All Episodes
Previous Next
July 9, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:39
July 9, 2014, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, folks, can you imagine?
You imagine if George W. Bush had restricted access to the survivors of Hurricane Katrina.
Can you imagine the excrement storm that would have happened?
If the Bush administration, and let's say Brownie at FEBA had told a bunch of Democrats, sorry, you can't be allowed into New Orleans.
We are not letting you in to New Orleans.
We're not letting you talk to the uh the victims.
We're not letting you take cameras in there.
Uh we're not letting you talk to any of the uh survivors.
No, you can't.
You can't go into the superdome.
We're not gonna let you get in there and take pictures and show the damage, and we're not gonna let the media in there.
Um the only person we're gonna let in there is John Boehner.
We're gonna let anybody else in, nobody but Boehner go in there.
You can you imagine the excrement storm that would have erupted.
If Bush and Brownie at FEMA had tried that.
Well, that's exactly what's happening here, except there is no natural disaster that's occurred unless you want to call the administration itself a disaster, which I frankly think it is.
But that's just me.
Great to have you back here, folks.
Rush Lynn Boss serving humanity, executing a scientist duties flawlessly, zero mistakes.
Uh what you would expect from a highly trained broadcast specialist.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program's 800-282-288-2, and the email address, Lrushbow at EIB net.com.
Feminist logic.
The couple things here.
Dingy Harry and the Hobby Lobby.
Now, yesterday, I actually think, let me go out on a limb here.
Well, actually, it's not much of a limb.
I think it needs to be seriously considered that Harry Reed is losing it.
That he's not all there.
This obsession he has with the Koch brothers alone should give everybody serious concern.
He must mention these guys 250 times a week on the Senate floor.
And they don't sponsor legislation.
They contribute, they donate to causes, but he's obsessed with these two men.
He's blamed the Koch brothers for climate change for global warming.
He associates, he tries to attach the Koch brothers to virtually everything that he thinks is wrong.
The hobby lobby decision also sent him off on a on a tirade that was practically incomprehensible.
And yesterday in talking about it, Harry Reed actually said, and we're gonna do something about this hobby lobby legislation.
But it wasn't legislation, it was a Supreme Court decision.
Now I want to clear something up because I've had a lot of people email me in reaction to what Dingy Harry said.
You can, the Congress can, of course, theoretically overturn a Supreme Court decision if the decision is involving legislation.
Now, if the Supreme Court has a decision that is constitutional, there's nothing that Congress can do to override that without amending the Constitution.
The Hobby Lobby case was not a constitutional case.
That was a case about a statute.
The religious freedom restoration act, which we've discussed at great length here on this program.
So the Senate, if they want, can go back and try to pass legislation that would require and start the process all over again.
They they they can do that.
And Digi Harry is promising to do it.
Story here, there's a YouTube video and so forth.
Um Senate Democrats said they plan to unveil legislation in coming weeks in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in the Hobby Lobby contraception case.
Harry Reed told reporters on Capitol Hill yesterday.
This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous, so we're going to do something about it.
People are going to have to walk down here and vote.
And if they vote with the five men on the Supreme Court, I think it well, that they're going to have to be treated unfavorably come November with the elections.
Reed said the Senate needed to do something to ensure that women's lives are not determined by the virtue of five white men.
Now I think it is a serious thing to consider that he may be unbalanced.
But that is a side issue.
Where does a member of Congress get off threatening the justices of the Supreme Court, which is what he did yesterday.
Now Obama did the same thing.
When he was worried that the Supreme Court might strike down Obamacare, he issued threats, and of course he insulted the Supreme Court during a State of the Union speech.
Ever since the Citizens United ruling, the left has become unhinged because of that ruling.
But I want to credit ABC News here.
Because they picked up something that I wouldn't expect modern media to get.
Harry Reid said, the Senate needs to do something to ensure that women's lives are not determined by virtue of five white men.
ABC correctly points out here that Harry Reed's reference to five white men is incorrect.
It was four white men and one African American man.
Now I knew immediately when Dingy Harry said five white men, he was off the reservation and wrong.
But I didn't think ABC would pick up on it.
But they did.
I gotta give them credit.
Uh ABC, you I mean, you obviously you can't get anything past the reporters at ABC News.
Oh.
Oh.
Speaking of that, and we've got the soundbite coming up after we on this program chastised ABC News for ignoring the story that their White House correspondent, Jonathan Carl, uncovered at the White House press briefing with Josh Ernest.
They ran that back and forth a day later.
You remember Jonathan Carrell had statistics from the LA Times that differed greatly with what the administration was saying about the numbers and the circumstances of these undocumented kids.
And Jonathan Carl, doesn't this LA Times story prove that you have been providing disinformation?
That tete happened, but ABC News did not run it.
And that's the kind of stuff that really happened to Cheryl Atkison at CBS when she was reporting on Benghazi.
So ABC News finally ran the Jonathan Carl story.
After we called attention, I don't know that we had anything to do with it, but they they did run the story.
And likewise, ABC, very, very crafty bunch here figured out that Harry Reed was wrong, talking about five white men in the Supreme Court.
Well, it might have been a planned insult to Justice Thomas.
He is he has insulted Clarence Thomas countless times before.
Get this, a federal judge.
This is a headline from ABC News.
Federal judge tells Supreme Court to STFU.
U.S. Federal Judge Richard Kopf declared Monday he thinks it's time for the Supreme Court to STFU.
Yep.
Cobb made his pronouncements in a rather Colorful blog post regarding the hobby lobby case.
He was appointed, by the way, by George H.W. Bush in 1992.
Clearly, I think H. W. Bush reaching across the aisle with this.
He obviously appointed somebody sympathetic to the Democrats.
92, re-election year, trying to gain favor, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So this guy Kopf on his blog post next term is the time for the Supreme Court to go quiescent.
This term in several past terms has proven the court is now causing more harm and division to our democracy than good by deciding hot button cases that the court has the power to avoid.
As the kids say it's time for the Supreme Court to STFU.
Federal judge.
Well, maybe it's it is unheard of, but everything is breaking down.
All of the traditional, you know, we talk about manners and respect for the system and all it all of the conventions that comprise order and respect for the system and so forth are just breaking down.
The left is allowed to say whatever they want about anybody or any institution with impunity.
Now back to the Senate Democrats and their bill to override the hobby lobby decision.
Congressional Democrats unveil legislation today that would override the Hobby Lobby case by requiring most employers to provide federally required contraception and other health services, even if they have religious objections.
So the U.S. Senate is going to look at the First Amendment and go pfft in a piece of legislation.
It's being introduced by Democrats, both the Senate and the House.
It would require all employers to abide by the contraception mandate included in Obamacare, even if they claim to have religious objections.
And then National Review Online has posted a comment, a slogan, actually, that belongs to the Feminazi group Nehrau Pro-Choice America.
They used to be called the National Abortion Rights Action League.
But now it's Nehrau Pro-Choice America.
And what is the what was it?
What is the I gotta get the whole slogan here?
Uh blah, blah, blah, blah.
It's something about it's hey, Supreme Court, no bosses in my bedroom.
That's that's it's it's it's not my boss's business.
My sex is not my boss's business, but there's it's it's contradictory.
I can't find the whole thing.
It's it's absolutely absurdly hilarious.
I thought I had it on this piece of paper, but I don't.
That's a good time to take a break.
Let me find.
I hate to do this, folks.
This is highly unprofessional, thinking I've got something right in front of me, and I don't.
I'll find it, I'll be right back.
Don't go away.
Now here's what it is.
My sex life is none of my boss's business.
Therefore, he should be forced to pay for it.
My that's what they mean.
Not your boss's business.
They're running around all these signs.
Not your boss's business, meaning your sex life, except your boss should have to pay for it, is what they mean.
You know, I got chastised for this, too.
Just like I got chastised by say, Rush, you're not gonna win any converts here by appearing to be opposed to the children coming into the country.
We're compassionate country, young people here, you're never gonna come.
They want the kids to come in, they're sick, they're hungry, they're thirsty, we're America.
You're never gonna win these young people.
You're just gonna do.
And with the same time, Rush, don't you understand?
It isn't About contraception, it's about sex.
Everybody wants to have sex, and men want contraception so much they don't care who pays for it.
And if the women aren't gonna pay for it, somebody else better because the men are not gonna stop having sex themselves.
Now I was chastised.
I've got to understand it that way.
Said, Rush, you're looking at this the old-fashioned way.
Old-fashioned way is everybody ought to provide for themselves.
You want to have contraception, you should go buy it.
You're missing the point.
The way young people look at it today.
Young people look at it today is they want to have sex.
And they don't want there to be any consequences.
And there's contraception that can make sure there's no consequences.
And if you make women buy it when they don't want to buy it and can't afford it, then there might not be any contraception, which means there isn't going to be any sex, and nobody wants that.
What everybody wants is sex whenever they want it with no consequences.
And so, and so Rush, you better get on board and understand that that's what the contraception battle is really about.
Young men and young women both want the government or the business or the employer providing the contraception because young men and young women both want sex whenever with no consequences.
And if you persist in saying that the individuals involved ought to buy it themselves, you're never going to persuade them.
You're never gonna get them.
You're gonna continue to lose them because they're gonna think you don't want them to have fun.
I was.
I was upbraided that way.
That's exactly what I was told.
I was I was told that I am not understanding that this is not an issue of personal responsibility.
I'm missing the boat when I look at it that way.
This is I I was upbraided, I was told this by two or three people.
How I'm missing the boat.
You're you're wrong, Russia.
See, this is an example of how America's changed and you haven't kept up.
It's not about individual responsibility anymore.
Anywhere in America.
It's about being able to do what you want to do and not being judged for it and having it paid for as a health benefit.
And whoever offers that is gonna get their vote.
And if you don't see it that way, you're gonna continue to have them against you.
So just wanted to tell you how I was upbraided.
That I was looking at this the wrong.
Did I buy into it?
No.
I mean, it just it's sad.
That the whole concept of personal responsibility is so cavalier now.
It's so irrelevant.
It's so behind the times.
Personal responsibility.
That's not what this is about, Rush.
This is about sex.
You're coming across as though you're against sex.
Don't you see that?
This is what I was told.
I said, how much sense does that make?
I don't care, Rush.
That's how you're coming across.
When you sit there and persist in saying it's only $9 a month, and why should an employer or you have to pay for it?
All they're hearing is you don't think they should be having sex.
And it's none of your business.
I re I refuse to make such a declaration.
I'm not, I'm not gonna, I'm not, I'm not gonna sink to that level to state the obvious.
That's that's it's it certainly it's not that they're dumb, it's the way they've been raised.
It's the way it's it's it's one of the few pleasures left.
They see they can't find jobs.
There aren't any careers.
Uh cable TV only goes, sorry, nobody's providing that.
You know, by the way, that is another thing that they're starting to resent having to pay for cable TV.
Cord cutters.
You heard have you heard of that term?
Uh here's here's I'll give you an example of this very quickly.
Let's look at the app HBO Go.
HBO Go allows you to watch HBO on your iPhone, your smartphone, your iPad, whatever.
However, the only way you can legally is to have an account with a cable company or a satellite provider.
In other words, you can't get the HBO app and just watch HBO without a cable subscription.
And that ticks them off.
They don't want to have to buy cable to watch HBO.
They want to be able to cut the cord from cable and just get the HBO app or the Showtime app or whatever on their phone or on their iPad and watch it without having to pay for it.
So why should contraception be looked at?
I mean, if if they don't want to have to pay to watch pay TV, then why should we expect them to want to or understand that they have to pay for birth control?
Well, now see, Snergley is shouting, is a generation mooch, that's what they are.
They're just generation mooch.
That's snurdly saying that.
I've I've I've got enough cat calls without throwing the generation Mooch.
But it's the way they've been raised.
By the way, that's exactly the message of the political party they find it.
The Democrat Party, that's exactly the message.
Why should anything cost you anything?
Big business is screwing you, they're cheating you, they're robbing you.
What's wrong with doing the same to them?
We'll be back.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
It's great to have you here.
So they say this is humanitarian crisis on the border, right?
We have established that there are no telethons, uh, unusually so, that Michelle Obama, nor anyone else from the regime has offered a hashtag to engender support for what's going on.
In fact, ladies and gentlemen, if what's happening at the border really is a humanitarian crisis, it's it's got to be the first humanitarian crisis and has not been aired live on that national TV in 60 years.
And the and the question is why?
Every humanitarian crisis, I don't know if it's a volcano, if it's a tsunami, if it is kidnaps, if it's amber alerts, I don't care what it is.
If it's Hurricane Katrina, you're guaranteed to have Anderson Cooper and Shepard Smith on site standing 10 feet away from each other reporting on it 24-7.
Where the hell are they?
There's no cable news network anywhere near this humanitarian crisis.
There's not a camera anywhere near this humanitarian crisis.
There isn't a telethon.
There isn't a hashtag.
And the president is out shooting pool and complaining that the Republicans want to sue him, i.e.
impeachment.
He's aloof.
He's at he's totally unengaged or disengaged, and they say that this is a humanitarian crisis.
Name one for me that hasn't been on television.
Starving kids in Somalia.
We are the world.
You name them.
One right after another.
Every damn one of them's on television with cable news 20.
Missing airplane, humanitarian crisis.
No pictures allowed.
United States Senators, U.S. Congressmen, members of the media, not permitted anywhere near the humanitarian crisis.
No cameras allowed.
Why?
USA Today has the story.
The San Francisco Giants are considering a ban on culturally insensitive clothing.
The San Francisco Giants considering a policy that could prohibit fans from wearing items such as fake headdresses, in what American Indian activist Susan Shone Harjo believes would be a first for a major league sports franchise.
The proposed policy, still in the working stages, could potentially say that fans who wear culturally insensitive attire to games or fans who use culturally insensitive language could be asked to stop by Giant Security or potentially be asked to leave the stadium.
Stacy Slaughter, the Giants Senior Vice President Communications, senior advisor to the CEO, said the Giants have policies about obscene language and offensive signs.
And she said we are considering expanding the policy to be more explicit about culturally insensitive signs and clothing.
I don't want to overstate where we are, she said, but we haven't finalized the language.
We're still in the process of revising it.
Now the proposed policy comes after an incident at a Giants game last month, when two Native Americans approached a group of men who were passing around a fake headdress to tell them it was disrespectful.
One of the Native Americans asked for the headdress and then didn't give it back.
Security was called.
The Native Americans were detained, but not arrested.
The incident occurred on Native American Heritage Night.
You know, I used to be in charge of such things at the Royals.
The favorite was Halter Top Day.
It was always a sunny Sunday afternoon games, halter top day.
We'd hit we'd pass out the halter tufts at Royals across them.
And the women would arrive and go into the restrooms and put the things on.
They were by design skimpy.
Didn't matter to us.
Nobody ever complained.
One of the biggest days of the season.
Well, halter top day, I must confess, preceded my arrival.
It preceded my arrival there.
But we did, we always scheduled halter top day against one of the least attractive visiting teams.
And it always worked.
I was in charge of such things as uh never, never did uh Native American Heritage Night.
Apparently the Giants did, and a couple guys showed up with headdresses thinking they were celebrating Native American heritage, and some Native Americans got offended, and some problems occurred.
So the Giants now are going to start banning things like that.
That's the upshot.
I don't know if you've seen pictures of this.
This is absolutely hilarious.
The Chicago White Sox.
Does that name offend anybody, by the way?
The White Sox.
Anyway, they had Poncho Night, where the first so many thousands of fans, maybe every fan arriving, under certain, maybe every fan, it might not have been an age restriction, was given a white poncho.
The white poncho had a hood.
Well, it started raining, and everybody put on the free white ponchos.
And when they did, the entire stadium, Kaminsky Park, as Obama used to call it, looked like a clan rally.
And there are pictures.
The hoodies are pointed.
They're not round hoodies.
White ponchos look like white robes and pointy hats, and it looks like a clan rally.
The game went on during the rain.
It's justn't of scripted it, folks.
You just could not have made it happen.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Rush Limbo, the EIB network.
For those of you who are watching today's program on the Ditto Cam, here is Poncho Night at Kaminsky Park in Chicago.
There it is.
Imagine the stands.
There are a couple other pictures that are wider shot, just to that imagine the stands full of that.
It looks like a Ku Klux Klan rally at Kaminski Park.
I know it's not called that, and it's what Obama called it.
Back what it was.
And we're back.
Here is Joe in Coral Springs, Florida.
Hi, Joe.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Great honor to speak with you.
Gotta admit a little starstruck.
Listen to you very uh briefly during the daytime when I came, and I learned more from you than anywhere else.
I appreciate that.
Really do appreciate that.
Thank you.
Okay.
I I was getting back to the uh uh when I get on uh uh David Gergen uh I was just wondering when you think that uh Al Sharpton and maybe uh Rachel Medell uh are going to start calling him out as a racist uh for jumping off the plantation.
And uh, you know, uh I I just don't understand that these liberals.
I know you do, and I'm starting to think like you because I can tell one a mile away.
Congratulations.
That's key.
That will stand you in so much good stead the rest of your life.
You do not know.
If you're able to do that, I wish everybody, Joe, and I'm not kidding.
I wish everybody could learn to do that and then and know what it means.
Now, as to your question, we we had a soundbite earlier.
David Gur, actually, two sound bites, David Gergen, David Rodemgergan, who is the arbiter of conventional wisdom inside the DC Beltway, expressed great frustration and curiosity over the breakdown at the border and the breakdown in Iraq,
and he was just very, very troubled that the administration didn't see any of this coming.
Why it takes these kids 45 days to get here from El Salvador, Ecuador, Guatemala, often traveling on the tops of freight trains.
How could we not see them coming?
He didn't understand, and he voiced this.
He was very, very concerned about it.
So Joe wants to know why isn't he being called a racist and a bigot for questioning the competence of the regime?
And the answer is obvious.
Uh he is of the tribe and is therefore permitted.
Now, if he keeps it up, and if he see, he Joe would he he he was interrogatory in his observation, not accusatory.
That's a very, very fine distinction.
He was not accusing the regime, he was hurt and questioning and wanting to know what the obvious answer was, as though it escaped him.
Uh had he accused them of incompetence or something worse, then you might have gotten a reaction from that circus, that that freak show that is the cable network you mentioned.
But that's the answer.
And in the future, you'll be able to answer that yourself because you are on the way now to being able to spot a liberal when you hear one sentence.
And oftentimes when you see one, you can do that too.
That's when you've really gotten good.
You can spot them just by looking at them, particularly liberal women.
Uh I probably gonna get in trouble for that, but it's often foolproof.
Well, I know it's only beta, but I'm worried.
They took out my favorite feature.
My favorite feature is gone.
And I don't mind admitting that that saddens me.
Everybody has to be saddened by something.
I'm saddened by a lot of things, and this is one of them.
And I just hope that they put it back.
It's a location mapping transportation feature.
▲
Export Selection