All Episodes
Previous Next
July 12, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:41
July 12, 2013, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we are back.
Great to have you with us.
It's Rush Limbaugh.
This is the EIB Network, the one and only, and it is Friday.
Lieutenant Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
Open Line Friday, where you, the callers, get to determine what it is that we chat about when I go to the phones, the telephone number 8002822882 and the email address El Rushbo at EIBnet.com.
So the judge, the lifelong Democrat judge, her name is Nelson.
She was appointed by Jeb Bush, by the way.
She is now charging the jury.
And for those of you in Rio Linda, that does not mean that the jury is being arrested.
It means that she's giving them their instructions.
The defense attorney in the closing arguments today brought in a slab of concrete representative of the sidewalk.
It was not the actual sidewalk involved in the case.
But he brought in a very sizable, heavy chunk of concrete representing the sidewalk.
It was obviously very heavy.
He put it down on the floor, rubbed his hands together, and said, this is where it started.
And this concrete is not just an innocent teenager with some iced tea and Skittles.
But as you know and I know, it appears the powers at B are totally invested in a guilty verdict.
The media desperate for a guilty verdict so that they can once again proceed on the assumption that this is a racist, biased, unfair country that refuses to allow blacks to have the slightest chance to get ahead.
The civil rights movement wants much the same thing.
The White House wants a guilty verdict.
In fact, ladies and gentlemen, what was it?
Oh, I'm having a metal block again.
It's something I was going to point out about.
Oh, MSNBC has put pictures of Trayvon Martin's dead body on the internet.
I got an email.
This is what I've been meaning to mention to you for 25 minutes.
It just slipped my mind.
There is a photo of Trayvon Martin's dead body on the ground at the scene that my email claims is the result of MSNBC putting it out there, which they did today.
I think it was one of the, I think it was Coco Jr. at the website that sent the thing to me.
And so that is a great illustration of the media's investment in this.
Now, the jury is supposed to not see that, but that's not the point.
There are riots to be had here.
And by the way, I should point out, you know, I read the email in every break here.
And I don't often print them out and read them to you.
I summarize them.
I got a couple of emails from people who are a little appalled.
They said they were appalled that I would speak so openly and acceptingly of riots.
They said it's very irresponsible of you to talk that way.
So I'm reading the email and what is irresponsible about it?
Do any of you out there not understand that there are people investing.
I mean, you've got people in Miami who are bragging that if there are riots, Miami will be ground zero for them.
What is insensitive about it?
There's no question that there are people planning to do that.
They are hoping that this is something that they have the opportunity to do.
And the media would love covering them.
I mean, this is, in the old days, this might be something that most people would hope wouldn't happen.
And maybe still is.
It's something most people hope wouldn't happen.
But I'm telling you, folks, there are powerful forces that, let's put it this way, wouldn't be disappointed at all if there are.
And I have to tell you, when the Sheriff's Department in Sanford, Florida puts together a PSA asking people not to riot, what in effect are they doing?
are putting the very thought into people's heads.
Yeah, it was Gawker that ran the picture of a deceased, Trayvon Martin.
They posted screenshots of Trayvon Martin from MSNBC, and their headline says, this courtesy of MSNBC is Trayvon Martin's dead body, get angry.
Gawker published a photo today, and they credit MSNBC with this.
So don't doubt me on this.
I hope it doesn't happen.
But look, I know the media.
I know what they're invested in here.
I know what they hope happens.
They're ready to roll.
They are ready to roll on this verdict.
And the very idea that this is a legitimate possibility, that there are some people hoping for it.
What do you think this is doing to the jury?
What kind of impact does this have on these six women on the jury?
Are they going to be sitting in there deciding the case on its merits or whether or not they should find one way or the other because of the possibility of riots?
Don't think none of those things are relevant.
They are, most definitely.
Now, a little bit more information here.
Two stories on the student loan business.
The essential takeaway is that the Republican Party wants to lower the student loan interest rate, and they're being blamed.
The first story is from the New York Times.
Tentative agreement to overhaul the federal student loan program was close to collapsing last night after the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal would cost the Treasury $22 billion over 10 years.
Well, that's a fine time for this to come up.
The federal student loan rate was by law supposed, it was, I always get the timeline on this confused.
When the Democrats took over the House in 2007, The federal student loan rate was, I think, 3.4%.
And they messed around with the law.
And the upshot of it is that the rate was to double to 6.8% last summer in the summer of 2012 so as to become a campaign issue in the presidential rate.
Yeah, in 2007, the Democrats cut the rate in half.
It was 6.8.
They cut it in half to 3.4 and took credit for it.
And then they automatically said that the 3.4% would expire in July of 2012, thereby returning the rate to 6.8%.
They did this in the event that the Republicans were running the House.
The Republicans would get blamed for it.
They planned all this in 2007 when they cut the rate in half.
They then put a provision in that it would return to what it was 6.8% the summer 2012, which it did.
Now, at the time, everybody knew that when that happened, then there would be a mad dash to take it back down to 3.4% again as part of the campaign.
But something went wrong and it didn't happen.
It's still at 6.8.
Now a bunch of noise is being made about lowering it to 3.4%.
And guess what?
The Republicans run the House.
They want to lower the student rate, interest rate, back down to 3.4%, which is where it was in 2007.
And now the Democrats are calling them budget busters.
Out of nowhere, the CBO has a story that says, oh, wait a minute, if you reduce the student loan interest rate, that's going to reduce federal revenues by $22 billion.
What that means is going to cost the federal government $22 billion.
So now the Republicans, who are only doing what was slated to have been done last summer, are now being called budget busters.
The companion story to this comes from a relatively new site, campusreform.org.
Students blame Republicans, wish they would die.
Georgetown University student blamed the Republicans for allowing the student loan interest rate to double.
And by the way, these students don't know what the hell's going on.
This is all programmed in part of the campaign strategery of the Democrats.
You see, they've got these students pretending to be just, you know, run of the mill, don't know what's going on.
They've been told their student loan interest rate's going to double.
Oh, my God, that's outrageous.
How's that happening?
Republicans are doing it.
It's all made up.
It's all trumped up, but the students are running around like they're really genuinely agitated, like they just learned about this.
And now they're blaming the Republicans for it.
Campus Reform interviewed Georgetown students about their thoughts on the student loan reform, the Republican Party in general.
One student gave a startling answer when asked whether he supported the Republican plan.
I don't think I support anything Republicans do.
I think all of them should probably be put to death.
Another student who was watching the interview chimed in with, that was a little harsh.
Off camera, the first student said, no, it wasn't.
Why should the taxpayers be subsidizing the political indoctrination of the next generation anyway?
What the student loan interest rate is sort of obscures a larger point.
But the politics of this is that the Democrats planned this.
Now, if the Democrats really cared about the students, if the Democrats really cared about the poor, If the Democrats really cared about a financially strapped middle class, they would lower the interest rate.
But the Democrats have calculated that there's more value to them in leaving the interest rate at 6.8% and blaming that on the Republicans.
Because the Democrats know they're going to get the votes of the Utes, the college students, anyway.
So it's a double whammy.
They keep the interest rate high, and the Republicans get to blame for it.
Brief timeout, Open Line Friday.
We'll continue.
We get back.
Do not go away.
This is going to be an interesting verdict in this sense.
A guy named William Jacobson runs a blog called The Legal Insurrection.
He does a fabulous job.
It's a very, very, it's a great blog on legal matters, legal insurrection.
And there's a, let me synthesize this.
There's a short analysis here.
The closing arguments in this case.
He says that the defense presented evidence and fact and common sense.
Lots of evidence.
The defense made the point that they don't have to prove anything, but that they almost could, but they don't have to prove anything.
It was just closing arguments.
In fact, the whole case on the defense side was fully substantive.
On the other side, the prosecution went strictly on emotion in their appeals to the jury.
And we got six women on the jury.
They appealed straight to their emotion.
They appealed to the hearts.
Be nice.
It's terrible what happened.
Trayvon's parents are not going to have their son anymore.
And all this kind of thing, that kind of approach.
And the judge did a little of the same in parts of her closing.
Now, to be fair, I did hear the judge just remind the jury that the defense didn't have to prove anything.
Zemmerman doesn't have to prove anything.
And she told them to use their common sense, so forth and so on.
I didn't hear, I didn't hear all of her instructions, so it really is not appropriate for me to comment on what she said.
I didn't hear enough of it.
But it'll be interesting to see because the blog legal insurrection is right.
We've got six women on the jury, and they're going to decide this case based on either the facts and a bunch of evidence or the emotional tug on their heartstrings.
We will see.
Now, if things run true to course, the way things are in America today, the facts won't matter.
The evidence won't matter.
The substance won't make a smithereen bit of difference.
It'll be all about the feelings.
All about the heart.
And how sad.
So we'll see.
Keep a sharp eye.
And again, the media, the media is conflicted.
I mean, they want a verdict.
They want a guilty verdict, and they want it.
They dig date.
They want the max.
But do they want it today or do they want it Monday?
Riots that happen this afternoon into tomorrow, not a whole lot of coverage.
Riots that happen on Monday into Tuesday, Wednesday get covered around the clock.
But if a bunch of people are rioting in Florida on Saturday, who cares?
Monday or Tuesday, you won't be able to escape it.
Here's David in Sierra Vista, Arizona.
Welcome to Open Line Friday.
Great to have you here.
Desert Dittos, Rush.
Thank you very much.
Hey, I want to let you know about a process coming out.
I'm a state representative of District 14 in the state of Arizona.
And about a month ago, we passed out Obamacare under the darkness of night.
And there's an effort to repeal that on the ballot.
And we're being hamstrung.
The other people out there are actually buying up the resources so this effort can go forward.
It's called urapc.org.
We need 85,000 signatures at a minimum to get on the ballot by September 13th.
Wait a minute, I'm confused.
How can a state repeal Obamacare?
We have the ability to put it on the ballot and repeal the bill that was signed into law.
So if they get the signatures, Obamacare won't go into effect for the state of Arizona until after the election of November 2014.
And if the initiative passes, it would permanently repeal it.
I don't know how you can do that.
I don't know how a state can simply say that we're not going to implement.
You can say that we're not going to do the exchange.
We're not going to implement the exchange, but I don't know.
We voted on the expansion part, not the exchange part.
There were nine Republicans that voted with all the Democrats in the House, led by the governor.
It was interesting that the process went about 12 hours, and not one of the nine supporters got up to explain their vote or to answer any questions on the bill itself.
We got 650-some pages of a budget dropped in our lap and then went to the floor.
So this is the kind of process they're doing.
They're not telling us what's in the bill, in the budget.
They had the votes to put it through.
They made a special session.
They waived all the rules of the House of Representatives that they could waive.
It went straight through what we call a third reading, Kyle and Third Read, and it passed out.
But not one of the nine Republicans would speak in defense of this bill.
But we have the ability to put it on the ballot.
It's basically vetoing the governor's signature.
And that's the problem.
We have 90 days from when we sign, he died.
Well, how's the other side stopping you from what you're trying to do?
Well, you need signatures on the petitions to put it on the ballot.
And it doesn't look like we're going to get enough volunteers to get it.
So they're going to have to go out and pay for signatures.
And the people that get paid to do this are being bought up by the other side.
So this side can't pay them.
So we have to bring in people from outside.
Costs more money.
There's a donate button.
If you don't live in Arizona, you want to donate for the cause.
It's on urapc.org.
Or if you're in Arizona, you can go down and call the number there and get a petition, get some signatures signed.
It has to be done by the 13th of September.
And then if the signatures just get dropped and they're not.
So, what you're trying to do, you're trying to get a repeal on the ballot.
Correct.
Right, you're not.
Okay, I thought, okay, I misunderstood what you were trying to do.
Well, good luck.
I'm glad that you called.
Ha!
How are you?
Welcome back.
I'm getting a lot of email.
Rush.
I don't, I'm uncomfortable with the way you're talking about riots.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry I didn't bring the subject up.
I did not run the PSA.
I did not do the PSA.
I did not record the PSA that the sheriff's office in Sanford, Florida ran asking people not to riot.
Well, so what?
I'm Rush Limbaugh.
I didn't, I have nothing to do with, I'm not the guy that brought up the subject, but I'm Rush Limbaugh.
So what?
Okay, millions of people.
Listen, there are people.
Look, I'm not trying to sound cavalier about this.
This is exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about.
Realville has to prepare for these things, too.
I am the mayor of Rioville.
I'll give you another thing to think about.
You know, I have said, and a lot of people agree and understand what I mean, the media is invested in a guilty verdict, but let me tell you something.
The media, after they stop and think about it, will not be all that unhappy with an acquittal.
Because an acquittal opens the door to never-ending stories about what a racist, biased, bigoted place Sanford, Florida is, and by extension, state of Florida, and by further extension, the country.
So if we get a conviction, then they're emotionally happy in that what they personally want has happened, and they get to run stories in that vein.
If there is an acquittal or even a partial small guilty verdict that allows them to continue with this narrative that this is an unfair, unjust, racially divided country, you don't think they'll jump with joy into that one?
You know damn well they will.
Now, I am in discussing the riot, it may sound a little cavalier to you, but I didn't put it out there.
And there's not one person who can go back and find anything I've said where I'm encouraging them.
When does that ever matter?
They'll make it.
Look at the people that's not going to be dumped on me.
I'll be the last guy blamed if there are riots.
I'll be the last.
Yeah, because that would be to credit me because the people that are going to be are going to want them.
You think I'm going to get Sharpton's going to get that credit?
Or the Reverend Zach.
Anyway, I don't even know that there will be.
But folks, I understand maybe something a little uncomfortable about it, but I'm telling you, I wasn't anywhere near.
I haven't.
I even did PSAs telling people not to riot.
I did PSAs here on the fly.
They weren't produced, but it was the same thing as a PSA, where I begged people to pretend that your team just won the Super Bowl or pretend that your team just won the NBA championship.
And then I said, no, wait, don't do that.
And I corrected myself because I remembered I was doing a PSA urging people not to riot.
Anyway, well, now that, see, there's a third aspect of this.
What if, after all of this, and no matter what the verdict is, nobody cares?
What if there aren't any uprisings?
What if there aren't any outpourings?
What if all there is is a bunch of rental mobs that are obviously not genuine and therefore don't appear to be real.
What if there isn't anything one way or the other after this?
Let's not forget the media is not as in touch with this country as they think they are.
And there's a story I have in the stack.
I didn't print it, but it was last night during prep that journalist is one of the least respected professions in the country now.
And it was so bad that there are some serious journalists looking at it.
See, you know, this is not good.
I mean, when you have a story about Congress being least respected job or car salesman, whatever the journalism in this, some people yuck it up and laugh it up and say, well, that's, you know, it's just part and parcel of the job.
But this one was so bad that there were some serious journalists who said, you know, we've got a problem here.
We really, really have a problem.
And they do.
They are less respected than they have ever been.
And it bothers them.
So it could well be that they are out of touch with what really is happening in real aspects of this country, real places.
Time will tell.
We will find.
It won't be long.
Okay, and let's see.
Open line Friday is this.
And back to the phones, Robert and the Upper East Side of Manhattan.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hey there, Rush.
Thank you so much for taking my call.
How are you?
Very well.
Thanks much.
Great.
So I've been a pupil of the Limbaugh Institute for about two years.
And what I love is how clear you are because you think about everything and you have your argument and you go point by point until it all lines up.
But recently, I've found this sort of paradox because you've been saying that when you have a marketing strategy, you don't tell people about it.
Like you say, how when Apple does something, they just do it.
They're not labeling it.
Right?
So I wonder for the low-information voter outreach, you've labeled it since day one.
And I wonder why that is.
Interesting question.
That is a brilliant question.
And there is an answer to it.
And I hope you understand it.
It's rooted in the belief that the low-information voters aren't going to understand what I'm talking about when I say I've got low because nobody thinks they're in it.
Right.
So what I'm doing when I announce it is I'm asking you in the audience to indulge me while I step it down, While I talk about things that you might find odd, such as Justin Bieber peeing in a mop bucket.
Oh, isn't that disgusting?
I couldn't believe when I read that yesterday.
That's right.
And you probably couldn't believe I was talking about it.
So when I killed five minutes on the five yesterday, well, I know, but that's a point.
So when I tell you in the audience why I'm doing it, low information outreach, that is so that you will understand why, so that you will not worry the program is becoming TMZ.
At the same time, the targets of that don't know that they're the targets because low information voters do not realize that they are, because nobody admits it, or very few do.
That is such a brilliant question of yours.
That's a great Open Line Friday question.
Thank you.
I'm glad I have an answer.
As a two-year pupil, I mean, you are really, really way ahead of the game there.
Well, it's been two great years because I always called myself a conservative, but now I understand why.
And I've got the rationale behind everything.
Isn't that an epiphany?
That happens to all of us.
That's what my dad and William F. Buckley were to me.
I knew what my instincts were, but I wasn't able to explain anybody why.
And finally, I ran into people, ran across people that were able to make me understand why I thought what I thought and thus able to explain it to other people.
So thanks, Robert.
Nathan in Fenton, Michigan.
You're next.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
I guess the point that I wanted to make was about this dental hygienist that got fired.
Yeah.
Shouldn't the employer be able to fire his employee for really any reason he desires unless you got some kind of contract?
Yeah.
It doesn't really make a difference if she's pretty or not.
Right.
In the free market, he should be able to just fire her, no questions asked, and it shouldn't really be that big of a deal.
Yeah, it's the pure interpretation exactly right.
But you know as well as I do that it's harder and harder to fire people.
Now, in certain states, you know, in Florida, you don't have to give people a reason, but in other states, you have to document it.
You wouldn't believe the steps that employers go to in setting up the termination.
It's called building the file.
You send them memos, you warn them that they're not performing right.
Sometimes it takes six months so that when you make the move, you've got backup because they can sue you.
Even if they have no case, they can sue you and cause you trouble.
But you're right.
And if this guy's able to fire anybody he wants for whatever reason, this guy just said, look, I want to get rid of her because this woman thinks Samson and Delilah.
I'm too tempted here.
What really was going on is that there were pressures from outside the office.
Let's put it that way.
There were pressures from outside the office, and she didn't deserve to be fired for any conventional performance or subordination reason.
But it is fascinating that this case minds all the way up to Supreme Court of Iowa and that they justify it.
But in truth, he's right.
Free market, you should be able to fire anybody.
But that's become abuse now in our touchy-feely society.
And because the purpose of a business is to hire people and have jobs and give them health care.
That's the only reason that there are businesses, as far as the low information crowds are concerned.
So if the purpose of a business is to hire people, what business does it have firing anybody?
That's an offense.
That shouldn't happen.
But, yep, you're right.
It could be.
That could be.
You could end up being charged with discrimination if you get rid of somebody because now they're without health care.
Yeah, it's entirely possible.
Seminole County Sheriff and a police chief are speaking right now, claiming there's no tension in Seminole County.
He's praising everybody for how peaceful they've all been.
I haven't seen this before.
I understand why it's happening.
We'll see you on Monday.
▲
Export Selection