All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 25, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:16
September 25, 2014, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And the drive-bys are breathless, ladies and gentlemen.
They can barely contain themselves.
The drive-bys don't know what to do.
They're all trying to explain it.
They're trying to get to the bottom of it.
They're trying to understand it.
And of course, I, your host, El Rushmo, have the answer.
Eric Holder is resigning.
And the drive-bys, it came up as a total shock.
It was unexpected.
It was a surprise.
Pelosi divulge the details.
And then NPR had the story.
Greetings, folks.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh.
I am not breathless.
I'm just excited because the content of the program today is great.
I can't wait for all these three hours to zip by here.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, El Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
Doesn't matter.
He's just going to be replaced with Al Sharpton or somebody like him.
I mean, that's what the DOJ has been turned into.
Eric Holder has subverted the Department of Justice, and it's now no different than Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton are running it.
And whoever Obama nominates is going to be Obama Jr. or Obama III in there.
The die's been cast.
I tell you what I think, I don't think he's afraid of any Senate investigation.
Why would anybody be afraid of the Republicans?
Why would anybody be afraid of what the Republicans are going to do?
They're not going to investigate anybody.
They don't want to anger the voters.
They don't want to show the voters that they're mean and partisan and all that.
No, I think Eric Holder is stepping aside.
A, he wants to go back and represent terrorists at his law firm.
And there is a there's a the prime minister of Iraq, have you heard about this?
Has uncovered a terror plot to blow up subways in Paris and in New York.
And the prime minister of Iraq says that this terror threat is imminent.
It is breaking news.
The prime minister of Iraq has just claimed that there is an ISIS plot to blow up subways in New York and Paris.
And he says the plot is imminent and has not repeat, not been thwarted.
Now, this is terrorism, and supposedly the Iraqi intelligence service just uncovered the plot.
But even if it turns out to be a false alarm, this is a win for terrorism.
This is what the terrorists want.
Make us afraid of our own shadows.
I was just watching television here right before the program.
And I don't know.
It doesn't matter what channel.
I don't even remember which one.
And they're talking about this.
And to prove how this is already a win for the terrorists, oh, gee, you know, this makes me feel like we did right after 9-11.
I don't like this feeling.
We got to do something about it.
We got to do something about it right now.
Okay, that's even if nothing happens.
So now new security concerns, measures, what have you, on the subways, which is understandable.
I mean, this is how this stuff works.
So I think Eric Holder is looking at potentially a new client list.
And there's always the cashing in aspect after you perform your six years of government service.
You then retire to the private sector and get paid off for it.
People hire you who are grateful for what you did.
Or you go back to your law firm where you are a rainmaker.
Don't even have to do any work.
You just put their name.
They put your name on the letterhead on the door and you attract clients.
You get a percentage of what walks in the door.
There's any number of ways this can happen.
But there's also another possibility regarding Eric Holder.
And I just want you to prepare yourself.
It may happen.
We still have two years to go.
There may be a Supreme Court vacancy.
And I can see Barack Obama nominating Eric Holder to fill it.
And it would be much easier for Eric Holder to make the jump from private sector law firm Rainmaker after six years at DOJ to the Supreme Court than from DOJ straight to the Supreme Court.
I don't know how much that would matter, but don't rule any of that out.
But I don't think there's any scandal.
I don't think it's fast and furious.
I don't think he's worried about the Republicans investigating anything if they win the Senate.
Folks, there's a story, and I'll get to this in greater detail in a moment.
The story of theHill.com today talking about how, if the Republicans win the Senate, it will advance immigration reform.
A Republican victory in which they take control of the Senate will result in amnesty, comprehensive immigration reform.
The Hill.com, it's right there.
Don't know if it's true.
Don't know if it's a head fake.
Don't know if it's an attempt to bully and intimidate.
Don't know if it's consultant leaked and inspired.
But it is out there.
Also, the war against non-religious, religious extremists continues.
And it is now, it's been stated that there's no military victory over ISIS.
Obama says a military victory is not possible.
It isn't going to happen.
We can't have, let me find exact, there is no military solution to Islamic terrorism.
It has nothing to do with Islam, which is the religion of peace.
That's Obama and David Cameron.
All of that, and much more coming up, the Allies have hit oil targets in Syria.
We, Obama, bombing oil targets.
It's a war for oil, folks.
It's no blood for oil.
And by the way, the peace protesters in San Francisco must have heard me because about 50 of them have now started protesting.
What do women want in a husband?
That is a story from CNNmoney.com.
Is it, oh, yes, they do.
Yes, they do.
They do answer it.
And it's not, it is not the money section.
What do you think the answer is?
It's CNNmoney.com.
And what do women want in a husband?
What do you think the answer is?
What do you think it is?
Isn't it interesting?
Here we are, Snerdley.
I don't know.
You're 72.
I'm 63.
And this subject still fascinates us, right?
What do women want more than anything in a lifelong mate?
The answer is for the guy to have a steady job.
Solid employment is the number one priority women are looking for in a husband, more than compatibility in raising children and more than moral and religious beliefs.
And this is all according to a Pew Research Center study that was released late yesterday.
Having the same education or racial ethnic backgrounds are far lower on the list.
Now, this is good news for Democrats.
And you might think, wait a minute, Rush, that doesn't make any sense.
How is this good news for Democrats?
Well, follow me on this.
What do Democrats want?
Forget for a moment, what do women want?
We now learn that women want their man, their husband, have a steady job.
But the Democrats, their number one demo, the war on women is aimed at who?
Single women, right?
Well, the reason this is good news for the Democrats, because they want more single women, we now know what keeps women single, guys who don't have jobs.
And the Democrats have taken care of that.
There aren't any jobs to be had.
So if women see how this works, this is perfect.
This is made the order for the Democrat Party.
Single women are their number one demo in the war on women.
Now we learn that women's number one requirement for a husband is a guy with a job.
But because of Obama, there aren't any jobs for guys to have.
Therefore, there are no potential husbands.
Therefore, single women will remain large in number and vote Democrats.
See how this works, folks?
Solid employment is the number one priority women are looking for in a husband, much more than compatibility in raising children, much more than morality and religious beliefs, much more than even being listened to.
Some people probably answer the question, what does a woman want in a husband?
She wants him to listen to her.
But even that is overshadowed by the desire that women have that their husbands hold a steady job.
And as I say, good luck with that in the age of Obama.
Unless you're willing to settle for a guy with a part-time job or a couple of three part-time jobs, I mean, this is going to keep more women single if this is true.
Men have different priorities, of course.
Their main concern is having similar ideas about having and raising children.
Now, the Democrats are not all that happy about this as I think they should be.
I mean, this, if really, they have conquered the employment problem, meaning we got more people not working than ever before.
The labor force participation rate's at an all-time low.
And there's no sign of it getting better.
There's even more data today from another survey showing American attitudes about the economy.
It's even worse than we reported yesterday.
And economic news relating to employment and economic growth is also not good.
Audio Soundbite time, this morning on CNN's new day during the Inside Politics segment, the CNN national correspondent John King played part of a new ad for Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown.
Now, the reason they did, CNN is in panic, as I think much of the drive-by media is in panic.
And the reason is there is new polling data, in addition to this thing from the Pew Center.
There is new polling data that Republicans are making inroads with security moms.
And we had that news for you yesterday.
You know, you're here on the cutting edge.
If you're here every day, you know things before they begin to be talked about elsewhere in the media.
And it was, it might have been a couple of days ago, we had the news that Obama and the Democrats were losing women, and it stunned everybody.
And it was in the category over who do you think is best equipped to keep you safe.
And the Republicans launched over the Democrats big, first time in a long time.
Scott Brown is running an ad, and CNN's nervous, and they played a portion of it today.
Anyone who turns on the TV these days knows we face challenges to our way of life.
Radical Islamic terrorists are threatening to cause the collapse of our country.
President Obama and Senator Shaheen seem confused about the nature of the threat, not me.
Right.
Okay, so that ad was played, what you just heard, by John King on CNN.
Then they spoke with their national political correspondent, Peter Hamby, about this new ad.
King said to Hamby, after playing what you just heard, New Hampshire is the home state of James Foley, the American journalist beheaded by ISIS.
And if you talk to people in both parties who understand politics, they say there's a ripple in the Senate race based on the fact that it's so personal.
Republicans also say that this is effective with women voters.
You know, the term security moms came up in 2004 in that race.
But, you know, Scott Brown's going to need that in this race against Chinese.
He's in the hunt, actually, in this race, even though his fave-unfae ratings are upside down.
So if he can kind of cut in to Shaheen's gender gap a little bit, you know, he could be in the race.
Folks, they're worried about this, as they should be.
The polling data, as you know, is scant.
It's not plentiful.
They're not taking a lot of polls.
If they're taking the media, they're not releasing them about the Senate.
It leads to a number of different types of analysis.
If the media is not releasing a lot of polling data, well, it may well be because it isn't good and they don't want to publicize it, thereby depressing Democrat voters even further.
They're not even taking the polls as another theory because they know this.
So there's an undercurrent throughout the Democrat Party that really, really worried about the upcoming Senate races.
And now you throw in this gender gap business that they were just talking about here.
And they are, much more than they will exhibit, a little petrified.
And a related, somewhat related story, this is from Fox News.
The Democrats are not talking about Obama's fundraising.
They are refusing to disclose how much money he's raising.
Now, there are a couple of theories on this, too.
Is it because he really can't raise money these days and isn't?
Or is he raising it in huge amounts that are so large it would be suspicious?
The National Journal.
Last week, President Obama headlined a $100,000 a plate fundraiser at the swank Jefferson Hotel in downtown Washington on behalf of the Democrat Party Senate campaign arm.
How much money did the president help rake in in that evening, $100,000 a plate?
Well, the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee won't say.
The committee wouldn't even disclose how many people attended, nor were the president's remarks to a room of big donors ever made public.
So people are scratching their heads and whoa, what's up?
Normally they brag about fundraising.
Normally they're honest about fundraising, particularly if they're in the lead, because that then serves to depress the spirit, dispirit of Republicans and candidates alike.
TheHill.com pro-immigration reform Republicans say, just listen to that first.
This is the lead to the story.
Pro-immigration reform Republicans say There is a better chance that Congress will produce an immigration overhaul if the Republican Party wins control of the Senate in November.
Now, what the heck here?
This literally makes no sense.
There isn't one poll out there that shows immigration reform, amnesty, whatever, is supported by any majority, unless you survey the Chamber of Commerce.
Obama's numbers on immigration reform, 30% approval, 60% disapproval.
What is he known for?
He's known for threatening to do amnesty via executive order.
And he's at 30 approved, 60 disapprove.
Pro-immigration reform Republicans say there's a better chance Congress will produce an immigration overhaul if their party wins the Senate in November.
Are these pro-amnesty Republicans, whoever they are, are they trying to make sure the Democrats take control of the Senate?
What is the point?
Why leak this?
Who's leaking this?
Who's behind it?
You know what's happened here, folks?
I'll tell you what, it's you.
You are the base.
And you have been irritated at Republicans for many election cycles.
And I think many of you and others across the country have stopped donating.
We've seen fundraising numbers to Republicans down.
I think grassroots base donations are down, and the money has to come from somewhere.
And it has come from corporatists and chamber of commerce types.
And so that's who the GOP has to be loyal to.
That's who's paying them.
Greetings.
Welcome back, Rush Lynn Boyd, cutting edge of societal evolution.
Your phone calls are coming up.
Okay, just a couple of things here.
Supporters say immigration law could pass with a Republican Senate.
Now, let me spend just a little bit more time on something I was trying to cram in before the break.
Over the last number of election cycles, fewer and fewer Republican-based voters are donating to Republicans.
You know it as well as I know it.
You may be among those who've cut back.
And the reasons are numerous.
They are not conservative.
They do not govern as they campaign.
They don't push back against Obama.
There's no leader.
Whatever.
They're eager for amnesty.
Whatever it is you've stopped giving.
Well, somebody's making up slack.
And that is big corporations.
The Chamber of Commerce types are donating to Republicans, and they are the masters now.
Dirty little secret.
It's not uniformity of agreement on issues with citizens that dominates or inspires or influences decisions made by elected officials.
It's money.
And so if the grassroots has gotten fed up and isn't sending any money to these guys and the corporations, the corporatists, the Chamber of Commerce is, well, they are calling the shots then.
And if those people want amnesty and if they are the ones funding reelection campaigns, then voila.
But I think there's a second possibility, because this story is absurd.
It's absurd to even put this story out.
This story is itself defeating.
Everybody knows what the polling data is on immigration.
There is no way that a story like this benefits the Republicans, to have it out there that amnesty has a better chance of passing if the Republicans win the Senate.
Well, somebody's putting this out there.
Somebody's leaking this.
If I had to guess, might be a couple senators, but more likely, it's people who are trying to create a mandate.
Let's say it's the consultants class.
Let's say a bunch of Republican consultants who are also financially intertwined with these big money interests.
Let's say that they feel the need to also pay back if they achieve victory.
What better way to at least create a mandate, have a news story out there that amnesty, better chance of passing and becoming reality with a Republican victory in the Senate.
I know it's a stretch, but on the surface, if politics to you is strictly issue-oriented, this doesn't make any sense.
This is in fact almost a suicidal move to put it out there that amnesty has a better chance of passing if the Republicans win the Senate.
It is crazy.
There's a lot of hogwash in this article.
Don't misunderstand.
I mean, I think it's convoluted, and I'm not going to treat you to all the details because the premise itself is skewed enough.
But if the Republicans do win the Senate and control Congress and turn around and vote for amnesty, you, I shudder.
What will happen?
It'd be the end of the Republican Party, which, of course, the Democrats are fully aware of.
And it may not be a stretch to say the Democrats are behind this story, too, because it is so suicidal.
You remember, this is amazing how this kind of stuff works.
It was just yesterday on this program that we were talking about the usual scare tactics Democrats use because there was a story, CNN, Dana Bash, and some others, somebody else, Deirdre somebody, did a story on how the Republicans are using fear-mongering tactics against Democrats, accusing the Democrats of all these horrible things.
And I said, no, no, no, no, A, it's not happening.
B, it's the other way around.
It's the Democrats who are always, my whole life, every election, yours too, I'm sure if you're paying attention, you've heard that the Republicans want to cut Social Security.
You've heard the Republicans want to kick old people out of their homes.
You've heard Republicans want to cut Medicare.
You've heard Republicans want to cut Medicaid.
You've heard Republicans want to cut the school lunch program and want your kids to starve.
You have heard that the Republicans want your kids to start being given free cigarettes and start smoking and get cancer and die, all to prop up Joe Campbell.
You've heard all of that.
That's how evil the Republicans are.
When in truth, it's the Democrats who have been projecting and saying all of that.
And look what we have here from the National Journal.
The Democrats' latest line of attack, hitting Republicans over entitlements.
Latest line?
This is from a playbook that's 30 years old.
The Democrats Senatorial Campaign Committee will release a new ad today.
That was yesterday.
Is this Thursday?
So there's a football game tonight.
That's right.
That's right.
It's the Giants and the Redskins tonight.
How about that?
And Phil Sims, by the way, Color Commentary CBS, they're going to be counting the number of times he mistakenly says Redskins because he has pledged never to say that word during a telecast.
I saw a story.
They're out there.
They're going to be eagle-eyeing it.
I wouldn't be surprised if CBS themselves puts a Redskins counter on the screen every time Sims screws up and says Redskins.
Nah, CBS won't do it.
Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee will release a new ad they did yesterday going after Republican Representative Bill Cassidy, Louisiana over Medicare, the latest in national Democrats' efforts to attack Republican candidates in Senate races over entitlements.
One woman says in the ad, Bill Cassidy needs to know that seniors are paying attention.
Seniors are troubled by Bill Cassidy's vote to raise the eligibility age of Medicare.
It's a terrible idea.
And they accuse him of wanting to replace Medicare with a voucher system and when it cuts Social Security.
Practically predicted this yesterday when we pointed out CNN and AP both had stories about how the Republicans were using politics of fear against Democrats.
The claims are nonsense.
Now, grab audio soundbite number two.
It's not just entitlements, ladies and gentlemen.
They're bringing everything out.
They're going back to all of their surefire victory pages in the playbook, the war on women and all of that.
And now, the congressional black Caucasians have rallied and are claiming the Republicans are trying to suppress black votes.
Again, the Republicans wouldn't know how to do this.
If I were to call anybody, choose a Republican name, let's say, I don't know, let's just say Boehner.
No, let's just Cantor because he's not there, because I don't want to put words in my mouth.
Somebody says, look, Rush, call Eric Cantor and tell him the only hope is we've got to suppress the black vote.
Okay, no problem.
Dial the phone.
Hi, Eric.
Rush, how are you?
Eric, look, you guys need to get going on this thing to suppress the black vote.
Yeah, okay, how?
I don't know how to do it.
What do you mean suppress the black vote?
With all the early voting and all the Jimmy Carter types and all the election places monitoring the vote and all the Democrat ballot box stuffing and the lack of voter ID, I don't think they would know how to suppress the black vote.
But that doesn't matter.
Here is John Lewis during a congressional black Caucasian forum on African American voters in the midterm elections.
A panelist John Lewis, the moderator is the author Jeff Johnson, who says, if there's one thing all of us need to be doing moving into November, Congressman, what is that one thing?
We must stand up and fight and push by going to the polls and vote like we never voted before.
We must understand that 50 years ago, this year, three young men that I knew gave their lives trying to make it possible for all of our citizens to become participants in the Democratic process.
And we want to respond to Ferguson, we got to vote.
It is powerful.
We got to do it, and we must do it.
If not, we're going to go backwards.
And what is causing this panic?
It has nothing to do with Republicans.
Exactly.
There are two things driving this panic from the congressional black Caucasians, and it is A, Obama is not going to be on the ballot, which was responsible for a huge uptick in black turnout last two elections.
And the second thing, Obama's approval numbers are in a toilet.
The third thing, black unemployment, what, 14%?
And in the 20s in teenage black unemployment?
And there are stories all over the place that despite six years of the first African-American presidency, life has not improved for African Americans in this country.
So it's time to go to the drawing board and somehow blame this mythical Republican voter suppression because they are aware without Obama on the ballot, turnout is going to be iffy.
This morning in Washington, during the same Congressional Black Caucasian Forum on African American voters in the midterm elections, here is the NAA LCP Legal Defense Fund spokesman Elaine Jones.
You remove the African-American president, state-level, federal level.
It's all connected.
We get myopia.
We can't see anything.
We don't educate ourselves as to what's going on in our community.
Ferguson, Missouri is an abomination.
67% population and 6% don't turn out.
We have been fighting for the right to vote and to hold on to the vote ever since we first got it in 1870.
It's nothing new.
It's always been an attack.
When did the Supreme Court decide they were going to review the voting rights act case?
Three days after Obama was elected in 2012.
Three days is our individual duty to self-educate.
Who would you rather listen to, that babe or Hillary?
You know, all this black turnout business is so silly.
It's all been caused.
If there is a reduction of black turnout, it's because of Obama.
I mean, he's done nothing for them.
In their view, I'm talking from their perspective, what their expectations were versus what's happened, which is nothing.
Obama's a huge disappointment.
But nevertheless, there still was a loyalty.
Okay, if he's on the ballot, we'll show up.
He's not going to be on the ballot.
And there's not a whole lot to excite outside of that.
You know, black voter turnout exceeds as a percentage, not in total number, of course, but black turnout as a percentage exceeds white voter turnout, even in states with strict ID laws.
And this is a claim made by a pundit here at PolitiFact.
I haven't clicked on the link yet.
And it's probably true.
But this is just the usual resorting to the old playbook standards that have worked in the past.
CNN just reported that ISIS has overrun an Iraqi army base near Baghdad.
Up to 300 Iraqi soldiers have been executed.
I thought so too.
I thought that we had them on the run.
I thought ISIS was...
There's another story about how...
Called this one, too.
And this was not hard.
ISIS in Syria is now holding up inside civilian homes.
And some of the some citizens not who have been overrun by ISIS, but some people inside Syria are talking and they're citizens, average ordinary citizens, and they're scared to death and they're worried what this is going to mean.
And if there is an effort made to get ISIS and some citizen collateral damage, if that happens, who's going to come and clean up the mess afterwards?
But nevertheless, just to repeat, CNN says that ISIS has overrun an Iraqi army base near Baghdad and that up to 300 Iraqi soldiers have been executed.
Chaos deluxe.
Chaos deluxe.
What a mess.
Okay, to the phones.
Start in Frederick, Maryland.
Hi, Donna.
Your first and awesome responsibility for the first caller each day to kind of set the tone, establish the momentum.
Are you up to it?
Yes, sir.
I certainly am.
Right on.
Rock on.
I'd like to comment with respect to Eric Holder.
I was so intrigued by what you said with respect to the Supreme Court in the future.
So my follow-up question to that is: who do you think will be Eric Holder's replacement as Attorney General?
I don't know, and I'm not being facetious because this only happened this morning.
And I'm not trying to be flippant.
I don't think it matters.
Obama's going to find an exact clone attitudinally, ideologically, policy-wise.
He's going to find somebody that he just needs himself.
He needs to find a lawyer that is Obama who can get confirmed.
And even maybe even better if he doesn't get confirmed, just that the ongoing, because Holder's not leaving until the replacement's confirmed.
So I have no idea.
I don't even know right now who would be on the short list, Donna, because I just haven't had time to dig into this.
This happened so close to the program beginning today.
Well, why, why?
I mean, nobody knows why he's stepping down.
I've got people asking me left and right.
The drive-bys are speculating.
Well, because this came out of the blue.
Now, he's been there longer than most cabinet officers stay.
Most cabinet officers burn out after one term and leave either after a first term of a two-term presidency or shortly after the second term begins.
But this just came out of the clear blue today.
And so I think people are going to be starting to put together lists of people.
But Obama's not going to have any trouble finding a radical.
That's who he knows.
That's who his buddies are.
Could be somebody already there.
It could be Thomas Perez, who is Eric Holder multiplied, and he's over Department of Labor right now.
So it could be any number of people.
They'll look at confirmation, I would think, and what would be the least problematic confirmation effort.
And if they've got somebody that's already been confirmed to something somewhere else, that could remember now, this is just going to be for a year and a half.
But more than a placeholder.
I kid you not.
Claire McCaskill has been mentioned, which would be a loyalty appointment.
I'm not kidding.
I hope you're not driving to St. Louis and pulling off on the side of the road having a wreck here when you hear that.
But it's a name that I have heard so far today being bandied about.
Got to take a break.
Thanks, Donna, for the call.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
Another exciting hour of broadcast excellence in the can.
It's on the way over to the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum, ladies and gentlemen, which you can see, the virtual Limbaugh Broadcast Museum at rushlimbaugh.com.
You hang in there and be tough.
We have much more straight-ahead to Groundhog that DeBlasio used on Groundhog Day.
He dropped the Groundhog.
It's dead.
It died.
▲
Export Selection