All Episodes
Previous Next
April 1, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
April 1, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The Washington Post gives up the game.
Or the ghost, depending on how you wish to phrase it.
Right here it is.
Indiana law draws Republican White House hopefuls into the culture wars.
Exactly right.
And precisely by design.
The only real surprise about this is that the Democrats did this so early on in the presidential process, but they may not really have had much control over it because Indiana did their law when they did it.
But nevertheless, greetings and welcome back, folks.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh with the second hour of Broadcast Excellence today here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Now, this story is by Philip Rucker and Robert Costa.
Robert Costa?
Robert Costa used to be at National Review Online.
What is he doing at the oh well?
There's actually two stories here.
There's the Washington Post story, and then there's a follow-up here by the Politico.
And both of these stories give up the game.
The national debate, this is the Washington Post first, the national debate over an Indiana religious liberties law seen as anti-gay, by who is it seen as anti-gay?
This is it is promoted as anti-gay by the opponents of the law.
There's nothing about anti-gay in the law.
There's nothing anti-gay in the formulation or the conception of the law.
The national debate over an Indiana religious liberties law seen as anti-gay has drawn the entire field of Republican presidential contenders into the divisive culture wars, which badly damaged Mitt Romney in 2012 and which Republican leaders eagerly sought to avoid in the 2016 race.
Now the Mitt Romney thing, that was the war on women.
So the war on women has run its course.
And so now what are we going to get?
The war on gay marriage or the war on humanity, what's it going to become now?
And once again, where did this all start?
George Stephanopoulos.
George Stephanopoulos's fingerprints are on both of these.
In the Mitt Romney case, it was a presidential debate, primary debate, Republican contenders.
And there's our old buddy George Stephanopoulos asking a question about birth control and conception and so forth in the middle of a Republican presidential debate when the subject had never come up.
It was not an issue.
It was not being talked about by anybody anywhere.
And out of the blue, Stephanopoulos asked Romney what his thoughts were on state-sponsored birth control measures and what have you.
And Romney was caught flat-footed because he had no idea why.
George, I'm not even thinking about it.
What do you mean, George?
And Stephanopoulos would not give it up.
Just give me a yes or no, he said.
Just give me a yes or no.
Do you believe that states should have the power to be involved in contraception measures and so forth?
And Romney thinking free, no, this is a state.
George, I don't even think about this.
But eventually Romney gave an answer.
It didn't matter what the answer was.
He eventually answered the question, and immediately the war on women came to life because then the media and everybody ran around saying that Romney, as a Republican, was in favor of governments being involved in contraception of this and that.
And everybody knows what that gave birth to.
No pun intended.
So last Sunday, it's George Stephanopoulos again.
You got the governor of Indiana, Mike Pence, on this week.
And there's Stephanopoulos once again demanding yes or no, yes or no.
Why do you want to put a bill into law that discriminates against gay people?
Isn't that what you're doing?
Do you want state-sponsored discrimination?
Tell me how people can't see it.
There's just a yes or no question, governor.
And him, Pence, hims, and haws and so forth.
And the birth of an issue happened again right before our very eyes.
And then we get this story in the Washington Post.
Indiana law draws Republican White House hopefuls into the culture wars.
No, the media has drawn Indiana law and Republican presidential hopefuls down a sewer, which is what has happened here.
And that's why the Democrats and their media, because they want to cloud, they want to disqualify the entire Republican field right now.
Remember, this is how they have to do it.
They have to impugn, defame, and destroy the credibility of virtually every Republican rather than tout the benefits of voting Democrat.
That's not how they go about it.
They don't have enough people to vote for them to win just on the issues alone, folks.
They have to.
They have to create a number of people that will either avoid voting Republicans because they're mad at them and stay home, which is one of the primary objectives of this, by the way, is to anger the Republican base by exposing Republican candidates as wusses.
And even though the Republicans know what's coming, they don't seem to be able to have a plan to deal with this.
Why hasn't the party already had a battle plan ready to go in case, not in case, for when the Democrats tried to repeat what they did with Romney, with whoever the next Republican potential nominee would be?
Well, here it's already happened, and Pence is not in the presidential field right now, but it doesn't matter.
They're trying to drag every Republican into the debate to get him on the record saying anything.
It doesn't matter what they say, because there's only the wrong thing to say.
There's no way a Republican can say anything that's going to be judged to be right.
Look what they're trying to do to coach Shashevsky.
The Duke coach will not comment on it.
CNN, a number of other media outlets have been trying to get him to comment on the law, and he won't say a word about it.
And so they're trying to tar and fetter him because of that.
He's a bigot because he won't weigh in the way we want him to weigh.
He's a bigot because he won't say what we want to hear.
The national debate over an Indiana religious liberties law, seen as anti-gay, has drawn the entire field of Republican presidential contenders into the divisive culture.
Isn't it amazing how this happens?
Everybody's wandering along, minding their own business, and out of the blue, the Republican presidential contender all decide to shoot themselves in the foot on the same day.
Isn't it amazing how that happens?
And then the media gets to write about it.
And this is why the Democrats and their media minions are ginning up.
This is a phony crisis about a law that mirrors a federal law written by Chuck Ushumer, a law that was hailed by Bill Clinton as a miracle from God, a law that has been around for 22 years, maybe longer in certain states.
Most other states follow this without needing a law to back them up or to have a law in the books.
Even though 19 other states have enacted similar laws, just to be on the safe side, they're really not necessary since the Supreme Court ruled that the federal law doesn't have to be followed by the states.
Anyway, it's clear that the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the drive-by media sat down and tried to come up with an issue that would force Republican candidates to go against their base in the primaries or risk losing in the general.
There are many objectives here, but one of the big ones that the Democrats have and their media buddies is to anger you, the Republican base, at your candidate.
They want to expose Republican candidates as wusses or whatever so that you get ticked off at them again.
So you think they're a bunch of just worthless, endless politicians that don't get it.
And you end up staying home in a fit of anger and not voting.
That's what they are attempting to do here is anger you so much at your own party that you don't vote and you don't donate.
Most top Republican presidential hopefuls this week have moved into lockstep and without pause to support Governor Mike Pence and his Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which has prompted protests and national calls for boycotts by major corporations.
And once again, we're back to the left all of a sudden falling in love with corporations.
The left all of a sudden thinks there's nothing in the world wrong about big business.
Man, oh man, they love big business this week.
Man, these corporations, why they are helmed by some of the most conscientious CEOs, why we love these corporations this week.
Here's the politico story.
Indiana law backs GOP hopefuls into a corner.
Same story, different publication.
Mike Pence, this is the opening.
Mike Pence just lobbed a grenade into the Republican presidential field.
How did Mike Pence do that?
By signing a law and going on television to explain it?
What was he doing on TV?
Why did he feel he had to go on TV and defend this thing to somebody like George Stephanopoulos, who's a member of the Bill Clinton War Room, for crying out, why do you think you've got to go to the drive-by media to defend yourself?
What is this compulsion?
You're not going to persuade them.
You're not going to get them to see the error of their ways.
You're not going to convince them you're a good guy.
You're not going to convince them the law isn't what they think it is because they don't care.
The law is whatever they claim it's going to be.
And you are the reprobate that they claim you're going to be, no matter what you do, how you do it, or what you say.
Now these stories are made to look like that all these Republican candidates minding their own business, walking along one day, and then the next Republican idiot, in this case, Mike Pence, came along and opened his mouth.
And in the process, tarred and feathered every other Republican hopeful because this party is filled with absolute idiots like Mike Pence.
This is the tenor of the news coverage.
You never see, you never see stories about Democrat candidates worried about being associated with scandal involving the Clintons or anything of a scandal involving Obama.
You never see this kind of story.
You never see a story in the drive-by media where any Democrat candidate is disqualified on the basis of anything.
This is the game now.
And the media is so con, they're writing about the game.
They're writing.
They're giving it up.
They're explaining how they did this.
And one of the things that is assumed here, as you read these media stories, one of the things that the media is assuming is that every single member of the low-information voter group is going to buy hook line and sinker what they say.
They don't even think they have to work very hard at persuading their readers.
Now, as I say, this is not anywhere near the first time this technique has been employed.
But everybody on the Republican side acts as though they've never seen this before and don't know what to do about it.
By the way, folks, while all this is going on, there's something else happening out there that very few people are even aware of.
And it happened again last year at this exact time.
More than 2,000 illegal immigrant children continue to arrive in the United States every month, according to the Department of Homeland Security stats compiled by the Center for Immigration Studies.
Now, that's not possible because Obama and his buddies in the media have said the flood of illegal alien children stopped long ago.
But I guess they were wrong.
The flood of illegal alien children continues.
2,000 arriving every month since January.
While more illegal immigrant children are entering the country this fiscal year than at this point in 2012 and 2013, the number of children crossing the border has not yet surged as it did last year.
So what?
We're supposed to think, well, okay, no problem then.
Just because it's not surging like last year.
The Center for Immigration Studies report shows that 84% of the children crossing the border are teenagers, and most of those are male.
See, teenagers are not considered children in Central America, but these are gifts of love.
Isn't that what we've been told Central America giving us gifts of love?
How can we object?
Why, they love these kids in Central America and they are giving them to us.
Who is it for us to be critical of love?
Gangs may be getting a little thin here as most of them keep going to prison, so we might need a replacement operation could be part of what this is.
But it continues, folks, while everybody's looking the other way at all the so-called bigotry and homophobia in Indiana.
Here is Rich in White Plains, New York.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Your turn.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
With all due respect to the governor, you know, how stupid is it for Mike Pence to even do an interview with George Stephanopoulos, particularly considering the fact that the template of how to deal with the media is happening simultaneously, and it's Hillary Clinton with her emails.
Your point being that Hillary is showing the way.
You just ignore them.
You don't talk to them.
You don't give them what they want.
And stonewall their butts.
That's exactly it.
I don't know why the Republicans continue to voluntarily walk into the lion's den.
Now, I'll bet you can answer this if you actually think about it.
You've asked a good question.
Why does Pence even go there?
Now, stop and think for a moment to yourself.
Why do you think he did?
He did it.
I mean, he had to be a reason for it.
Why do you think he, and it's not just Pence?
Why do these guys continually subject themselves, not just to Stephanopoulos, but the entire Democrat Party media apparatus?
Why do they do it?
Okay.
You know why?
The only thing I can think of is that they're afraid of the media saying that they won't.
Well, I think some of that, I think that's partially true.
I don't think that's the main driver.
I don't think it's the main answer.
I think it is, you have a valid point.
They think that everybody knows the media is rigged, but that's the way it is.
And you got to play according to the way the game's being played.
If it's rigged and you want to win the game, you've got to play the game.
And you can't run away from these people.
You can't cry bias because that looks cowardly.
So you've got to face them.
You've got to face them on their turf and on their terms, because if you don't, you will be said to be unserious and unworthy.
But I think there are other reasons that propel this.
And I think they're born, sadly, in naivete in many regards.
I think that there is this belief, despite the knowledge of bias, despite everybody knows that George Stephanopoulos is a Democrat activist.
I think there are a lot of guys that, you know what, I can change his mind.
I can show him I'm not the kind of Republican he thinks they all are.
I think there is this compulsion.
I'm not singling out Pence, but all of them.
I'm not a racist and I can prove it.
I'm not a bigot.
I can go on his TV and I can show them and I can make them like this bill.
I can make them understand the bill in Indiana.
I can make them see the light.
I can change them.
They can't do anything of the sort because that's not possible.
The media is not interested in what they have to say.
The media is never interested only to the extent that they can arrange a gotcha.
You know, one of the greatest casualties of this whole thing is a public impression that has been created, which is this, that Indiana is filled with businesses that will not serve gay people.
Will not provide their service, will not provide their product, will not sell their product.
Indiana just loaded with them.
Just loaded with them.
That's why we need to be vigilant.
And the fact of the matter is, the media, in order to find some of these businesses, practically have to go walking down the street knocking on doors because it's not an issue.
If there is an issue, it is the other way around.
It is the businesses being discriminated against.
But nevertheless, the idea here that Indiana is all of a sudden populated overwhelmingly with anti-gay zealots Is a story that is false on its face,
but is a circumstance and a situation that is being created here right in front of everybody's eyes when the absolute truth is that the media is having to work very hard to find any businesses that do refuse to serve gays or gay weddings or whatever is on the table.
Frank in Ewing, New Jersey, thank you, sir, for waiting, and it's great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks very much.
What do you think of this idea?
What if service providers like florists or wedding cake bakers included a limit of liability agreement as part of contracting for their service?
And the agreed to limit is usually the cost or the price that the person paid for your service.
So for example, if you hire a house inspector before you buy a house and he misses something major and then later on you have to pay thousands of dollars to get it fixed, the only thing you can get back from the inspection company is what you paid them for the inspection.
So the day before the wedding, you call up and say, forgot to bake your cake.
The limit of liability says you owe them $400 or whatever.
And if they refuse to sign in the beginning, you have a reason not to do business.
Sounds awfully convoluted.
Sounds like an incredibly complicated process for people that have to spend all of their waking hours just keeping the business open.
Well, I'm sure there must be some form you fill out when you contract for the flowers.
Walk me through this, okay?
I'm going to pretend to be a gay couple.
I'll eat a lot for dinner tonight, and I'll pretend to be two people, okay?
I'm going to do both parts.
I'm going to be a gay couple, and you own a flower shop, okay?
And I'm walking in, and I say, hi, I am marrying myself a week from Saturday, and I want you to provide the floral display.
So as part of the floral display, undoubtedly there's like some form to fill out that say you want some petunias, you want some pansies, you want some whatever, and what sizes, what shapes, and what kind of range.
No, no, don't assume.
Tell me.
You're the business owner.
You assume it's a good thing.
Right.
So I'm giving, we're working on what you want, and we fill out a form, and then I have you sign it that says, this is what I will provide.
And on that standard form just is the limitation of liability saying in the event, whatever, that I can't perform the service, then the limitation is the $400.
Okay, so you tell me that you want me to sign a limited liability agreement that says if you fail to provide the flowers for my self-wedding, that I am only, that you are only subject to X amount of financial penalty or what have you.
Right.
Those kind of things are in contracts all the time.
And I think the florist and the customer, you, there would already be some sort of form to sign.
This would just be an additional line on there that says, by the way, limitation of liability that you agreed to.
Okay, okay.
And then the day before, but you've known all along you're not going to bring flowers to my wedding.
You've known all along.
How would you know that?
You can't judge me.
Because that's the example you gave.
You said then the day before the wedding, you all of a sudden, you can't get there.
So you call the customer and say, sorry, you know what?
The dog died and I can't get there today.
But all you can't do anything to me because you signed a limited liability agreement and I'm only liable for whatever the cost of flowers are and here's your money.
Exactly.
So you want the business owner to actually pay for not providing the flowers.
Well, they probably already gave me the $400 for the flowers.
As an advance.
Right.
As an advance.
So I'm just giving it back to them.
And I'm sure there's already forms that they have them sign anyway today.
It would just be a little extra.
I guarantee you what, your limited liability agreement would then qualify as anti-gay discrimination.
Well, whether it was or not.
Right.
The truth doesn't matter.
You're dealing with hard, cold, rational fact, and you're up against activists who are intent on subverting you no matter what you do.
And they know that when they leave and go out to the media complain about the treatment that you gave them, you are going to all of a sudden be the bad guy.
And the fact that you might have a signature on a limited liability agreement isn't going to count for anything with Joe Q, low information voter who hears about this on TMZ.
I knew you'd find a hole in it, right?
Well, I'm not trying to find a hole in it.
Well, I'm, I'm, you, God bless you, like you're like everybody else.
You're dealing with this as though truth and fact and common sense matter.
And none of those are really relevant in what's going on here.
People are being targeted specifically.
You mean to tell me that in Indiana, a gay couple getting married can't find a flower shop that will service them.
Of all the potential flower shops in Indianapolis, a gay couple finds one that has a religious objection.
How do they even know?
And then when they find that out, they go there.
So they're walking in the door hoping that they will be rejected.
They're not even walking in to really get flowers for their wedding or a cake.
They're hoping to be rejected so that they can then create a news story like this.
Why in the world, if there's 25 bakeries, you're getting married, you want a cake for your wedding or birthday, whatever it is, there's 25 bakeries and one of them is owned and operated by Christians who you think, if you can even find this out, who are opposed to gay marriage.
Why would you go to that one?
There's only one answer.
You're trying to create an issue.
You are trying to find somebody to discriminate against you.
You're actually fine with being discriminated against.
You want to be discriminated against, so you have an issue.
Your feelings aren't hurt.
You're on the verge of a gigantic success story here.
Your feelings are not hurt.
You're not feeling like a second-class citizen.
You walked in there hoping that you would be rejected.
You walked in there hoping they would discriminate against you.
You were hoping that these Christian zealots would, in fact, continue to be Christian zealots and send you packing.
If you really wanted flowers for your wedding, you'd go someplace where you knew they wouldn't have any problem servicing you.
Am I wrong about this?
I mean, I mean, there are, that's right, that's right.
There are rainbow stickers in the door now in some of these places.
Yeah, the rainbow sticker means come on in.
Front door, back door, whatever.
Come on in.
Quick timeout.
Back after this.
I did a little research here, and our last caller whose idea was a limited liability claim, it won't work.
The left has already thought of that.
What?
It won't work because under 42 U.S. Code, 1983, there is no limit on actual damages in civil rights claims if they can be proven.
It's 42 U.S. Code, Section 1983, Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights.
No limit on damages if the claims can be proven.
Discrimination claims can be proven.
So that idea is out the window.
Yeah, you know, I've got a whole stack here on this new host of the Daily Show, this Trevor.
Yeah, Trevor Noah.
Man, this guy's classic, folks.
He's an anti-Semite.
He doesn't like America.
He makes no bones about it.
And people are comparing him to Obama on the left.
He's half white, half black.
He comes from racially mixed families like Obama.
But this guy's stepping in it with all these old tweets of his.
And now he's come out.
And I'm kind of reluctant to talk about this because I know what's going to happen.
The more he gets talked about, the more Comedy Central says, this is the right hire.
We need to move Stewart out next week and put Trevor in there right now while he's hot.
And they are standing by whatever he says here in these tweets.
And these tweets, they are anti-Semitic.
They're anti-fat girl.
They're anti-Jewish women.
I mean, some of these things are really meat spirit.
Violence against women.
He talks about joining an uppercut to a woman that disrespects him.
So he's out with an apology saying that's not really him.
He said, it's not fair to judge, especially a comedian on just a few tweets.
That really is unfair.
And so he's doing his best to say that's not me.
I love that apology.
That practice.
Doesn't matter.
Athlete X, celebrity Y, Hollywood actor Z, they get involved in something that's really rotten and horrible and despicable.
And their public apology position is, that's not who I am.
Really?
Well, who was it?
Who wrote those tweets?
Who hit the send button?
That wasn't me.
That's not who I am.
I don't regularly rob liquor stores or whatever is being accused.
It is him.
It's exactly who he is.
He hit the send button.
He meant to send that stuff out.
I think his biggest problem is he's not funny.
And he's supposed to be hosting a fake news comedy show.
Well, I know it worked for Jon Stewart, but that's where the writers can come in and pick up some slack and maybe be the case with this guy.
But I do.
I have a whole stack.
We've got soundbites.
Listen to what?
Grab somebody number two.
This is Trevor Noah.
This is May 13th.
Sorry, March 13th.
So just a couple of weeks ago.
He's doing a stand-up performance in London.
Flying into America, particularly, has been the worst.
You go through different lines, there's extra checks, you know, especially if you come from what they consider a high-risk Ebola region, which is apparently the whole continent.
They're coughing on each other in one big hut.
I don't really blame them because, look, the truth is most Americans don't know much about South Africa.
So, well, they don't know much about Africa as a whole.
Most of them don't know much about anything.
This guy's perfect.
All of his material is what liberals would really say about America if they thought they could get away with it.
This guy's got it all, I think.
I think he's going to be huge.
I think Trevor Howard is going to be huge.
He may be bigger than Stewart.
Trevor Noah, I said Trevor Howard.
Trevor Noah, Noah, Trevor, he's going to be bigger than Stewart.
He may already be.
This guy is perfectly willing to talk about his dislike or even hate for America.
You realize how many leftists are going to eat that up?
Well, but how's he going to stand out of the competition?
Because he's from South Africa.
Remember what they said?
We need the perspective of somebody from a different hemisphere.
It's one thing to have a Native American hate their country.
Anybody can do that.
But if you can find somebody from South Africa who lived through apartheid, who says America's worse, Nirvana.
Added credibility coming from South Africa.
Added credibility not being an American.
Well, Piers Morgan didn't make it because he sounded snotty.
When you listen to Piers Morgan, you wanted to clear your throat and blow your own nose.
I did anyway.
Piers Morgan came across as snooty.
He came across as almost an elitist.
He's a media guy.
Trevor Noah here, he's just your average run-of-the-mill escapee from apartheid.
And he thought he got out and he ended up in America and he's in worse shape.
It's made to order.
Don't doubt me.
You wait.
He thought he was escaping apartheid, escaping racism, escaping bigotry.
He lands in America and feels compelled to walk through JFK saying, hands up, don't shoot.
I mean, the left is going to love this guy when they get to know him.
The novelty will wear off in about a week?
No, I don't think so.
They got another one, John Oliver on HBO.
He's another leftist British import who also is making a name for himself, ripping apart every American institution he can, and they love him.
You wait, snurdy.
Don't doubt me on this.
Don't doubt me.
You're stuck.
You're applying audience and media standards from 50 years ago that no longer apply.
Anyway, here's Art, Springfield, Oregon.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thank you, Ditto.
I just want to talk about the Religious Restoration Act.
I think this is something the Republicans should run towards, not away from.
If you look at a lot of the minority groups, both African American and Hispanic, they're very much pro-religion.
And if you look at the Defense of Marriage Act, how many states it passed?
This whole homosexual rights thing, I don't think is a winner for the Democrats at all, and the Republicans should force them into a corner.
Well, they think it is because of the millennials.
They think that it's a winning issue because young people are totally in favor of gay marriage, totally into anything gay.
Millennials love it.
They can think that, but when you look at the Defense of Marriage Act, how it passed, and if they're worried about an election or the upcoming presidential election, you've got to look at the public perception and what's going to win you the majority.
And if you look how the Defense of Marriage Act in every state, they have to get it thrown out through the court system, not the voting booth.
I know what you're saying.
You're basically looking at numbers, and you're thinking there are far more voters who are going to be sympathetic with something like the Indiana law than not.
And they're only going to be known on Election Day.
But I'll tell you something I am finding out there, and that is, and it just happened with this case in an email I got or a call.
What I'm finding is that Republican voters are very quick to abandon Republican candidates who are destroyed by the media.
Even when they know the media is being unfair, when the media is lying about them, when the media is totally making it up, if the candidate can be destroyed by the media, the voters will give up on the candidate.
I've seen it happen over and over again.
So that's one thing could work against your theorem.
A sociology professor at Occidental College, her name is Lisa Wade.
Again, at Occidental is Obama went there.
He's an alumni, Occidental College.
Lisa Wade, the sociology professor at Occidental, says, if you have an understanding of economics, if you've been taught economics and you understand it, you are probably going to be a bad, mean, selfish, uncaring person.
▲
Export Selection