is an interesting aspect of this.
Over the weekend or earlier in this week, part of the story was that sometime not long ago, Aaron Hernandez shot a guy in the face.
And that was it.
As though it happens all the time.
Somebody shoots somebody else in the face.
There were no other details.
There was no correlation to shooting that person in the face and this crime.
Just thrown in there.
So Dr. Keith is saying, look, if we'd have put the guy on the couch, if we'd have hooked him up to the machines, given him a PET scan, an MRI, found out something going on in the brain, we might have been able to prevent this.
I don't think Dr. Ablo has treated him.
But in any event, what we have here is the beginnings, and I don't know if it's going to take root, but we have the beginnings of it might not be his fault.
It could be the fault of the NFL for not being attentive enough to potential head injuries.
It could be the result of taking some drugs.
We just don't know.
Sports Illustrated has a story.
Aaron Hernandez linked to Bristol Bloods gang.
There's a tattoo.
He's got a tat on one of his hands.
And they are alleging here that Aaron Hernandez has been linked to a gang, the Bristol Bloods, of the Crips and the.
Who said that?
Who said that a long time ago?
I forget who said that.
▲
Export Selection