All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 24, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:16
November 24, 2014, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
You are tuned to the most listened to radio talk show in America.
It's been that way for well over 20 years.
And it'll remain that way as long as I'm here.
And as long as I'm here, it doesn't matter where here is.
You will find it.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882 in the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Not only did Rudy Giuliani jump in with both foot on Meet the Both Feet yesterday on Meet the Press, he upped the ante on Fox and Friends this morning, and we have the audio soundbite of that.
But essentially, he was on with Michael Eric Dyson.
Michael Eric Dyson is a professor at Georgetown University and is a well known African American activist as well.
And is uh somebody that's perpetually enraged.
And Giuliani, among other things on Meet the Press yesterday, said, Well, the white police officers wouldn't be there, meaning black neighborhoods, if you weren't killing each other.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, that's one of those things that you are just not supposed to say.
The former mayor and regular golf partner, well, I play with Rudy once a year at the Ernie Ells charity golf tournament in March.
And we have a uh we have a great time.
And I run into Rudy now and then during the course of the year on the uh on the golf course, some other places, and he's uh he's a fine man.
He's uh and fearless, as you know.
And he had a heated debate, professor from Georgetown, Michael Eric Dyson on Meet the Press.
And he faced an immediate backlash on the internet yesterday, after he asked why people protest the killing of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, but not black on black crime.
Rudy said that 93% of blacks are killed by other blacks, and that triggered a knockdown dragut.
And Rudy said, you know, I'd like to see the attention paid to that that you're paying to this.
Michael Eric Dyson said that Giuliani was applying a false equivalency to the situation in Ferguson.
Black people who kill black people go to jail, Dyson said.
White people who are policemen who kill black people do not go to jail.
That's a false equivalency.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
We'll start meet the press yesterday morning.
This is during the round table, they're talking about Ferguson.
Everybody waiting for the grand jury.
We start with Rudy, and you'll hear Michael Eric Dyson here.
I find it very disappointing that you're not discussing the fact that 93% of blacks in America are killed by other blacks.
We're talking about the exception here.
Well, look, first of all, we just finished.
We are talking about the significant exception.
93% of blacks are killed by the bigger.
I'd like to see.
I would like to see the attention.
I'd like to see the attention paid to that that you are paying to this.
Now, this is you don't hear this.
You simply do not I mean, you you might hear uh people sitting around talking about this, but you don't see this kind of uh uh uh well confrontation.
I don't want to say it's confrontational because that was not argumentative there, but you just don't see the the two disagreeing sides talking about this.
But one of the things that was remarkable about Ferguson, and we mentioned this countless times, after the Ferguson shooting in which the gentle giant died.
Remember the drive by's tried to make it look like this happens all the time.
And it's rare.
It is really rare when this kind of thing happens.
But they need to make it appear as though it happens all the time, and therefore it's symbolic of ongoing.
What?
Race, uh racism or slavery even, or what if strife they have to make it look like the civil Rights activists have to make it look like this is a common, ordinary, everyday thing, and it's rare when it happens.
And this is Giuliani's point.
You guys are getting so way out of proportion, agitated here.
And it's important to point out here that even some of the activists in St. Louis now, in their impatience, are admitting that what they're about to do in terms of their eruption has nothing to do with the gentle giant.
It's all about the opportunity this presents.
They're using this incident to advance a different political agenda.
Here's Dyson reacting to Rudy.
Most black people who commit crimes against other black people go to jail.
Number two, they are not sworn by the police department as an agent of the state to uphold the law.
So in both cases, that's a false equivalency that the mayor has drawn, which is exacerbated.
Black people who kill black people go to jail.
White people who are policemen who kill black people do not go to jail.
It is hardly.
I didn't say it was a significant.
It is the reason for the heavy police presence in the black community.
Not at all.
Not at all.
93% is because of the high level of crime.
The police presence cannot make a distinction between those who are criminals and those who call the police to stop the criminals.
Well, you have a typical talking over each other on TV.
But what what uh Dyson was the last to speak there.
What he said was the police presence, the police presence cannot make a distinction between those who are criminals and those who call the police to stop the criminals.
And Rudy is trying to say that black on black crime is the reason for the heavy police presence in the black community.
Rudy's saying it's not a chicken or egg thing.
The crime happens, and then the cops show up.
Ninety-three percent of blacks are uh killed are result of black on black crime.
And really cops show up then.
The cops are not there running around causing these things to happen.
They show up after the fact.
And Dyson doesn't want to hear that because it it it it goes against the uh this he calls it a false equivalency.
Well, it's not.
You wouldn't have all these cops in the neighborhoods if there was no crime being committed there.
That's all Giuliani's point is.
And he's he's he's actually verbalizing something that a lot of people have been talking about ever since the Michael Brown incident happened, and that is the murder rate in Chicago, young black people being killed in Chicago dwarfs this situation in Ferguson, Missouri.
It's not even close, and yet there isn't any outrage in Chicago.
And there are no civil rights leaders in Chicago.
And nobody complaining about the cops that you can't complaining about much of anything other than guns in Chicago.
And all Rudy is saying is, why aren't you in Chicago?
Why aren't you worried about what's going on in Chicago?
And Dyson says, well, uh white cops get shot and never go to jail, and uh people that shoot blacks and black guys who shoot blacks go to jail and so forth.
Well, what's that have to do with anything?
It hasn't been established yet that what happened in Ferguson was murder.
Premeditated murder.
It hasn't been established.
That's what everybody's Well, I'm sorry, yes, it has been no, it hadn't been established, it's been assumed and is now being acted on.
But it in their minds it's I know it has been established in their minds.
And that's right.
There is no other outcome, no matter what the grand jury says.
That's the way you set it up.
Okay, so then Rudy, this is the final bite.
Rudy reacted after Dyson said you can't make that distinction between those who are criminals and those who call the police to stop the criminals, meaning, you know, your argument that the cops are only in the black neighborhoods because the crime's going on there, you can't say that that's a false equivalency.
What about the poor black child that is killed by another black child?
Why don't you go to jail?
I do protest that I'm a minister.
They go to jail.
Why don't you talk about the way in which white policemen have undercut the ability of Americans to live?
So why don't you cut it down so so many white police officers don't have to be in black areas?
They don't have police.
It's a matter of the effect of the occupying those forces, sir.
How about 70 to 75 percent of the crime in my state?
How about your acting reinforced black state?
I think this is a debate.
This is a debate.
Well, not become a very good thing.
The white police officers won't be there if you weren't killing each other.
The defensive mechanism of white supremacy at work in your mind.
So yeah, F. Chuck in there, uh, I guess his nourishment from Obama had expired and jumped in there and tried to stop this because it was becoming what he asked these people on the show to do.
And since it was becoming what he wanted them to do, they had to shut it down.
As F. Chuck said, all right, this isn't, I think this is a debate for a later time.
How about we, you know, this is a debate we need to have another time.
Well, you guys are getting a little bit too close to home.
I had to cut it back.
But what was happening in this bite, Rudy Giuliani said, why don't you cut it down?
Meaning the the crime, so that many white officers don't have to be in black areas.
I put white police officers, and Dyson said, they don't have to be.
It's the matter of the effect of the state occupying those forces, sir.
And Giuliani didn't react to that because he was not there making his original point.
He said, How about 70 to 75% of the crime in my city takes place in black neighborhoods?
And Dyson said, How about your attitude reinforces the problem?
So you see, you can't get anywhere near.
I mean, we're not even talking opinion here.
Rudy can't even offer facts without the reaction being that he's got an attitude problem.
The attitude problem is not seeing it the civil rights way.
And Rudy is simply recounting his experience as mayor.
Seventy to 75% of the crime in New York City is in black neighborhoods.
And Dyson says, Well, your attitude reinforces this.
And I don't know, because he's not acquiescing, it reinforces us because uh Giuliani will not acquiesce that the police presence is the problem.
I know it well, what el I know it makes little sense, but tell me in in in racial arguments and strife in this country.
What does make sense anymore?
In other words, Rudy is accused of having a bad attitude when he simply recites facts.
Dyson called a cops an occupying force.
Well, and you can hear all about that in rap music.
Of course it is.
It's an occupying force.
And in in their mind, the cop presence creates the crime.
Well, that's what he's saying.
I mean, it it it has to be.
So anyway, Rudy wasn't finished.
He went on Fox and Friends this morning, because this created I mean, Twitter blew up, and you can imagine how.
So he's on Fox and Friends today, and Peter Johnson Jr., the well-known television personality, said to Rudy, are you a white supremacist, Mayor Giuliani?
As Mayor Dyson would suggest.
I'm not even going to dignify that with an answer, except for the fact that up until the time I became mayor, thousands of blacks were being killed every single year.
I probably save more black lives as mayor of New York City than any mayor in the history of the city.
When I came into office, thousands of blacks were being killed every year.
By the time I left office, it was down to about 200.
I'd like to see if Dr. Dyson has ever saved as many lives in his community as I've saved.
And I did it by having to use police officers in black areas where there was an astounding amount of crime.
So basically what Rudy said, I mean, the takeaway, if you wanted to strip this down to what caused all the strife, Rudy, these are my words, said that white police officers wouldn't be in those neighborhoods if you weren't killing each other.
Black on black crime, 93% of black death is the result of black crime.
If that wasn't happening, you wouldn't have the cops, black or white, in the neighborhood.
And that Dyson just couldn't abide.
Because in the civil rights uh world, if you will, it is the police presence that represents the the presence of the state.
And that is what causes the crime or lends the attitude Necessary for the crime to take place.
That's it.
Brief time out.
We'll come back and return to your phone calls after this.
Welcome back, folks.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800 282-2882.
USA Today has a story that actually it was ran over the uh weekend or maybe Friday.
I'm not sure of the day.
The headline the story four words that could deep six Obamacare.
Now, I don't want to get anybody's hopes up.
And it's a it's a fine line between pessimism and false optimism.
It really is.
Because sometimes pessimism is warranted.
Sometimes pessimism makes sense.
You know it, and I know it.
At the same time, false optimism can be just as bad, if not worse, than pessimism.
But the constantly pessimistic rubs people the wrong way and deflates and dispirits, ruins attitudes.
It's a too much of anything is a is a bad thing.
So it's a it's a balance, and it's a balance that I strive for on the program.
You know, I'm a mayor of Realville.
And so I, as a realist, have to really balance pessimism with optimism.
And the one thing I try not to do on this program is to be falsely optimistic, because I think you'd see through it.
False optimism is unreal or unrealistic.
But then on the other side of that, there is something to be said for keeping people's spirits up because of the old self-fulfilling prophecy angle of things.
Now, what this story is concerned about is the Supreme Court agreeing to hear another case on Obamacare.
It's going to hear the case in March.
The briefs and the amicus briefs and all of that will be submitted between now and then.
There'll be the oral arguments, and then the Supreme Court justices will sit down and vote and will get a decision in June.
Now, on the surface, it appears that the court has no choice here but then to strike down a fundamental element, and if they do, it could wipe out Obamacare.
But that was something we thought previously.
The first time the court heard the case on the federal government requiring citizens to buy things.
The federal government can't.
So the regime got into this little semantics display.
Well, no, we're not mandating that people buy something, i.e.
health insurance.
We're just gonna levy a tax on them if they don't.
Well, the federal government has the power to tax, but they don't have the power.
They do not have the authority to mandate that you buy anything.
It's right there in the Fourth Amendment, it's in the Commerce Clause, and they can't do it.
So it should have been, in everybody's view, a slam dunk.
And then the Chief Justice came along.
And in his uh, if you remember when the opinion was first released, the Chief Justice clearly acknowledged that originally Obamacare was unconstitutional.
I remember the news media.
That the first paragraph mentioned the word unconstitutional in the opinion, and they started running with it.
Supreme Court says Obamacare unconstitutional, but that's not what happened, because if you continued to read the opinion, what happened was the Chief Justice decided on his own to restructure the law so that it would meet constitutional muster.
And we were left to speculate why.
And people who are more learned than I in this situation said that Judge Justice Roberts simply said, I mean, the idea of overturning a duly passed act of Congress was just reprehensible to him.
This is all speculation.
Nobody knows, nobody knew.
But it was what people came up with to explain because it appeared to be a slam dunk.
Well, this next one is an even bigger slam dunk than the first one was.
But because the first slam dunk, which should have had an unconstitutional ruling, was massaged and flaked and formed until it was constitutional.
And people threw up their hands in frustration.
What the hell?
My guy says everything been corrupted here?
Is there nothing we can count on?
And then that raised the discussion once again about why is it that nine people that wear black robes get to decide this stuff?
And the controversy was swirling, it was all over the place.
So here comes another Supreme Court case that they've agreed to take on Obamacare.
And if you if you wanted to be optimistic about this, nobody could blame you because this one is about subsidies and who is legally allowed to have them and who isn't, and who can provide them and who can't.
And the regime should lose big on this.
It shouldn't take until June.
It will, but it shouldn't.
But we have prior experience, we know not to count on that.
Before I continue with this Supreme Court case, and it's not much longer, and we'll get back to your telephone calls.
There's a one that I want to go back to Michael Eric Dyson.
He's talking with Mayor Giuliani, and he says the cops represent the oppression of the state.
And I meant to remark and observe at the time.
I thought that African-Americans, Democrats, loved the state.
and What is the logic of this?
The police equal the state equals the government, and I thought black leaders love the government.
Michael Eric Dyson loved the government.
Well, what am I missing here?
Uh, I I how in the world do you equate the police force with the state when you when you love the state?
I mean, they call us the police force the oppressors of the state, but they're just working for the man that runs the state.
Happened in this case the mayor, in other words, the president, uh, what have you.
And I just it's a little conflicting to me.
Yeah, well, I'm not supposed to catch that.
That's exactly one of those glaring contradictions, one of those glaring moral equivalencies I'm not supposed to catch.
That white cops in a black neighborhood represent the oppression of the state, and yet every election they vote for the state and they vote for it to get bigger and bigger and bigger, and they vote for it to get more oppressive all the time.
And then when a state shows up in the neighborhood, oh, they don't want them there.
Kind of confusing to those of us observing from afar.
That's all I'm saying.
Excuse me, just a little confusing.
Um cities with black mayors no longer have black crime?
I mean, look at in in Chicago, you have a white mayor.
In uh in New York, uh, white mayor.
You had black mayors, too.
And yeah, my point is that you had you've had black mayors running the state.
That Professor Dyson finds Philadelphia, well, yeah, but I don't that that's that's kind of in the weeds what the black mayor did there.
But he took action against uh black criminals and thugs there, right?
And he caught hell for it.
Anyway, the uh it's just a it's just a sad thing.
I mean, the people feed off racial strife, make a living off of it, become famous because of it, derive Their identity and standard of living from it, so it's never going to go away.
I mean, even if racial strife were to end, the allegation that it exists will always be there.
And press can't.
The Civil Rights Coalition can't.
A number of people, Democrat Party could never ever survive without racial strife.
Well, they survived, they might not win as many elections.
But back to this Obamacare case.
The most serious challenge to President Obama's health care law since it survived the Supreme Court by a single vote in 2012 is not healthcare.gov.
It's not public opinion.
It's not the Republican takeover of Congress.
It's a Supreme Court again.
In a case to be heard in March and decided in June, justices will dissect the meaning of four words on page 95 of the 906-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 4.
Four words that could render health insurance premiums unaffordable for millions of Americans.
The four words are established by the state.
Let me splain.
When Obamacare was originally formulated and drawn up on a blueprint diagram chart, they decided that they wanted to pass, the feds decided that they couldn't afford it.
And so they were going to pass off as much of the expense to the states as they could.
The way they did that was to mandate, require, dictate that the only way Americans could have their health insurance subsidized, because it was going to be so expensive, most people would not be able to afford it.
And the only way they could is if it was subsidized by the taxpayers, i.e.
the government paying a large portion of it.
The original architects of Obamacare, hello, Dr. Gruber, required the states to set up exchanges or offices, departments, bureaucracies, where we would all go to get our health insurance.
The Obamacare law specifically says it's right there on page 95 that the only people qualified for subsidies are those who acquire their insurance through state exchanges.
Exchanges established by the state.
Meaning state as in a State of the Union, not the entire federal government.
There was also a political purpose to this.
The drafters of Obamacare...
Hello, Mr. Gruber, wanted to put pressure on Republican governors.
They thought that the people in those states would require the state set up an exchange so that they could get their health insurance paid for by their neighbors.
Subsidized.
And they thought that pressure would force all of the governors to set up state exchanges so that we would end up with 50 state exchanges.
And then something went wrong.
Twenty-six, twenty-seven states said no, we're not going to set up an exchange.
Most of them are run by Republican governors, and they said we're not going to do it.
You know why?
Because we can't afford this.
This is your bill.
This is your money that's going to be spent, and you can print your money, but we can't.
You are bankrupting us.
They were the federal government was going to transfer most of the costs of Medicare to the states after cutting it.
And they were going to transfer most of the costs of health insurance subsidizing to the states.
And the state governor, we can't afford this, these Republicans said.
So the when the Obamacare architects, hello, Dr. Gruber, realized that their ploy had failed, and that there were bO-coup states that did not set up exchanges.
You know what that meant?
That meant that the people in those states could not get subsidies because the law specifically says established exchanges established by the state.
The law also explicitly says the federal government cannot set up an exchange.
Now they're trying to say that that was an oversight now.
And this is their argument before the courts.
This has gone before several appellate courts before the Supreme Court decided to take it.
and what the regime's lawyers are saying.
That business about the feds not being able to, that was a faux pas.
That was a that was a drafting error.
We never intended for this legislation to not allow the federal government to set up exchanges.
But it's not in the law.
The federal government cannot set up an exchange.
The federal government cannot set up an exchange in a state that doesn't have one for the purposes of subsidizing health insurance policies.
But they did it anyway.
Healthcare.gov and a number of other mechanisms, they did it anyway, and that's why they are in the court system being sued.
Because they are violating their own law.
And this is what the Supreme Court, I'm really giving you a Cliff Notes version of this.
This is what the Supreme Court is going to hear in March and render their opinion, probably in late June.
The Supreme Court is going to determine whether or not the states violated their own law by providing subsidies when they're not permitted.
And if they if they find in favor of the states, if they find against the federal government, that means that every person that has an insurance policy from the federal government that's being subsidized is going to be canceled.
It also means that most of the people in those states will then in no way be able to afford the new prices for health insurance that are the result of Obamacare.
And therefore, if the entire federal subsidy program is ruled illegal, unconstitutional, then the guts of Obamacare, subsidy, exchanges fall by the wayside, and there is no funding because that blows every cost calculation out the window.
It violates it it can't survive that.
Well, it legally can't.
That doesn't mean it's much anymore either.
So it's those four words established by the state.
Now, this is really pretty cut and dry.
The federal government, once again, has violated its own law and cannot do what it's doing.
Just as it cannot require us to buy health insurance, but Supreme Court says, oh, well, if we turn it into a tax, uh, then yeah, they can.
So if on the surfaces of the Supreme Court, and of course, you got all the legal legals now speculating, and this is pure speculation, you don't really know.
Some legal beagles are speculating.
The court took this case because they realized they botched the first one, and they're going to fix it with this one.
I feel very risky going there believing that.
It's just speculation, but there are court watchers who claim that the court realizes that they blew their first chance here.
And that they took this case.
They didn't have to take this case.
They took this case to correct their first mistake.
I think it's wishful thinking.
Because what's the experience?
The experience is the court massaging the bill to make it constitutional.
So it's more likely they would do that again than do something they haven't done.
And this is where the balance of pessimism versus false optimism is so crucial in terms of attitudes.
Because if it's if it's done the wrong way, you could create the impression among people that this law is going to be gutted by next June.
And if it's gutted, it doesn't survive.
And then when that doesn't happen, you have people let down and You lied to us.
You misled us.
You told us this bill didn't have a chance.
And in a sterile, uncorrupt universe, this bill doesn't have a chance, folks.
But we don't live in a sterile, uncorrupted universe.
Sad to say.
And back to the phones we go.
This is Bennett in St. Louis.
It's great to have you on the EIB network.
Bennett, hello.
Hello, Rush.
Thank you.
First time caller.
And I'll go straight to my point.
Michael Brown, I live here in St. Louis.
My brother's police officer.
And Michael Brown made poor decisions that day.
He had choices that he made that created his own demise.
And the bottom line is if you don't commit crimes, you don't resist arrest, and you don't try to steal a police officer's weapon, you're not going to get shot.
However, the choices that he made led to his destruction.
You live in a different world, sir.
Yes, sir, I do.
No, I mean I'm I'm I'm not trying to be insulting, but we do live in different worlds.
And in your world, that's the way you were brought up.
It's the way I was brought up.
Uh it it's it's the way you were.
But Michael Brown was not brought up that way.
Michael Brown was and and people like him are not raised that way.
They're raised in entirely different ways.
But despite that, this case is now I don't even think that much about Michael Brown and what happened to him.
The case is about the opportunity that episode presents, the grievance industry with an opportunity to raise hell to advance whatever their agenda is, which is an anti uh United States, anti-Western civilization agenda.
And this incident now is simply it doesn't matter what the you wait.
You think it's going to matter what the grand jury decision is?
Oh, absolutely not.
And um they were the organizers of the protesters were already on the local news saying that this is ground zero for the new civil rights.
Yeah.
Um the new civil rights movement, I and I assume that what they mean is that the rules or the laws no longer apply to anybody that is of a different ethnicity than myself.
Um is this a type of immunity, an ethnic immunity?
Is that what they're going for?
No.
No, it's not, it's not that.
I don't think they ever expect that.
Uh the key to it is what you said about this is the new civil rights movement.
The uh Congressman from Georgia, John Lewis last week gave it up when he said this is Selma.
At in at one level, this is about some people who became nationally famous and were proclaimed heroes for what they went through during the civil rights movement in 1964 and all that with with uh Dr. King and of course Bull Connor and what happened to Selma at the bridge, and they want to relive it.
They this is their moment of glory come to life again.
Chance to relive it.
But it also illustrates that no matter what has been done right since 1964, since the Civil Rights Act, no matter what has been done right, doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter.
The point here is that as far as these people are concerned, this country's no different today than it was then.
And this episode gives them the opportunity to demonstrate literally and figuratively that fact that this country is no different.
This country is no better, it has made no strides, it has made no improvements, everything is identically the same, and that's why we're gonna redo Selma.
We're gonna do Selma again because that was the glory days.
Selma was to a lot of these people the birth of their careers.
It's sort of like I mean, Selma wasn't planned, it just happened.
It's sort of like, you know, when you were in school and there was a spontaneous party put together one night, and it was so great, it was so over the top great that you want to do it again the next week.
And so you do it again the next week, and it just doesn't feel the same.
It because it doesn't have the spontaneity, it doesn't have the unpredictability, and so forth.
I just I think there's a there's a lot of factors here, but I I don't think this is about uh the civil rights community demanding immunity from crime and immunity from the police.
It's it's not about that at all.
Uh this is this is about continuing to tear at the fabric of our society and our country.
This is about grievance politics, it's about victimization, and that's how political gains have been made, and they simply want to keep them going.
Well, well, well, the grand jury has reached a decision in Ferguson, Missouri.
They have not announced it.
They are preparing for press conference later in the day.
No decision.
Well, they have a decision, they haven't announced it yet.
▲
Export Selection