All Episodes
Previous Next
May 4, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:29
May 4, 2015, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hey folks, how are you?
Greetings.
Great to have you here.
Been chomping it to bit for noon Eastern Time Monday to arrive, so we get going with broadcast excellence, and here it is.
Telephone number if you want to be with us today, as always is 800 282-2882, the email address, L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
So the Republicans running for president now include a woman, Carly Fiorina.
I'll tell you what, too.
Carly Fiorina is rocking.
She has undergone a change like I can't believe back in 2008.
When she was, it might have been 2012.
I forget which.
Well, she was with McCain along with Meg Whitman in 2008.
And then 2012, she uh she kind of went solo.
But she, my memory anyway, is that she was a McCain establishment type Republican.
Carly Fiorina now has crossed over, and and there's there's nothing, and I don't nothing establishment centrist about her, particularly in the way.
She is describing Hillary and liberalism in general.
It's quite refreshing, actually.
So we have a woman, Dr. Benjamin Carson announced today, who, by the way, worked in Baltimore at Johns Hopkins.
He's from Detroit, he's African American.
And we have two Latinos in the Republican roster.
I guess we start calling ourselves the Rainbow Party.
Well, we got Rubio and Cruz, that's who they are.
We've got a woman, we have an African American, we have two Latinos.
And it doesn't count.
It doesn't matter.
It may as well not be the case because none of that matters to the drive-by media.
I mean, folks, if they were consistent, we would all have to now vote for Ben Carson.
He's black.
He has worked and lived in Baltimore.
Voting for anybody else would be racist, at least according to the media and the and the rest of the Democrat Party.
We have the ISIS shooting in Garland, Texas to deal with Pam Geller, leader of the group that was conducting this uh little convention, and she was fascinating on CNN this morning, being grilled, interrogated by the former Fox News Info babe, Allison Camarata, who has now moved over to CNN.
We've got the latest news out of uh out of Baltimore.
And I I you know I've on on Friday.
I told everybody, and it was not a hard tell, but I told everybody that Marilyn Mosby, just look out because by the time the Sunday shows come around, and we've got a new liberal hero, a new Democrat Party hero.
She just gonna own it, and that prediction, while easy, has nevertheless come true.
And it was also, I remember when we uh we parsed her press conference on Friday when she announced the uh the charges, and there was nothing of jurisprudence about it was a total political statement, a total political announcement, the politicization of the criminal justice system.
Uh and the left is applauding it.
They are all for it.
So we need to review this.
I mean, she talked about the cause.
There is no cause that she can align herself with as a state attorney other than the cause of justice.
But she clearly aligned herself with the cause of the uh rioters and the protesters in uh in Baltimore.
According to reports, the final tally for the Baltimore riots is that over 200 businesses were destroyed.
And it's justified, you see.
Oh, yes, the rioters were totally justified.
The looters are totally justified.
As Bob Schiefer said on Slay the Nation, yes, it's all because of slavery.
Oh yeah, we still have a long way to go.
We still make an amends for slavery.
And somebody came along and said we need a marshall Plan for the inner city.
The Marshall Plan for the inner city.
We've been doing a Marshall Plan for the inner city, including Baltimore since 1964.
It's called the War on Poverty.
Total cost 22 trillion dollars.
We've been doing the Marshall Plan.
It hasn't worked.
As you well know, the people who live in these recipient locations are angrier and unhappier than before the war on poverty began.
Most of them are unemployed.
It's why they've got the time on their hands to engage in the kind of looting and rioting and public protest that they do.
You don't see people with jobs doing this kind of thing.
Even minorities.
You just don't see it.
And that's not to say that jobs are the answer, but it's not a bad thing for people to engage in.
But if you want to say jobs are the answer, lack of jobs, and ask yourself who's been running these locales.
Baltimore's had a total, there's two numbers floating around today.
One is 130 million, it's 130 million dollars, has been pumped into uh Baltimore recently for the usual things, job creation, job training centers, you name it.
Martin O'Malley, the former mayor, former governor running it's a drop in the bucket.
Okay, how about a total of 1.8 billion has been that's how much of the stimulus package that Baltimore got.
1.8 billion out of the 700 790, 800 billion dollar stimulus that Obama authorized in 2009.
Baltimore got 1.8 billion.
Where'd it go?
What happened to it?
Well, we know where it went.
It went to union people.
It went to teachers and a number of things, like it did most everywhere else, part of the Democrat Party money laundering scheme.
But the Republicans have authorized it.
The Republicans authorized a lot of to say that the Republicans, like Obama did, or anti-inner city in a frail attempt to blame them for it can't be said given the numbers.
Two hundred businesses destroyed.
It seems that those heroic gang members from the Crips, the Bloods, and the black guerrilla family stood guard and protected black-owned businesses and steered the rioters to Indian and Hispanic-owned businesses while guarding black-owned kid you not saw that in the news last week.
Yep.
They directed the looters, they pointed them in the direction of businesses mostly owned by Asians and non-Muslim Arabs.
And we continue to be told a real problem in Baltimore and other cities like it, lack of jobs in the inner city, the prevalence of drugs.
So what do Obama and Hillary want to do?
They want to give work permits to the 20 million illegal aliens in our country, and they want to decriminalize drugs and free everybody currently incarcerated on drug charges.
Am I missing something here?
How are either of those plans going to help the inner cities?
To give you an idea how fast Marilyn Mosby moved.
And to give you an indication that this charges against these six cops are not the result of an exhaustive investigation.
She got the report from an internal police department investigation on Thursday last week.
Thursday night, Thursday evening.
She got the results of the autopsy on Friday morning, and within hours, she announced the charges against the six cops.
That Swift, less than 24 hours of receiving an internal police depart investigation result and the autopsy report.
She mobilized with all those charges.
I'm sure you've heard Dershowitz and a number of others.
This is this is outrageous.
This is not going to hold up.
She's overcharged.
And Dershowitz said something and I thought was the case too, particularly after I heard that old codger that CNN found on the street after her announcement last Friday.
He said he didn't believe it.
He said, all these charges, all these charges, these charges are going to believe this when I see this in court.
There's no way all the charges are going to stick.
I can't believe this.
There's no way they're just trying to stop us from rioting.
Which is the point that Dershowitz from Harvard, Alan Dershowitz also made.
Details coming up.
Now the charges against the six officers were announced twelve days after the death of Freddie Gray in Ferguson.
The gentle giant died on August 9th, 2014.
A grand jury worked until November 24th before deciding to return no indictment.
August, September.
Three months.
108 days.
The grand jury in a Staten Island case involving Eric Garner took even longer.
Eric Garner died on July 17, 2014.
The grand jury did not rule against indicting the police officer until December 3rd, 2014.
That's 140 days.
But Ms. Mosby can decide on charges within a couple of hours without even consulting a grand jury.
And numerous leftist pundits were asked are you a little troubled that this is obviously political more than judicial?
No.
I'm actually not bothered by this exactly what is needed.
We need this is we need everything is against these people in a political basis, and therefore I'm not at all uncomfortable that the prosecutor has turned this into a political cause.
Numerous liberal pundits have said so.
My friends, do not doubt me.
If you want to understand these people, you have to realize everything is political to them.
Everything.
There's a political answer to everything, every question about these people.
If you go to the political answer, whatever your question about why they're doing something, why they're saying something, what the objective is, it's always going to be political.
And not just a political component, it's going to be political in regarding as regards the uh agenda of the Democrat Party.
President Clinton.
I'll tell you what's happening, folks.
As predicted, news stories are scaring off access buyers.
These news stories about the Clinton Crime Family Foundation are starting to have a negative impact on donors.
They're having trouble rustling up new donors.
Existing donors are starting to get nervous, might soon start asking for refunds.
Because the scam has been exposed.
It isn't about charity.
Everybody oh.
Speaking of that, I have to tell you about a guy named Sean Davis, and I'll do so in greater detail in a moment.
I want to set the table here.
Last week or the week before, I happened to come across a report at the Federalist.com, which had done an exhaustive and detailed analysis of the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, and it was the Federalist who discovered and then reported that 15% of all the money raised by the Family Foundation actually goes to charities.
15%.
They revised another report later found it 10% in some way, in some cases.
In other words, 85% of the money donated does not go to charitable endeavors or anything related to charitable endeavors.
60% goes to other expenses.
Not including travel and entertainment and lodging, all those have their own categories.
60% other expenses.
Salaries and so forth.
So I quoted this, and I credited the information as coming from the Federalist.
Well, then the Democrat National Committee, using people disguised as fact-checkers got into gear.
Something called pundit check, pundit for political fact-check organizations got into gear and attempted to say that I made the claim that 15% of all money donated to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation actually reaches intended victims.
Only 15%.
They attempted to attribute it to me, and then the usual happened.
They went out and they started blabbing about how, well, it's Limboy makes things up.
You can't trust Limboy, he just makes things up.
He tells lies, he doesn't tell the truth.
At which the head honcho of the Federalist.com, Sean Davis got in gear, got in touch with the people at these fact check organizations who admitted to him that his analysis was right.
They admitted to him privately that his analysis was right.
And then he had the guts to go public with all of this and further expose these fact-checked organizations as nothing other than Democrat Party front groups.
And even after all this, the fact check groups continued to attribute the information to me.
Because they would do two things with it.
Obviously, they're going to try to discredit it within their base.
Discredit it within Democrat voters since I said it it can't be right.
Since I said it, it has to be alive.
And in the second phase, no doubt, would have included fundraising off of it.
Send out fundraising letters to eager Democrat donors pointing out that Limbaugh once again lying about our beloved Bill and Hillary by claiming only 15% when I had claimed nothing.
I simply reported what was in the Federalist.
Well, Sean Davis stood up and got in their face and caused it to back down.
And so what was going to happen here, had I not mentioned it, had Drudge not put the results of this on his page, they would have ignored it.
They would have figured it, nobody would have seen whatever the Federalist.com website was saying.
But since I came along and amplified it and Drudge came along and amplified that meant they had to get into gear and refuted.
So that's just one element of what's going on with the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
The other is that the donors are getting nervous.
Access buyers, people that want to bribe the Clintons are starting to get scared because the scam has been exposed.
It's not about charity.
It's about personal enrichment by selling future access, granting favors from a sitting Secretary of State for exorbitant sums of money.
And the capper is all of this is done under the guise of selflessness.
Oh, yes, the Clintons don't care about themselves.
They just love people.
And they just want the best for the hurricane victims and the earthquake victims, and you name it.
But now the donors are getting the same scrutiny that cockroaches get when you look under your sink in the dead of night.
They are scattering for cover, and that's bad news to the Clintons, and so Bill Clinton has surfaced to denounce deliberate attempts to take down his foundation.
We're loaded today, folks.
That barely scratches the surface.
You sit tight.
We're coming right back with more after this.
Two gunmen were killed Sunday in Texas after opening fire on a security officer outside a contest for cartoon depictions of the Prophet Mohammed.
And a bomb squad was called in to search their vehicle as a precaution.
Now I left out a word when I read that lead, but the AP, they they put the word provocative in there.
Let me read it again.
Two gunmen were killed Sunday in Texas after opening fire on a security officer outside a provocative contest for cartoon depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.
Provocative.
You notice how the AP manages to blame the victims here.
Without blaming the perps.
Now the victims are responsible for this.
And even this hate monger that runs this specious organization called a Southern Poverty Law Center, which is somewhere in Alabama.
This guy named Mark Potok.
In fact, we just got a soundbite from this guy.
Grab somebody number 23.
Listen to this.
This is a classic example of a leftist, a leftist activist saying, Oh, yeah, oh yeah, you got the freedom to do what you want.
You got the freedom to say what you say, but you better beware that you are responsible for what happens to you, or some such thing.
Let's listen.
I couldn't agree more.
The First Amendment should be defended.
Free speech is a good thing.
It's integrable uh to democracy.
Uh, but Pam Geller uh and her organization uh is a hate group today, just as they were day before yesterday.
I think that is important to remember.
She really does specialize in this kind of events.
It seems to me it's rather similar to the Reverend Terry Jones burning Korans in Florida.
These are provocations that are aimed at stirring the pot, and it doesn't seem terribly surprising that uh, in fact, they get the response that, in a sense, they're seeking.
Yeah, they want to be shot at.
Right.
Yeah, they they're trying to provoke being shot at, you see.
They're provocative.
Freedom of speech, heck yes.
Use it all you want, but realize when you do that you are responsible for what happens to you.
Well, that doesn't work in a lot of other things.
I mean, in a rape case, try telling the woman, hey, you know, look at the way you were dressed.
Doesn't fly, does it?
Nor should it.
So here are people at convention.
Pam Geller, you'll hear her in a moment, soundbite's coming up.
She simply doesn't hate anybody.
She just doesn't want any part of Sharia law.
She doesn't want any part of Islamic extremism becoming mainstream in the United States.
You know, I I have a a question, folks.
I it's very simple question.
If Americans are to respect and obey the laws of Islam that say the drawing pictures of Muhammad is not permitted and should not be done.
And you deserve what you get if you do, then why wouldn't we have to respect or obey other things in Islam?
What is it about drawing cartoons of the prophet?
Why don't we respect Islam's punishment for gays and women?
Hmm.
I mean, if they're right, they're right, aren't they?
When do we follow and when do we not?
Saying what I say, saying what I believe and loving, hearing myself say it.
Rush Limbaugh behind the golden EIB microphone here at 800-282-2882.
This is getting interesting now.
I just checked uh news sources during the break.
Looks like some uh some leftist journalists are starting to get a little bit nervous about the case in Baltimore against the six cops.
Because it just happened on CNN, they just pointed out what I just pointed out to you.
That my gosh, this prosecutor got that autopsy report awful fast from the medical examiner.
Those things take weeks, sometimes months, and she got it in hours.
It seems like it's a little hasty, and they've got some lawyer explaining, yeah, this is a little fast.
I mean, autopsy can be done in four hours, but the rest of this, it takes a long time.
It's like the the grand jury investigations for the gentle giant, Eric Garner, three plus months in each case.
And with Marilyn Mosby, she did it here in a couple of hours, less than twenty-four, and they're starting to get worried.
I'm gonna tell you what they they have really done here.
If this case is thrown out, and there's a there's one troubling aspect here.
You know, the the left has its tentacles everywhere.
And as I read people like Dershowitz, I mean, he's absolutely right, don't misunderstand.
But when Dershowitz talks about the legal system and the law and judges, he is confident that the haste and the lack of evidence and the overcharging, all this quite naturally could be thrown out or severely reduced.
And that in order to think that, you have to believe that the legal system has not been corrupted.
And who believes that?
I mean, the left has corrupted everything.
The legal system does not stand alone as something untouched by Democrat Party liberal corruption.
It has been, certainly.
I don't think it's a slam dunk that local authorities in Baltimore could go along with this just like the state attorney did.
We'll just have to wait and see.
Now, if Dershowitz is right, however, and if the legal system is untainted and looks at this strictly on the basis of evidence in the law, then these charges either get thrown out or severely reduced.
The bottom line is this.
You go back to Ferguson, you look, the left lied to all those people, hands up, don't shoot, gentle giant minding his own business, murdered in cold blood, shot in the back by a racist white cop.
Not true, not a word of that's true.
Look at how many of them don't know that or don't believe that.
To this day.
Citizens in Ferguson, probably all over the country, think that the grand jury lied, that the prosecutor lied, that state attorney just DA, everybody involved lied, all because of racism.
This is what they've been conditioned to believe, is what they've been led to believe.
It's how they're raised to believing.
There's no evidence to support the lie, and yet people still do.
And when the grand jury indictments came down, there was more rioting, right?
Or when it didn't come down, when there were no indictments, when the gentle giant was not found to have been murdered, and the cop was not found to have killed him in cold blood.
Uh, and in fact was justified.
The town was on edge again, and the out-of-town rent a mob came in and tried to raise hell starting all.
You think the same thing is not going to happen in Baltimore?
I mean, the prosecutor goes out there, starts speaking as a member of the protest group, who happens to be the DA, the SA, she goes out and makes herself out to be one of them.
She starts talking the language of the cause, no justice, no peace.
I've heard your call.
I'm gonna do what I'm doing to satisfy you, the law to hell with the law, I'm gonna do what I do for justice, even if it isn't justice as defined by the legal system.
I'm gonna give you what you want.
That's what they heard.
I'm gonna give you what you want.
Just back off and give me time.
Don't riot anymore, back off, give me time, I'm gonna give you what you want.
Well, she can't make that promise, because the case now goes to court, at some point it will, and uh then anything can happen, as Dershowitz says.
What happens if there are no convictions or convictions to much lesser charges?
Or if the case is thrown out, you think Baltimore's not going to be a powder keg all over again?
And who's gonna be responsible for it?
That's right.
Civic leaders in Boston who have pretty much promised and assured, the agitators there that at the end of this they're gonna get what they want, if they even know what that is.
But the point is now, I just wanted to refer that there it's becoming obvious that some in the media, after a weekend to get real after their knee-jerk reaction of happiness and delight and thrills over the fact that the DA, the state's attorney, is invested in the cause rather than the legal system.
Now they've had time to cool off and they're looking at it and they're reading other people's opinions and they're starting to get worried that the case is weak.
Now, they are then, if that is true, that's what if what I see here actually is the case, then they're gonna do one of two things.
They're gonna try to distance themselves from the outcome, or they are going to double down and help the SA move her case with strategically applied media pressure to judges anybody that might be involved in this case.
It'll it won't take long for us to find out which way they're going to go.
Now, I want to go back to the shooting in Texas, and before we get to the Pam Geller sound bites, I've serious question here, folks.
A very serious question.
You just heard Mark Potok from something this hate organization called a Southern Poverty Law Center.
Make no mistake, that is a hate organization.
And their hatred is for anything not Democrat.
Their hatred is for anything, republican or conservative.
I wonder how the president's going to respond to the situation in Garland, Texas.
ISIS shooters show up because it is said they were provoked.
Pam Geller and her group, oh yeah, they can have a convention on drawing cartoons of the Prophet, but they are responsible for what happens.
If somebody pulls a gun out and shoots at them, it is their fault, not the perps, not the shooters, it's their fault.
Because Islam tells us you cannot draw pictures of the Prophet.
Okay, fine.
If Americans are to respect and obey the laws of Islam that prohibit the drawing of pictures of Muhammad, then why wouldn't Americans have to respect and obey Islam's laws and punishments regarding gays and women?
I mean, if it's that important to them, who are we to disagree?
If they say you can't draw pictures of the Prophet, and we say, you're right, we can't.
And anybody that does, why, they're gonna get what's coming to them.
Now you move over to other aspects of militant Islam, and we know what happens to homosexuals in Iran or any other Islamic country.
We know what happens to women.
Well, if we're gonna respect and obey the laws about drawing cartoons of the Prophet.
Don't we have to respect what Islam says about homosexuality and women?
I mean, I don't where do we draw the line and say, no, no, we can ignore that.
But it's picture business, nope, we gotta follow that to the letter of the law.
We've got to follow that to the letter of Islam.
We've got to follow that to the letter of our law.
But the gay and women thing, not so much.
Now, the President of the United States, uh, I wonder if anybody will say that he might have some involvement in this incident in Texas.
Because was it not President Obama who said something about yes, the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet?
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet.
That would be Pam Geller and her group.
So the president says the future must not belong, and the slander of the prophet is according to Islam, not me.
Militant Islam says drawing pictures of the Prophet Muhammad is slander.
It's criminal.
And Obama himself said the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet, i.e.
Pam Geller and her group.
So if the president, and he said that at the UN, he said it in a number of places, does that not sort of green light?
People in ISIS who want to take up arms and go after people whom they believe are slandering the prophet.
Could the president say this?
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet by allowing same-sex marriage.
You know militant Islam prohibits that.
When militant Islam prohibits the drawing of pictures of the Prophet, we snap to.
When militant Islam does not permit gay marriage or in fact homosexuality, are we gonna snap too and respect that?
What do you think?
Obviously not.
So why one and not the other?
How do we get to, how does the Democrats, how does Mark Potok of the hateful Southern Poverty Law Center get to pick and choose which parts of Islam are going to be respected, and which parts are going to be ignored?
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, Rush Limbaugh on a roll, brand new week, broadcast excellence here at the EIB Southern Command.
Another quick question.
Any city that experiences riots and has been predominantly governed by a single political party.
Perhaps that party should be disqualified from participating in short and long-term solutions.
What do you think of that?
We run that by you can have a reason for this.
Any city that experiences riots and has been predominantly governed by a single political party for years, decades, in fact, that party should be disqualified from participating in short and long-term solutions.
Now, why do I pose this question?
Because I remember President Obama on January 20th of this year, in explaining why he's doing his deal with Iran and why he's transforming America.
He said, When what you're doing hasn't worked for 50 years, it's time to try something new.
Well, as I see it, the way the Democrats have been trying to run Baltimore and Detroit, and you name it, anything else they run for the last 50 years is an absolute disaster area.
Maybe it's time to try something new.
And that would mean disqualifying those who have made the mess.
I know it's a rhetorical question, but to me it makes perfect sense.
And I'm simply following the guidance of our esteemed president.
When what you're doing hasn't worked for 50 years, it's time to try something new.
Sounds to me like that would be applicable to the situation in Baltimore.
Anyway, as I say more on that as the program unfolds.
Pamela Geller on with Alison Camarada today on CNN.
And the question, the point isn't that you don't have the uh the right to do what you did at this convention of uh cartoon contests about the Prophet Mohammed sure you can do that.
It just seems that you don't draw the distinction between extremism and violence and Islam as a whole.
You don't draw the distinction between civilized men and savages.
Because you're saying that if something I say offends someone, then they have the right to behave in a certain way, that it's going to incite them.
I think it's ridiculous.
I think the blasphemy laws under the sharia is ridiculous.
I think the people, the tens of thousands of people that are slaughtered under this law is monstrous.
And that's what you and I should be addressing.
It's an excellent point.
Just because I say something that offends somebody, they have a right to come shoot at me.
You think that they're justified?
It's my fault for inciting them.
So camarada and uh and Pam Geller continue on the same theme.
The problem comes when you paint with this broad brush, and when you say savages in the same sentence as Islam, it makes it sound as though you're calling Muslims savages.
And when he said when he makes these broad brushes, Allison, show me, show me where I use Muslim and savages.
One time in my entire life.
Show me now.
You just made an accusation.
Show me where I said that.
Well, you were just saying savages.
I said you did not draw a distinction between civilized men and savages.
Civilized men can disagree.
Savages will kill you when they disagree.
She's exactly right.
It's a it's a mistake for anybody to go up against this woman intellectually.
She's gonna have them tied in pretzel knots, particularly if they just deal in knee-jerk reactions like many half-informed journalists do.
By the way, just so you know, ISIS linked Twitter accounts claimed responsibility for the Texas shooting even moments before it happened.
ISIS linked Twitter accounts claim responsibility for shooting in Texas before it happened, and yet the media still trying to blame Pam Geller for being provocative.
▲
Export Selection