All Episodes
Previous Next
April 7, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:46
April 7, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings once again to you, ladies and gentlemen, music lovers.
We cover it all here, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain, back at it.
From the decorated, awarded, prestigious, and distinguished Limbo Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
A thrill and a delight to be with you today.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800 282-2882.
And the email address L Rushbaugh EIB net.com.
Rand Paul is in Lou.
And he is on the verge of announcing announcing his candidacy for the presidency.
And he's uh just moments away.
We will not be jipping it, i.e., joining it in progress, because we know what he's gonna say.
He's uh gonna run for president, he's gonna beat Ted Cruz, he's gonna beat Scott Walker and the rest of the field, and then he's gonna go on and take on the Democrats and so forth.
It's gonna be a huge Republican field, and it's gonna be diverse, and I think it's gonna be fun to follow.
It's gonna have its share of frustrations.
I mean, it can't help but have those, because we're talking about Republicans here.
The um the situation in Indiana, this this whole notion of um expanding gay rights, which is not what this is, again, just won't go away.
It continues to uh percolate and efferves out there, and as such.
We're gonna be discussing it the Obama-Iranian deal for nuclear weapons, and that's what it is.
I mean, Fox News, Obama concedes Iran's breakout time for nuclear weapons could be almost down to zero after 13 years.
It used to be 10.
It used to be 10 years, now it's 13 that they're going to have a uh a nuclear weapon.
So we have this on the table today.
Um the Rolling Stone story continues to bleed and have fallout as analysts are now weighing in on what it all means.
It's just everything that that happens, the explanation for many of these things, most of these things are very simple, and to listen to all these wizards of smart weigh in and try to make these things complex, which largely is the objective to confuse everybody so that they end up having doubts about what they instinctively know.
So it's an it's an attempt to get you to doubt what you instinctively believe about the rape case in UVA, the imaginary case, or what happened in Indiana, or Obama and the Nuke Deal in Iran.
This stuff is not that complex, and besides you have me, and my job is to make the complex understandable.
That's what we do each and every day.
Brian Williams, phase two of the takedown of Brian Williams has hit.
And it is a massive story in the liberal entertainment Bible, known as Vanity Fair.
Somebody does not want Brian Williams returning to NBC.
And it may well be that the somebody is Jeff Zucker at CNN, who may well want Brian Williams to come over to CNN and replace Larry King.
They still haven't found a replacement for Larry King, even though Larry King's still out there in some obscure network.
But this piece in Vanity Fair, and I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing, but you know what the pull quote from this piece is?
Maybe I had a brain tumor.
That is attributed to Brian Williams trying to explain to himself why he made up all of this stuff.
After NBC News anchor Brian Williams was caught lying about being in a helicopter over Iraq that took enemy fire, according to Vanity Fair, he wondered aloud if he had a brain tumor.
Turness, that would be Deborah Terness, the president of NBC News and other executives who had gotten involved quickly became frustrated as they would remain for days with Williams' inability to explain himself.
He just couldn't say the words I lied recalls one NBC insider.
We couldn't force his mouth to form the words.
I lied.
He couldn't explain what had happened.
He said, did something happen to my head?
Maybe I had a brain tumor, something in my head.
He just didn't know.
We just didn't know.
We had no clear sense what had happened.
We got the best, which was an apology that we could get brain tumor now there's a quoting Brian Williams as wondering whether or not he had a brain tumor which explains why he made up all of these things how do you go back to the NBC Nightly News anchor chair after Vanity Fair quotes you as wondering whether or not you had a brain tumor.
And all throughout this story there are supposed friends and executives at NBC who said all we wanted him to do is come clean.
We just wanted him to tell us he lied.
He made it up but he couldn't form the words he couldn't say I lied.
He couldn't cross that bridge and as such Brian remains in a state of denial and began asking himself if he had had a brain tumor so somebody or a number of somebody's are out for Brian Williams.
We shall see but at this stage it doesn't look good.
I don't think it ever has actually but tell you heard about the Uber driver in Chicago What a fascinating story a Chicago Uber driver's instinct to record his conversation with a woman that he picked up for a ride last November has saved him from spending years behind bars.
Maxime Fauhoon Hato, a 30 year old native of Benin, West Africa, was released from Cook County jail yesterday afternoon after spending the past four months there.
Four months in jail four months and he had a recording of this woman who had accused him of assault he had a he had a recording of her not being raped Foon Hato was arrested in December after a 22 year old woman accused him of sexually assaulting her at his apartment on November 16th.
The woman claimed she was passed out during her ride in his car.
But his secret recording provides evidence that she was awake and carrying on a conversation the whole time.
After prosecutors verify the audio they consulted with the accuser and she decided to drop charges.
But the guy nevertheless spent four months in uh in jail that's his name not a nickname Shady Yasin Foon Heido's attorney told CBS Ibold New Chicago he had a gut feeling that he needed to protect himself she was having a friendly conversation with him and talking about her boyfriend and her work and gave him a big hug in the end and I don't know what his instinct said on the phone and audio record this thing which he did.
The woman said that she was out with friends when she used her phone to summon the the Uber driver after Faux picked her up a woman said that she passed out in his car and went in and out of consciousness.
She said that Foon Haido pulled into an alley and then eventually took her to his apartment where he raped her foon Hato who graduated college in Bennin in West Africa has no criminal record was put in jail, slapped with five hundred thousand dollar bail his case was cited as an example of one of the problems with Uber, an up and coming ride sharing company that competes with conventional taxis.
Critics claim the company does not do enough to vet its drivers you know what is his critics claim who?
What critics the taxi industry what critics this stupid formula stuff that goes in a journal it really ticks me off some critics say Uber will tell you that they are not a transportation company.
They're a software company own any cars.
Uber does not own a single car well I mean the people who work there own company Uber Uber as a company does not own cars.
They're a software company, and they put people together.
They put passengers and people that drive cars for livery together.
And as such, Uber drivers are not actually Uber employees.
It's well structured for liability and uh no startup costs in terms of not having to have a big fleet of cars.
It's uh it's caught on.
But what is it with women admitting rape when it doesn't happen?
What was behind all this now?
You have this Rolling Stone story at University of Virginia totally made up.
And by the way, one of these brilliant analytical pieces that I referred to earlier is listed the winners and losers in the uh in the uh uh UVA rape case, the Frat Boy Rape Case.
You know who the big loser is?
Who do you think the big loser, who should the big loser be in a fake story about rape at a frat house at UVA?
Should be the fraternity, right?
The big loser.
Well, I mean, you could say the big winner as this thing has come out, but I mean they're the ones that took the hit.
No, no, the liar.
The woman who made the whole thing up is considered the big loser in this thing.
I can see it to a certain point, but what is it with women making this stuff up?
Somebody help me out here.
I really don't remember.
It seems to me over the past quarter century, I've heard somebody say within the political arena that women don't lie about this.
But I'm not sure if that's what it is.
I know I've heard people say that kids do not lie about being abused, but something banging around in the deep dark crevices of my fertile mind is telling me that I've heard activists say that women never lie about rape either.
Well, clearly, if somebody ever did say that, this isn't true.
But what is it here?
This woman driving was it a quick get rich quick scheme?
Where are they learning this?
Who's programming them?
Who's inspiring them?
Who's mentoring them?
UVA is not the only place that this allegation has happened.
It's all over the place now.
And the left, the left is committed to the cultural idea.
They're trying to establish as a cultural norm, an accepted norm that rape is rampant all over America on college campuses.
When it isn't.
And young, impressionable women are being caught up at it and for whatever reason, just lying and making this stuff up.
This guy spent four months in jail, even though he had a recording that exonerated.
Well, he had a recording that proved his accuser to be a liar.
And still was in jail for four months until they finally went and talked to her, and for some reason, they might have leaned on her, who knows, she recants.
And she dropped the charges.
So once again, the nature of the evidence didn't seem to matter much here.
Seriousness of the seriousness of the charge seemed to overwhelm everything.
We have a bakery in Denver, which has won the right to refuse to make anti-gay cakes.
This issue is everywhere.
I didn't know this.
The latest issue.
Anybody watch the good wife?
You don't watch the good wife.
The latest episode, how lucky are they?
They filmed these episodes way, way in advance.
Sunday night's episode of The Good Wife was all about bakeries and photography studios refusing to bake cakes or take pictures at gay weddings.
All about that.
They ended up doing it in a uh kind of creative way.
They had an on-air think tank kind of thing.
One of the lawyers, stars of the show, is a big lib, well known.
And a conservative firm hires her to help them in mock trial, rehearsal trial.
They were going to take up the case of uh, and it ended up a wedding planner who refused to wedding plan for gay couples.
And they wanted her to be opposing counsel because they respected her and they wanted her to hit them with the best that she had on this.
And I you know, it it this whole Subject.
I don't know if this show got into this area or not, those of you who saw it, uh, but everything I've read about the episode, I save it to watch with Catherine when we have time.
So I haven't seen the episode, but I've read about it.
And I have not read any review or discussion of the episode that makes a salient point.
And of course, the point's not referenced much in the drive-by media either.
But it's a crucial point because it illustrates that all of this has nothing to do with gay rights.
It really doesn't.
And I'm not trying to be provocative or controversial here, but it clearly doesn't.
When you boil this down to its essence, in every example here that we've talked about, you have an established and obviously known Christian-owned business, a photography studio or a bakery or what have you.
And into that particular place of business walks a gay couple, wanting either wedding photos or a wedding cake.
Now the fact is, most people would not go to a place and do business with people who you knew were not sympathetic with you if there were alternatives.
To do so is to be deliberately provocative, and it's not for gay rights.
And these are activists on the gay side that are going into these establishments.
It's not just like in every walk of life.
You have gay people who have nothing to do with politics.
Lesbians, gays, bisexual, transgendered people, you You have in that group of people, you have plenty of them that are not activists, that are not into politics, per se.
They're just living their lives.
You may know them, you may not know them.
They're just they're they either choose to be invisible or they're there, but but in terms of political activists, they're not.
But the people going into these stores are.
And they're political activists, and they are attempting to advance an agenda by whittling away at another agenda.
But it isn't about gay rights.
This is about power.
This is about attacking a majority and taking it down.
And in all these discussions, I don't hear, I don't hear that referenced if much at all, if at all.
It's always framed in the standpoint of gay rights and a bunch of people over here denying gay people, their civil rights and their human rights, and that's not what this is.
Because there's plenty of other options these people could go, the activist gay couple to get a cake or to get pictures taken.
There are plenty of other places, but they zero in on places they know they're going to be refused, or they hope.
That's even better.
They zero in on businesses they hope will reject them.
Because the express purpose of this is not to expand gay rights.
It's not to deal with discrimination.
It is to attack majorities and take down the powerful.
Pure and simple.
And that is the missing element in all the discussions.
It's the missing element when the Republicans start trying to deal with this, and I have to take a break, but we will be back.
Have you heard about the new bigot shop.com?
Bigot shop.com inspired by an infobabe from Channel 57 in South Bend, Indiana.
BigotShop.com.
And that is what is missing in every so-called reasonable.
Well, I say it's missing.
I don't encounter it much.
Maybe others have made the point.
But I think it's crucial to note.
I think it's it's crucial for everybody to realize that the whole issue of human rights, civil rights, gay rights is a mask.
It's a cover for what's really going on, and it's designed to get people sympathetic and supportive.
When it really has nothing to do with gay rights, because they are purposely trying to find a place where their rights will be denied.
That has nothing to do with what happened to civil rights African Americans, and that yet the comparison's made, and it's sort of outrageous, folks.
So I checked the email during the break, and the and the Rand Paul people are out in droves, which is predictable.
I should maybe more properly say the Ron Paul people are out in droves, and they're accusing me of ignoring Rand Paul and his president's.
I'm not ignoring it.
He's doing it when the program's on the air.
And we don't gyp these guys.
We didn't we didn't broadcast Ted Cruz live.
We're not going to broadcast any of them live, including Rand Paul.
We don't do that.
We don't know how long they're going to go.
I can't afford to give up an hour in this program for 16 different people.
We'll get to Rand Paul after he finishes.
Well, we'll roll tape on it.
And if it takes us till tomorrow, just like we do with Ted Cruz and the Scott Walker and all the rest of them.
I love this.
I just, I love this, already accusing me of ignoring Rand Paul.
He's he's he's doing his thing right now.
And just because I'm not jipping, joining in progress is announcement means that I'm somehow biased or somehow unsupportive of Rand Paul.
And I haven't announced my choice for anything yet.
And it will it'll be a while.
Anyway, welcome back.
800 282-2882 when we get to the phones.
Now, story out of Denver.
ABC News in Denver is just excited.
They're just cheering the headline, Denver's Azoucher Bakery wins right to refuse to make anti-gay cakes.
Now, what do you think this is?
Last week, the Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled that Denver's azucar, and it may be Azukar, I don't know how it's A-Z-U-C-A-R.
I'm not purposely trying to mispronounce it.
Denver's azoucher bakery did not discriminate against William Jack, a Christian from Castle Rock, by refusing to make a couple of cakes with anti-gay messages and imagery that he requested last year.
So you see, discrimination is good when it's on the side of the angels, in this case, gay activists.
And corporations are good when they're on the side of angels, in this case, gay activists.
It is stunning when you think back to all of the hate that leftists instinctively have for corporations.
For example, how often have you heard from Democrat after Democrat that corporations are not people?
Corporations are not persons.
Corporations cannot use free speech.
Corporations are not people, therefore they don't have free speech rights.
Corporations do not have the right to engage in politics.
Corporations do not have the right to donate.
Corporations do not have the ability.
Corporations do not have and should not have the ability to donate and participate in campaigns.
And we know the left feels this because they had a giant conniption fit when the Citizens United case came for the Supreme Court, permitting and claiming all of that is constitutional.
So all, all activity by corporations.
All activity has been despised, criticized, hated.
Every, I guess the top ten entries on the Democrat Party or the American Left's Enemies list are all corporations or industries.
Big retail, big oil, big coal.
Go down the list.
Big pharmaceutical.
Every industry is practically hated.
The fact that they are able to donate to politics.
They are hated.
That is despised.
The fact that they're able to engage in campaigns and have access to the First Amendment free speech and donations.
All of the corporates are hated.
You know it as well as I do that this is something the left is known for.
Now all of a sudden, when the corporations come down on the side of the left, why they're wonderful.
It's time to celebrate them.
They all of a sudden become people, good people.
They all of a sudden become persons, good persons.
They all of a sudden become good citizens.
They all of a sudden have every right to participate in the political scene.
They all of a sudden have every right to donate to causes.
they all of a sudden have every right to get involved in campaigns.
As long as they are doing the bidding of the left.
Now that is rank, utter hypocrisy.
Sadly, I have found hypocrisy is not an effective tool in persuading people.
Pointing out hypocrisy is not going to do much to change people's minds.
It's interesting, and it's useful in other ways.
But pointing out the hypocrisy of Whitman, pointing out the left's hypocrisy for 25 years, it doesn't matter to the people that support the left.
They'll always come up with ways to excuse it, as will many people on the right when supposed hypocrisy is exposed there.
But I think I think this is monumental because the one one of the identifying characteristics, one of them, you must be one of these if you're going to be an accredited leftist.
You must hate corporate America.
You must despise it.
Occupy Wall Street is one of the greatest things ever, because it was anti-corporation.
It was anti-Wall Street.
It was anti-big money.
I mean, look at all the evil that happens in corporations.
Look at all the evil people that are there on the days where corporations are people.
Look at all the evil things.
Look at all the big money.
Look at all the discrimination.
Look at all of the pain.
Look at all of the lack of wages.
Look at all of the lack of healthcare.
Look at the hate, the never-ending list of criticisms and hate that the left has for corporations until the corporation happens to do or say something the left agrees with, then it's the greatest thing on earth.
Now that is blatant, wanton hypocrisy.
And in this case, I do wonder, the left has created a rabid, insane base of people that support them and vote for them.
Literally, I think have created a bunch of enraged insane lunatics.
And they buy this stuff.
They live it.
They hate corporations.
They believe all they're told about them, despise them.
They're mean spirited, they're extremists, they don't pay people enough.
They try to deny them health care.
They try to kill their customers.
You know, all of this, on and on and on.
And then all of a sudden, Democrats and the news media tell them, well, you know, Tim Cook, GC did the right thing in Indiana, Apple's great, the insane lunatic base may be a little confused because they've been persuaded all of these years to hate and revile and distrust corporations.
So back to Denver.
The dispute that this case is about began March 13th last year when William Jack, a Christian from Castle Rock, Colorado, went into a bakery and requested a couple of cakes shaped like Bibles.
He asked that one cake have the image of two groomsmen holding hands in front of a cross with a red X over them.
He asked that the cake be decorated with the biblical verses, God hates sin.
Psalm 45-7.
And homosexuality is a detestable sin.
Leviticus 18.2.
On the second Bible-shaped cake, William Jack requested the image of two young groomsmen with the red X. He wanted it decorated with the words God loves sinners.
And while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, Romans 5.8.
He told the civil rights agency that he ordered the cakes with the imagery and biblical verses to convey the same-sex marriages in his words on biblical and inappropriate.
Now there's no evidence that these cakes were intended to be served at a gay wedding.
So we don't know that anybody would have been hurt by them, but anyway, the bakery refused his request.
And this bakery was told it was fine and dandy to refuse this request.
This bakery didn't want to bake these two cakes that William Jack came in and wanted for whatever reasons.
And everybody sides with him.
This is reprehensible what he was asking.
It's reprehensible what he wanted.
We don't support that.
We don't agree with that.
no way.
And the Colorado Civil Rights Division last week ruled that this bakery did not discriminate against William Jack, who is the Christian from Councillor Rocker, ordered these two kick.
So discrimination happened here.
Discrimination's good when it's on the side of the angels.
It's a two-way street.
I don't know William Jack, never heard of him.
I guess he's trying to make a point here in the midst of all of this by trying to point out that uh it's only certain people who are being discriminated against.
Quick timeout, back with much more after this.
Don't go away.
Has anybody also noticed that in all of these so-called denial of rights cases at gays, that it seems to be limited to small businesses in the wedding industry.
Baking cakes and arranging flowers, and maybe taking pictures.
And my point here, there's no question that these are targeted industries.
And I don't doubt.
So I I'm very confident in saying that, in addition to all of the public reasons given why gay marriage should be legal, there's a bunch of stuff behind the scenes that they don't say, and that you're not supposed to figure out.
And then if anybody does figure out and point out, that person's gonna be criticized and laughed at and made to look like an idiot.
And it is gay marriage is an activist tool.
It's not just about who you love.
I'm sure there's some gay people want to get married.
I'm sure that they love each other, want to get married and fine, but there's an element, it's the Democrats after all, it's the left, it's liberalism.
There's an element of the gay marriage industry that had nothing to do with love, and it has nothing to do with marriage.
It has everything to do with pushing boundaries and wresting power away from gigantic majorities.
And those gigantic majorities all happen to be found one way or another, deeply involved in religion.
So this is not a quest for rights, it's an assault and an attempt to gain power or transfer power.
When you look at the industries or you, for example, you don't you don't see uh an Indian Native American who owns a printing store.
You don't see that person being legally compelled to print posters for the Washington Redskins.
At least we don't yet, I may be giving them the idea here.
How about some environmentalist wackos who uh you know oppose the coal industry and and and try to force the coal industry into adopting, excuse me, environmentalist wacko ideas?
It's all targeted at small little mom and pop businesses who are all involved in the wedding industry, one way or the other.
Here is Chris in Nashville.
Chris, we uh start with you on the phones today.
Great to have you here.
Hello.
Hey, thanks for your uh service to our country, Rush.
Really appreciate it.
Thank you, sir.
And uh wanted to start off with just uh with a question here.
Why is it that all of my leftist friends, they uh they hold a double standard when it comes to uh uh evil corporations, if you will.
They're they'll they'll sit there and they'll uh they'll rant and they'll rave and they'll talk about how, you know, big evil corporations, they're horrible, and the they'll do this while they're glancing at their iPhone or looking at me over their Apple laptop.
Right.
Can you help me understand that Rush?
Well, I don't know that I really have to.
I think you're smart enough guy, you probably know you're just calling to set me up here.
But I don't mean set up.
I mean you're serving me a softball.
You're throwing me a hanging curveball across the plate here.
Um because clearly the attack on corporations, while you know it has its roots in Marxism, and as is the case in most everything, there are some duped, I mean, leftists to the core who really believe in the evil of corporations and so forth.
But the leaders of these movements are simply enacting and advancing a political agenda and trying to use these techniques to marshal an army of supporters that are basically mind number robots and just are gonna follow.
Look at Apple and the situation in Indiana.
Now, Apple does business all over the world in countries that behead homosexuals when they find them.
Such as Iran, such as in Saudi Arabia.
You want to talk about discrimination against women.
Apple does business in country after country where these things happen.
But when Apple speaks up, it's only about Indiana.
Indiana's the only rotten place where these things happen.
And normally supportive of the of the idea that corporations are evil, liberals all of a sudden start embracing these corporations now.
But your question even predates that.
If they so despise corporations, why are they out there buying their products?
And they would tell you they've got no choice, that everybody has to have a cell phone, and your friends would tell you they want the best.
And so they've got to bite the bullet.
They've got to bite their tongue and go out and do it, even though they don't like it.
And it illustrates that the courage of their convictions is somewhat uh less than what they would have believe.
But again, you're pointing out hypocrisy.
I could do that all.
There's a great piece today at uh Real Clear Politics by Joel Kotkin, calling out the high-tech hypocrites.
You would love this piece, Chris.
The recent Bruhaha over Indiana's religious freedom law revealed a couple of basic things.
The utter stupidity of the Republican Party and the rising power of the emerging technological oligarchy.
As the Republicans were once again demonstrating their total incomprehension of new social dynamics, the tech elite showed a fine hand by leading the opposition to the Indiana law.
This positioning gained the tech industry an embarrassingly laudatory piece in the New York Times, portraying its support for gay rights as symbolic of a new social activism that proves their commitment to progressive ideals, and that, Chris, is what makes them okay.
Their commitment to progressive ideal, their commitment to liberalism means as corporations, they're all of a sudden now the good guys.
So many, so many tech companies have embraced a mission that they say is larger than profits, says Glenn Kellman, the chief executive of Redfin, it's an online real estate firm.
He said, once you wrap yourself up in a moral flag, you have to carry it to the top of other hills.
This guy is saying that the way they're getting away with it, Chris, these corporations are convincing their customers that they are far more concerned about social activism and social justice than they are profits.
Now that is an absolute crock.
But they can easily persuade their leftist customers of that because everybody wants to think that they're angels.
Everybody wants to think that they're doing good works.
Gotta take a break because of the constraints of the programming format and the time.
Be right back.
But it's not just the hypocrisy on gay rights.
If you look at the tech oligarchy, the tech elites, if you look at how they staff, if you look at how they pay, you find that they discriminate against women and minorities exactly as the left hates.
▲
Export Selection