All Episodes
Previous Next
March 24, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:37
March 24, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
If you didn't know already, now you might have an idea why the left has never been supportive of the United States.
It's all found in the preamble of the declaration.
And that is that our rights, unalienable rights, come from God.
That's been unacceptable to them from day one.
God, are you kidding?
What are you a bigot?
You're religious extremist, you fanatic.
Rights come from God, you're dangerous.
We can't let you have power.
That's their attitude.
I wonder what I wonder what Meredith Shiner would say if you told her that there is no explicit right to privacy mentioned in the Constitution.
I wonder what she would say to that.
Greetings, welcome back, uh folks.
El Rushbo here, serving humanity, executing a scientist duties flawlessly, zero mistakes.
800 282-2882 is the number.
And by the way, I'm ready for it.
I already checked the email.
Boy, you're really being mean to that little reporter.
I'm not being mean.
She's been ill-educated.
I feel sorry for her.
She is she's willfully wantonly ignorant.
Look at all the money her parents have spent educating her.
Maybe she got a scholarship, I don't know.
It's crying shame.
But anyway, she's free and clear to call Ted Cruz stupid, an idiot, make fun of him or whatever, and that's okay.
And I point out that she doesn't have the slightest understanding of the founding of this country, and I'm being mean.
Well, let's pile on then, okay?
Wonder what she would say if she found out there's no right to privacy mentioned in the Constitution.
She'd think I'm wacko extreme, wrong or what.
What do you mean no right to privacy?
It's right there.
Where?
Show it, show me.
And if she knew anything, she might point me to the Fourth Amendment on searches and seizures.
No, nope, nope, there's nothing there about privacy.
We're implying it or inferring it.
You might be inferring it, but you won't find it mentioned.
Robert Bork was denied a seat on the Supreme Court because he pointed this out.
Say what you want.
It was Griswold the case or Bork saying that the court would be an intellectual feast.
Bork was feared because he was a believer in the original intent of the framers on the Constitution.
He was a literalist.
There's no right to privacy in there.
My God, this man's scary.
Oh my God, we can't have somebody thinking like this in the court.
You're done.
And he was done.
I wonder what somebody like Meredith Shiner, who's been educated the same way, would say when you tell her there's no right to shelter.
See, people confuse rights today with benefits.
I was watching the finale of Empire the other night.
And if you watched it, you'll know that one of the characters being forced to testify to snitch.
And she's called into the FBI office.
She refused to refuses to do it.
I know my rights.
I know my rights, she was claiming.
In that context, she might have been correct about knowing her rights.
How many people do you hear running around?
I know my rights!
I know my and what they really mean.
I know what I'm entitled to.
I know what I get.
People don't have the slightest literary and it's unfortunate, but it's gotten to the point where a discussion of what is a right and what isn't is considered too esoteric.
It's considered too nuanced.
There is no right to equal income.
There's no right to an income, period.
There's no right to a living.
There's no right to food.
There's no right to water.
There's no right to health care.
There is no right to health care.
There never was, and there isn't now.
If it's a right, it ought to just be there.
You shouldn't have to go get it.
You certainly shouldn't have to pay for it.
How much do you pay for your freedom?
Ah, the uniform military people might pay for you.
How much are you paying for your freedom?
How much are you paying for your life?
Your right to live, the fact that you're alive.
Who do you go to every day to pay to stay alive?
And you get up, you want to be happy every day.
Who do you who do you go?
What What counter do you go and give them your credit card?
So I'm here to get my happiness for the day.
Where do you go do that?
Same place you go to get your food, right?
Here's my right to food.
Give me my food.
I have a right to water.
Give me my Evian.
I have a right to a house.
I have a right to shelter.
I have a right to abort my baby.
I have a right, whatever it is.
People start throwing the word around in ways that it no justification whatsoever, but you can't tell them.
Cannot tell them.
When you tell them that everything they think they have a right to, they don't, they become afraid of you like they're afraid of Ted Cruz, and they think you're going to start taking things away from them.
And that would mean Washington not working.
And we can't elect people going to take things away from me.
I have my rights.
Well, it is what it is.
I'm I'm sure people who are of the same educational standing as Meredith Shiner, listening to me now, think I don't know what I'm talking about.
I am literally full of it.
And may even be dangerous.
Do you believe that?
This guy said there's no there's no right to shelter.
I don't have a right to food.
I damn well do.
Really?
You have a right to food.
Who gave you that right?
Where'd you go to get it?
Where do you hear about the right to eat?
Well, I just have it.
No, you don't.
You don't have a right to eat.
You don't have to eat if you don't want to.
Nobody can make you eat.
But I have to.
I have that's right.
You have to.
You can't live without eating.
It's not a right.
Anyway, great to have you with us, my friends, Rush Limbaugh on the EIB network, 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, your host and the audio soundbites today this morning on C-SPAN.
The guest, Congresswoman Gwen Moore, Democrat Wisconsin.
During a viewer call-in segment of her appearance, a caller from Maryland by the name of Richard.
Ted Cruz's candidacy is living proof that the birther movement was all based on racism.
And the Democrats are silent.
They just always stand back and let the Republicans bully them and run over them.
Treat them like dogs.
I think that a lot of us are really frustrated about our so-called messaging.
It is really difficult to fight against uh I think Republicans have a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week opportunity to talk to folks through, you know, Fox News and through programs like Rush Limbaugh.
They're very, very well funded venues.
Very, very well funded venues.
This is this is a Democrat congressman from Wisconsin, Gwen Moore, and uh me and Fox News are really, really well funded.
She's she's need to send her back to school at Meredith Shiner.
She is ignorant as well.
She's ignorant of how capitalism funded?
Well, you know what funded means to a politician?
Donations.
Funded means put your hand out and somebody puts money in it.
Donation means that you are given money.
So Fox News, they got a lot of donors.
Rush Limbaugh show a lot of donors.
And it's hard for us to compete with all of those donors.
I have a single donor.
I've never had a donor.
We don't deal with funding that way.
It's absurd.
But you know what's also interesting, folks?
Listen to these people, the caller and the Congresswoman, thinking that the Republicans are running roughshod over them, bullying them, Getting their way, and that the Democrats, the docile little angels, they never fight back, and this caller Richard from Maryland is livid that his Democrats never fight back.
And how many Republicans say and think the same thing about their politicians?
I find that fascinating.
I really do.
The next soundbite, NPR.
This is WNYC Radio, the Brian Lara show, speaking with the author James Hannahan about his new book, Delicious Foods.
Your host came up in this discussion.
It did.
The uh the host of the program says to the author James Hannahan about his new book Delicious Foods.
You told NPR that one of your aims in this book was to give the so-called magic Negro, quote unquote, a backstory.
Now explain for people who don't know the term what magical Negro is and how Eddie, your character, fits that mold.
The magical Negro is like the character in a story that's mostly the about the journey of a white person who is the catharsis.
Excuse me, it provides their catharsis, essentially, and is like the one who you know teaches them how to dance, for example.
Um it's you know, it's a troop that's all over the place.
Define it in mainstream films like from the Green Mile.
Didn't that come up even was it Rush Limbaugh or somebody during uh the first Obama campaign accusing white people who wanted to vote for Obama of using him as their magical Negro.
Oh my God.
So much crap has been projected onto Obama.
It's like ridiculous.
Well, wait a minute.
Before we start ladling out to crap here, Mr. Hannahan, you say that the magic Negro is a character about the journey of a white person who is the catharsis for no, no, the magic Negro's a black person.
You know how I learned this?
I had never heard of the term magic Negro until it appeared in a column in the Los Angeles Times in 2008.
It was written by a black guy, forget his name.
I can't remember if the top of my head remember his name.
But he wrote a piece called Barack the Magic Negro.
And I had never heard the term, and he went on to explain what Barack the Magic Negro was and meant.
It was the campaign of 2008, and Al Sharpton was miffed.
Because the media was all in for Barack Obama, and Joe Biden had said, finally, we have a clean, articulate black guy on our side, and this offended Al Sharpton, because he takes showers every day.
He thought he was clean.
He was insulted.
He was not happy.
They were not buds.
Sharpton and Obama did have some distance between them back in those days during the campaign.
Mrs. Clinton was in that mix as well.
And then this column came along, and basically the point of the column was that Obama was the he's not authentically black, that he's the kind of black guy that white people feel comfortable around.
The kind of black guy that doesn't scare white people.
I didn't say any of this.
All of this was in an LA Times column written by a black guy.
So I read this, it was all news to me.
I'd never heard the term magic Negro.
I didn't know what it was.
My full-fledged education on it came from Mr. Erinstein, so we put together the parody song, and it didn't take long.
David Ehrenstein forgot he wrote the column and thought I created everything.
He's running around on TV criticizing me, even though he was the source authority for all of it.
There was a huge riff.
People have forgotten this, and I don't think how many people might have even really known it at the time.
But Shar.
Yeah, the Reverend Jackson was running around talking about very, very mean things that he wanted to do to Obama's manhood.
He said it on Fox.
He actually didn't say it.
You know what happened?
A mic was live, a camera was live during commercial break, and uh and Fox News said, we know look, you you didn't say it on the air, so we're not gonna air it.
It leaked out.
It never really actually aired, but it ended up being seen because somebody there leaked it out of there.
Um there was a lot of anger because there was all these conversations about Obama not being down for the struggle.
Obama wasn't authentic.
He didn't have slave blood.
I wasn't saying any of this.
This was all being said by others in the Democrats.
So we made our parody tune, and it didn't take Long before I owned it.
When all I was doing was parodying it.
Anyway, that's the backstory, and we'll be back.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
My my point was, is there anything liberals don't lie about?
Remember, the NFL was smeared for their alleged prejudice against homosexuals.
Because nobody signed Michael Sam.
Nobody drafted Michael Sam until the second and the last pick or whatever.
The NFL was engaged in bigotry and homophobia.
Now we find out the guy couldn't even run a 40-yard dash in under five seconds.
He was never going to make a team.
If you, as a linebacker running back, if you can't do a 4-540, you're gone.
You're done.
You don't have a prayer.
Special teams, maybe.
That's it.
And yet the NFL was gauged in homophobia.
Boyus.
And we were told in Michael Sam, he was as good as most of the linebackers in the draft.
Sorry, not true if you can't break five seconds in the 40.
Here's Bob in the Bronx as we kick off the phones today.
Bob, I'm really glad that you waited.
I appreciate your patience.
Hi.
No problem, Rush.
Hi.
Yeah, Rush, I'm I'm calling because uh I well I s I like Ted Cruz a lot.
I've I've seen his uh full hour on Hannity last night, and he answered the questions I felt the right way.
What uh and I I must be a masochist because this morning when I'm I was home, I decided to turn on the view.
And uh of course you know the cast full well there, uh Whoopi and Michelle Wallace, uh, you know, kind of a uh very weak kneed uh Republican.
That would be Nicole Wallace.
I'm I'm sorry, Nicole Wall.
All right, the former Nicole Devinish worked in the Bush White House communications office.
Exactly, exactly.
But she kind of, you know, she she goes right downhill with with all the rest.
And Joey Behar was also uh made a guest appearance.
When is the last time before today you watched the View?
Uh probably last week, and it got me so frustrated I just turned it off, you know.
But uh I I don't know.
Something may you turn it on today.
Let me guess, they're bashing Ted Cruz.
Absolutely.
And uh, of course, Whoopi had to say, yeah, where is he from?
And of course, uh uh Joy Behar had to get in and say, what an idiot.
You know, he doesn't believe in global warming.
What is wrong with him?
Right.
And uh again, on and on and on.
I you know, just to the point of disgust.
You know, here's the thing about this.
If if Joy Behar were sitting here, I might leave the room.
But if she were sitting here, and I asked her to explain global warming to me beyond the political talking point, she couldn't.
But I could give her 30 minutes on how it isn't true.
Scientifically, how it cannot possibly be true.
Global warming is based on one thing: computer models, 50 and 100 years out.
Predictions on a that's all, folks.
That's the only thing they've got.
Sticking with the phones, Rush.
Limbo.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations.
Great to know that the view had a viewer today, our guy in the Bronx.
There's hope.
And here's Paul in Atlanta.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
It's a privilege, creator endowed dittoes to you.
Thank you very much, sir.
Yes, sir.
I when you opened your show, um, the thought that I had about the death to Americans and the the reaction to those words was this.
If if the response to that is that's mere rhetoric that we've heard before.
If that's the response, and and the reason for dismissing it is it's just to build a pathway to the negotiating table.
Here's my question.
Once we get to the negotiating table, will we continue to take the words of that man as mere rhetoric that we've heard before?
That's my question.
Well, that's an excellent question.
And look, let's let's uh since this happened in the previous hour, let's bring people who may not have been tuned into that point up speed.
The uh supreme leader of Iran, the Ayatollah hominy, uh made a speech recently in Iran to the people.
It was in their happy new year, happy no ruse, which Obama also celebrated with them.
And he said, Death to America, death to America.
And the crowd supposedly cheered and so forth.
They asked Marie Harf of the State Department, wait a minute now.
It was, I think a CNN reporter, Costa was his name, somebody said, What the guy's saying death to America.
We're negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran, he's saying death to America, and the State Department spokeswoman said, Well, words are words, but but it just meant that for domestic consumption.
What she meant was he just playing to his base, if we Americanize the sentiment.
He just saying what his people wanted him to say.
They just wanted to hear death to America.
But he doesn't really mean it.
Okay, now I don't know that it was a pathway to negotiations.
I was it was their it was their happy New Year's celebration.
And he was death to America, death to America.
So your question is, if we're not going to take their words seriously now, then why would we take their words seriously at the negotiation table?
In other words, when when they say something at the negotiation table, what are we gonna oh he doesn't really mean that, he just uh saying that for?
Exactly.
If we don't think words mean anything, if we pick and choose when words mean something, then it's a joke.
Okay, well, here's the here's the question, then.
Marie Harf State Department has to be speaking for John Kerry.
Okay?
And Kerry has to be acting on behalf of Obama.
So when the State Department spokeswoman speaking for Kerry says that to America, it doesn't really mean it.
Do they really believe that?
Or are they just saying that at the State Department for their own domestic consumption?
And if they don't think that the Ayatollah hominy really means it, then how dangerous are we in terms of being exposed here?
If the people responsible for making a deal with these people in Iran on nuclear weapons think that all of this incendiary language is just meaningless, then just how competent are the people negotiating on our behalf at this thing?
And are they worried about the the the thing that bothers me about this?
Not that long ago, something like that would serve to cancel the negotiations.
A president Reagan, and I dare say, maybe President Bush, 43, uh 41, might threaten to postpone the talks rather than conduct them with that kind of rhetoric out there.
Now, we might have to go back and research some of the things Soviet leaders were saying during the time Gorbachev and Reagan were having their summits.
And there might be some allowance for this stuff that said public stage uh for domestic content.
I don't know.
The real question for me is does the State Department, does John Kerry, does Barack Obama, do they really think that the Ayatollah hominy doesn't mean it?
Because if they think he doesn't mean it, then we are in a dangerous place here because he does mean it.
They've said it over the people of Iran don't care or don't matter.
The Ayatollah hominy does not run for election.
So this idea that he's saying this for domestic consumption is purely bogus.
He's a dictator.
The Ayatollah hominy is a tyrant.
The elections they have over there for president, he picks who the president is, and that guy wins the election.
And they got a little bit tired of Mahmoud Ahmedini Zad because he was a little bit too open and upfront and honest about Iran's intentions.
He didn't leave anything to doubt.
Mahmood Ahmadini Zad left no doubt that his intentions were to destroy Israel and any friend of Israel.
And the Ayatollah hominy said, Well, that's a little bit too much.
He's giving me too many problems.
But the idea that the Ayatollah hominy has to say things to placate his people, BS, it's the other way around.
His people have to not say things and not do things in order to placate him so they don't end up in jail.
Marie Harf.
I swear, folks, I gotta this is this is this is another example, I think, of just dangerous folly and ignorance because there is no similarity in the Iranian system in ours.
This idea of projecting, she's telling us more about Obama than she is about the Ayatollah hominy.
And she doesn't know that.
When Marie Harf says of the Ayatollah hominy, he just has to say that for domestic consumption, she's giving away the thinking of this administration.
So when Obama praises the military, he just has to say that for domestic insumption.
When Obama acts like he's really upset with Hamas and the Palestinians, he has to say that for public percent, but he's really not.
There is no dictator in the world who cares a whit what his people think or say unless they're thinking of revolution, and if he finds out about it, they go to jail.
That's what's absolutely irresponsibly incorrect and wrong about Marie Harf analyzing the Ayatollah hominy.
He doesn't have to say anything for domestic consumption because domestic consumption is irrelevant to him.
Public opinion is irrelevant to him.
He doesn't run for election.
Appreciate the call, nevertheless.
David, Evansville, Indiana, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Good to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
I guess I can take this off my bucket list.
As you were talking about Marie Harf's comments on CNN, of course, since I don't want CNN, I didn't see that.
Um I was thinking about the inconsistency between what she was saying and the fact that they hold Netanyahu responsible for his words.
They say in his case, words matter.
In the Ayatollah case, well, no big deal.
But as I thought more about that, I began to realize that there's actually a pretty consistent thread here.
The Palestinians have death to America written in their charter, so to speak.
Because they not death to America, but death to Israel, same thing.
It's the same attitude.
So when Netanyahu says what he says about the Palestinian state, the Obamaites have to react strongly, because their orthodoxy says death to America.
Okay, yeah, they don't say death to America.
They wouldn't exactly go along with those words, but they're sympathetic to the settlement.
Both of both of the Ayatollah and of the Palestinians.
And so it's actually all of a piece.
It's actually very consistent.
There's no contradiction here at all.
And that's actually scarier.
Now wait just a second here.
You telling, I just want to make sure that I understand you here, Duffed.
When when you when when Marie Harth says of the Ayatollah hominy is death to America, hey, hey, hey, he's just speaking for domestic consumption.
Are you saying that she and Obama have a don't have a disagreement with it about that?
Okay.
It's not death to America, but it's certain they are certainly sympathetic to the sentiment.
Because it's part of the left orthodoxy to hate America.
And while they don't say death to America themselves, they understand where that thinking comes from.
Well, I don't want to nitpick here.
I'm not so sure if people disagree with me.
I'm not sure that they have a hatred for America in the sense that you mean it.
I think they believe that America's on the wrong side of everything.
And that they they can perfect it.
That they can make America actually what it should be.
They they hate America the way it was before them, but uh I I don't I don't think they hate America in the sense they want to destroy America as though it would be nuke like the Iranians do.
Um, but they clearly have a profound disagreement with the American way of life, rooted in capitalism, belief in God, Judeo-Christian ethic, all of that scares and intimidates the heck out of him and angers them.
I may be nitpicking here, uh, But it's the only way that you can, I think, safely say that they share the same Iranian sentiment in the death to America.
They're not, you know, Obama's trying to perfect it.
Obama, in his in his perverted, distorted way of seeing this country's sins.
He's uh he thinks this country has been wrong.
This country has been biased, racist, sexist, bigoted home, but whatever the left vernacular is since the days of its founding.
It's illegitimate, it's unjust.
You know, don't doubt me on this.
Obama, what where was he at the Selma the the the Selma 50th anniversary of Silma?
And he asked, we're the slaves who built the White House.
That was part of his speech.
We're the slaves who built the White House.
Now, what does that tell you?
Tells you volumes, if you ask me.
Tells you there's a deep resentment for the way this country was founded and built, and the people who really did it have been getting a shaft from the get go.
And now it's time to give the shaft to the people who were giving it all those years.
Time they got the shaft.
And that's what Obama's about.
Anyway, I got to take a break here because we've reached the end of the busy broadcast segment, as noted by the programming format back after this.
Ladies and gentlemen, there's other news out there.
Want to touch on some of these other news stories.
I mentioned mere moments ago that Mrs. Clinton, according to Dick Morris, never sent any emails because she can't type.
She never learned to type.
He also said that Bill didn't use email precisely because he never trusted that it wouldn't be secure.
But Hillary just can't type.
Here's the smartest woman in the world, came out of Wellesley.
How in the world did she do all of her college term papers?
How'd she do anything that's if you can't type?
You know, I know some women, I happen to come of age during the birth of the modern era of feminism, which is traceable back to the mid to late 60s, maybe early 70s.
And I know a bunch of girls who were militant, they refused to take typing class.
Because to them all it meant was that they were going to be secretaries.
They learned to type, that's all anybody would care they could do.
And it end up being servants to CEOs and male bosses, and to hell with that.
And so they didn't learn to type.
And then they got out of the workaday world and they found out that they needed to know how to type.
Then the computer came along and they really learned how to type or needed to learn how to type, but they didn't at the outset, where they were in hascral because of their militancy in feminism.
Don't doubt me.
Don't doubt me, I know some.
The um story we had yesterday that the University of Virginia rape story had been totally debunked by Charlottesville police.
Charlottesville police totally debunked the Rolling Stone story on rape on campus at the University of Virginia.
And there was an associated press tweet yesterday.
And I want to read you the tweet.
Breaking police lack of evidence at UVA gang rape does not mean something terrible didn't happen.
Nothing happened.
Nothing happened.
There was no evidence.
The police couldn't find a single shred of evidence supporting anything in the story.
And yet the AP tweets out, well, lack of evidence doesn't mean that something terrible didn't happen.
And this has been the modus operandi of the left ever since the story came out.
When it was discovered that it was made up.
When it was discovered that this was bogus journalism, that the journalists just made it up, the excuse was, well, you know, maybe it didn't happen here, but we know it happens.
And this was good because this raised everybody's conscience about it.
This was good because of the consciousness raising.
So even though it didn't happen, it was good because people now know it happens.
But wait, it didn't happen.
Doesn't matter.
Something terrible did happen.
Maybe not this.
Well, what?
There's no evidence.
Doesn't matter.
The nature of the evidence is irrelevant.
It's the seriousness of the charge that matters.
This is the kind of absolute crap.
I'm on the verge of muttering obscenities here.
I so want to use the full word BS.
I just, I'm just dying because I don't know how else to describe what's happening here.
I shan't, because I'm cultured and refined and have manners and respect the medium.
But boy, do I want this is just absolute drivel.
Camille Paglia has written a piece.
This little little post here about all this rape supposedly happening on campus.
And she thinks that the women of the modern era are a bunch of sissies.
That they're essentially a bunch of cowards.
She says, my generation of women, hers.
My generation of women rose up and said, get out of our private lives.
And the university said, No, the world is dangerous.
We must protect you against rape and attack and all those things.
And we said, give us freedom.
Give us the freedom to risk rape.
That's true freedom.
And she goes on to describe the so-called rape culture.
Rape is an outrage that cannot be tolerated in a civilized society, but that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about this new reclassification of people getting drunk, going on a date, going to frat houses, and women not taking responsibility for their own behavior.
I said that gay men for thousands of years have been going out and having sex with strangers everywhere.
They know they can be beaten up.
They know they can be killed.
What is this where women are, oh, we must be protected against even our own foolish choices.
It's up to the men to this is ridiculous.
Look if you're gonna put yourself in the circumstance, if you're gonna get drunk, if you're going to frat parties, then own it.
Camille Paglia, comparing the current wave of modern women to the real babes back in her day of feminism.
Camille Paglia, this is from her Reason magazine interview.
Basically, what I said was free women must take personal responsibility for their own sex lives and keep the authority figures out of your sex life.
Anyway, we're gonna take a brief time out here at the top, my friends.
▲
Export Selection