All Episodes
Previous Next
April 5, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:16
April 5, 2016, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, welcome back.
Great to have you, Rushlin Bob behind the golden EIB microphone 800 282-2882 if you want to be on the program and the email address.
Damn it.
L Rushbo at EIB Net.com.
One more thing about Obama.
I had this at the bottom of the stack today.
But since Obama has gone and intruded on this program and the intended plan today, and I'm I'm I'm not gonna give this guy much more leeway here, but he's out there asserting a bunch of garbage, and I had to nuke it.
You may not have heard this.
I just want to read this story as it's published in the Daily Caller.
The Obama administration released a warning yesterday telling the nation's landlords that it may be discriminatory for them to refuse to rent to people with criminal records.
In fact, the regime has told landlords they cannot refuse to rent to criminals.
Wait till you hear why.
The Fair Housing Act does not include criminals as a protected class, but the Department of Housing and Urban Development says refusing to rent to criminals because they have a criminal record is racial discrimination.
Because of the racial imbalance in the U.S. justice system.
Need I translate this.
I don't have to translate this.
Everybody knows what this is.
Okay, the translation of this is since the United States is inherently from its founding days, a bigoted racist enterprise that unfairly targets, purposely targets African Americans, and puts them in jail for not having violated the law.
You are gonna pay for it.
Because of the imbalance, because there are so many more as a percentage of the population, African Americans behind bars in America.
The fix for this is when they get out, you landlords, you can't refuse to rent to them because they have a criminal record.
Whatever it is, burglary, murder, vice, drugs, you name it, because the U.S. has been racist and bigoted from its founding days.
This has led to a bunch of unfair convictions of the innocent, and the way we're gonna pay for it is you can't say no when they want to rent a room in your building.
That's what it means.
Yep, that's exactly the presumption is that the great percentage of African American criminals are actually innocent.
They've been railroaded.
I mean, that's what the uh Reverend Jackson wants you to believe.
That's what Al Sharpton maintains, what Reverend Wright maintains.
They all maintain it.
The central point of the Central Rights Civil Rights Coalition is that there's a bunch of black men in jail that are really shouldn't be there because they're not guilty.
They've been railroaded by racist bigoted country founded that way.
Oh, I wish so many people had listened to me when I told everybody who this guy was back in 2009 and 2008.
So when a criminal shows up, he can brandish his criminal record and laugh at you and say, you have to rent for me or I can sue you.
That's where this is headed.
Based on race, because of the the presumed racist motivations that result in a racially imbalanced judicial system.
White criminals get to do it too.
I don't see in here where it says they don't.
But see, the presumption is that landlords would rent to white criminals anyway.
Because they're racists.
And so they don't care if a white criminal shows up.
Hey, buddy, how are you?
says the white landlord to the white criminal.
But let an African American criminal show up in the landlord.
I don't rent the criminals.
That's what Obama and his regime want you to believe happens out there.
That there's racial solidarity among the majority whites.
Even the criminals, the racists, the purse snatchers, and the muggers.
But but they do.
Obama thinks they're going to this is a if you've raised the corporate tax rate of 35%.
Yeah, he thinks corporations are going to sit there like idiots and pay it.
He damn well thinks that this is going to result in people being forced to rent a landlords.
And if they don't, he'll be more than happy to track them down and convict them of uh whatever and put them in jail and give them criminal records and then let them go through life, find out what it's like.
To have a criminal record, unjustly.
But what the foundation for this, folks, is not the belief.
The foundation is the certainty that most of the blacks in jail have been railroaded and don't belong there.
Most of the African Americans have no business being there.
They've been railroaded by an unjust, immoral, racist judicial system.
That's the only thing that can explain the disparity in prison populations, racial disparities.
The only thing bias, bigotry, racism, and judicial systems run by the equivalent of Sheriff Buford T. Justice.
That's what's so.
What do you mean the FBI keep the I don't care what the FBI keeps records?
Don't you understand where I'm coming from?
Whatever records exist, the premise here is that the records have been lied about.
The records have been made up.
There were false allegations, crimes that never happened that couldn't be proved.
African Americans were blamed and convicted anyway, and then put in jail.
And so they're in jail unfairly, so when they get out after having served their unfair, undeserved sentence, you can't tell them that they can't rent a room in your building because they are victims of unfair judicial system.
Obama administration released a warning yesterday, telling the nation's landslord landlords it will be discriminatory for them to refuse to rent to those with criminal records.
It's not a law yet.
They're using the Fair Housing Act.
Look, there is no law with this bunch.
That's the whole point.
I don't...
Damn it got into pedophiles here.
I didn't read it.
There's nothing in here about pedophiles.
If if pedophilia ever becomes a racial thing, look out.
Mark, mark my words.
So as I say, I had this near the bottom of the stack today.
But since Obama has inserted himself in today's program with the silliness of his on this corporate inversion and whatever, I thought it would be timely to mention that story involving Obama as well.
You know, it actually serves a purpose.
This is why this campaign's going on.
This is the kind of stuff that we have to beat.
This is the kind of people that do this kind of thing, think this way, and then get the power to implement this kind of outrageous stuff.
These are the people need to be beaten.
This is the kind of stuff, folks.
Look at the Republican establishment's not going to say a word about this.
I will guarantee them to you, the Republican establishment hasn't said a word about anything like this that Obama has done in the last seven years.
They've been afraid to.
Because they will be called racist, or whatever the media will say about them for being critical of our first African American president.
This is why this Quinope Act poll.
You want me to go through this again.
People still wondering what the hell's going on with a Republican campaign.
How can it be so constituted?
Let me just tell you.
Quinope Act talked to what is what are the numbers here in these uh actual number of people talked to.
Was conducted March 16th through 21.
Margin of error plus or minus two and a half percent.
Quinnipiac University poll director Douglas Schwartz doesn't give us a number of participants that I see here, but there has to be, and we'll find it.
But anyway, here you go again.
They ask people for their opinions on these following premises.
Premises number one, America has lost its identity.
57% strongly agree, or somewhat agree.
Forty-three percent disagree.
America has lost its identity.
79% of Republicans agree, 85% of Trump supporters agree.
The next premise, beliefs and values.
American beliefs and values are under attack.
62% of everybody agrees.
91% Trump supporters agree, 85% of Republicans agree, 40% of Democrats.
What you're going to find here is the Democrats are hunky-dory with everything going on here.
Very few of them have a problem with what's going on.
And on the Republican side, it's a massive number of people that disagree.
Next premise: we need a leader willing to say or do anything to solve America's problems.
53% of all voters agree.
68% of Republicans agree.
84% of Trump supporters agree.
Okay.
The old way of doing things no longer works.
We need radical change.
64% of all voters agree.
Even 58% of Democrats.
71% of Republicans agree, 83% of Trump supporters agree.
Public officials don't care much what people like me think.
The next premise.
Even 68% of Democrats do.
84% of all Republicans and 90% of Trump supporters agree that public officials don't care much what people like me think.
Next premise, leaders don't worry about what other people say.
They follow their own path.
56% agree, 65% of all Republicans, 74% of all Trump supporters.
I am falling further and further behind economically.
the next premise.
57% all voters agree, 67% are Republicans, 78% of Trump supporters.
This goes a long way in explaining why the establishments of both parties are finding themselves in dire straits with so many people abandoning them because while all of this has gone
on, the establishments of both parties haven't seemed to even notice anything.
Much less care.
Pab Buchanan has a column today, What Trump has wrought.
Give some highlights.
As Wisconsinites head for the polls, Beltway elites are almost giddy because they foresee a Wisconsin bashing for Trump, breaking his momentum.
Should Trump fall short of the delegates needed to win on the first ballot, there's growing certitude that he'll be stopped.
First by Ted Cruz, then perhaps by somebody acceptable to the establishment, which always likes to have two of its own in the race.
But this city of self-delusion, meaning Washington, should realize there is no going back for America.
For whatever his stumbles of the last couple of weeks, Trump has helped to unleash the mightiest force of the 21st century, nationalism.
Traditionalism and globalism are moribund.
First among the issues on which Trump has triumphed, we will build the wall, and Mexico will pay for it, is border security.
Republican candidates who failed to parrot Trump on illegal immigration were among the first casualties in the primaries.
For that is where America is, and that is where the West is.
Consider Europe.
Listen to these next paragraphs here, folks.
They're short.
Consider Europe.
Four months ago, Angela Merkel was Times person of the year for throwing open the gates to the huddled masses of the Middle East and the Near East.
But Merkel's Germany is now leading the European Union and amassing a huge bribe to the Turks to take them back, to keep them away from the Greek islands that are now Islam's Ellis Island into Europe.
And he's right about that.
Angela Merkel, Times magazine Time Magazine's woman of the year, she opened the gates, let everybody in bragging, 800,000 a year, labor force now, she doesn't want any more in and is begging people to take them back.
Africa's population will double to two and a half billion by 2050.
With sixty percent of Africans now under 25 years of age, millions of them will find their way to the Mediterranean to cross to the old continent where Europeans are aging, shrinking, and dying.
Look for gunboats on the Mediterranean to keep them out.
If immigration is the first issue where Trump connected, the second is trade, and he goes on to.
Trump loses that the genie's out of the bottle, and we're not going back.
America will not go back to an establishment run country that continues to deteriorate, lose its exceptionalism, and become just one of many global nations that is mediocre on its best days.
He said, that's over with.
And I don't know about that.
I don't think the establishment's going to give up.
And I don't think the establishment cares about public opinion.
And if the establishment can beat back candidates that represent all of this change, they will have stopped it.
If people say, fine, I'm not voting, the establishment will be fine, but people not voting if their candidates win.
And folks, don't forget something else.
They're all of these, you know, conservatism is not a monolith.
Liberalism is, in a way, conservatism isn't.
I beg you recall my opening monologue today.
There's many in the so-called conservative movement who would not mind at all the establishment maintaining control of things.
They wouldn't even mind Hillary Clinton being elected.
It would give them a sense of purpose.
To fundraise, to promise people they would stop what's happening.
So there's all kinds of people with all kinds of reasons for different outcomes here.
But just because there's been this eruption in this campaign against the establishment, I don't think it means the establishment thinks the genie's out of the bottle and they've lost control forever.
They're not going to go that easily.
We will be back.
Your calls are coming up next.
Well, look at this cookie just found a soundbite of Maud Behar back on uh December 8th, 200, 2007, agreeing with my statement about Hillary.
I guess Maud has forgotten she once agreed with me because yesterday on the view, she uh raked me over the cold.
That's coming up, but first we got to get to the phones here.
And we start in Findlay, Ohio.
This is Randy.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Good to talk to you.
Same here, sir.
Um you were taught you started out the program today talking about uh Trump and the money transfers from the United States.
And my question was, how is that legal or constitutional?
Have you ever heard of the Patriot Act?
Yes.
Well, Patriot Act pretty much offers this umbrella of national security, and all Trump would have to go do is go to Congress, go to a FISA court.
Uh he's he said that he he would uh threaten to change this rule that would make this legal under the Patriot Act um anti-terrorism law to cut off a portion of the funds sent to Mexico dur about uh during these uh money transfers.
Commonly known as remittances.
So that's how he would do it.
Okay, well, I send money to Mexico.
And I'm a citizen.
I'm not an illegal alien.
I'm an American citizen.
And how is that I guess what I'm wanting to know is does he or his supporters have any concept of freedom anymore?
Uh in other words, if it's a good thing.
What is money?
I think you're you're putting me uh you're making me you're asking questions I have to answer here.
When I answer the question, you're gonna get mad at me.
The premise here is Trump, everybody's claiming Trump's lying.
He can't make Mexico pay for the wall.
Mexico's not gonna pay for the wall.
Trump, you Trump supporters, you better understand if he's lying to you.
So Trump, by the way, this plan has been on Trump's website forever.
The drive-by's just discovered it.
And I know about things on websites that people don't read.
My own is a great example.
But this is not a new plan.
This plan's been up there.
It's just Bob Woodward happened to come across it.
Whoa, he said, what's this?
So he's had it explained to him.
And the idea is for Mexico to relent and pay for the wall so that the transfers take place.
Okay.
That's there.
You have it.
That's the objective.
Done deal.
And we're back.
El Rushbo, serving humanity, simply by showing up here, half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
By the way, uh, Randy Fenlay, Ohio, if you're still out there, the U.S. has stopped remittances before.
This is not something that Trump just crazily snatched out of thin air.
It happens frequently.
As recently as February, U.S. banks stopped servicing the accounts used by money transfer operators in Somalia.
The U.S. government has successfully seized money in the accounts of criminals who smuggle illegal immigrants across the border.
There's all sorts of things on this score like asset forfeiture.
From our buddies over at National Review.
In the early 2000s, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard and other state authorities suspected Mexican crimes syndicates removing money through Western Union wire transfers, and they sought to seize the money in Western Union accounts.
The figures were mind-boggling.
According to the prosecutor's testimony, $500 million a year in Western Union payments from Arizona alone.
Two and a half billion a year in payments for people smuggling overall.
And we have stopped remittances before.
There's another thing you can do.
You wouldn't even have to seize the remittances.
You could just tax them.
You could pull an Obama and you could impose a massively high tax rate.
You could do that legally too.
Simply set up a tax rate on wired money transfers out of the country to a specific place like Mexico.
Hey, if you can tell a landlord that he's got to rent to a by the way, you know what that's really all about, folks?
It's never just about what it seems.
It's not about evening the racial score.
Do you know what this is really all about?
You have a landlord refuses to rent to a criminal.
Obama says, no, no, no, you have to, because our racial justice system has been so imbalanced, you're guilty of racism when you refuse to rent.
You know what it's really all about is seizing your property.
What do you think the penalty's gonna be to landlords that fail to follow Obama's dictates?
And uh rent rooms to criminals.
You don't think they're gonna be able to come in and make the play for your land for your property for absconding it, claiming that you are misusing it, what have you.
And one thing about authoritarian figures, private this, private that, they don't like any of private property, private guns.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
The more they can take away from you, including your private this or your free speech, or what have you.
This is who these people are, folks.
Don't blame me.
This is who they are.
Okay, look, let me get starting the audio soundbites.
If you're on hold on the phone, hang in.
We're coming right back to you, but I've got to do this.
I'm trying to figure out what would be the most effective order in playing these.
Tell you what let's do.
Let's play soundbite number one, and we'll go to 26.
And maybe hit number two after that.
But here is this morning, on the view, co-host, Joy Behar talking about perceived sex.
You know, I tell you what's happening here.
You know, Trump has begun alluding to how he's gonna criticize Hillary.
So the left is popping up, and they are going to say that criticizing Hillary is not permitted.
That will be either sexism or misogyny.
Just like you couldn't criticize Obama.
First African American president, that's racism to criticize him.
Hillary, theoretically, president, first female, any criticism, sexist.
This is how they're gonna shut it down.
They're already starting on this.
And this was predictable, by the way.
And after they do Hillary, then they'll try to nominate the first Hispanic.
And the same thing.
You can't criticize the president.
He's the first Hispanic, and that's racism if you do.
It's their modus operandi.
So that's what this is essentially all about.
And here's here's Joy Behar with her comment on something.
Just read you a couple of things I found about Hillary Clinton.
This is from Rush Limbaugh.
He says, Will Americans want to watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?
That's Rush Limbaugh.
Right.
Okay.
Sh that's this morning on the view.
Let's go back.
Same program.
December 18th, 2007, Whoopi Goldberg, Baba Wawa, and Joy Behar.
Rush Limbaugh was on the radio as he always is.
And he was commenting on whether we want to watch a woman aging in the White House.
He explained he knew that it was going to get into trouble for the comment, but said, I'm talking about the evolution of American culture here.
Not so much Mrs. Clinton.
He also said that presidents age rapidly and added, a woman is not going to want to look like she's getting older because it will impact poll numbers.
And politics perceptions are reality, so there will have to be steps taken to avoid the appearance of aging.
And a woman does not.
That's the difference.
Except that I think that he has a point in that people's looks impact the election.
Oh, wait a minute.
Back in 2007, Joy Behar said, but wait, I think he has a point in that people's look.
And Whoopi tried to put this in context as best as she's equipped to.
She's right.
I wasn't specifically talking about Hillary.
I was talking about America.
Hillary was under assault.
It was during uh the campaign, the primary campaign, 2007.
Operation Chaos had not yet begun.
Obama had just been picked to run, you know, Hillary thought it was her nomination.
Obama had just shown up, and there were all kinds of Democrat insults at Hillary, and people were floating things and publishing pictures of her getting older.
And I ran in there and in a way started defending Hillary Clinton and turned it into a discussion of gee, how unfair is American culture to aging women.
And they all understood that back in 2007.
But Maud apparently, that's too far ago for her to remember.
So now yesterday this morning they take one line out of it that I and they apply a meaning to it that I never said or intended.
They just don't remember.
They do not remember back in 2007 agreeing with me about this.
But we did.
And now you know the absolute truth.
That brain dead audience watching the show won't know.
They'll walk out of there, or they did walk out of there thinking, ooh, man, ooh, ooh, ooh, it's horrible.
Well, I know.
See, that's the thing.
I mean, if you want to talk about women aging in public on TV, just look at the view.
I mean, it kind of speaks for itself here.
But they'll have fun with this tomorrow.
Uh let's see.
Audio sounds number two.
Neil Cavuto yesterday on his coast to coast show, the Fox Business Network, was stick speaking to Tom Sullivan, who worked with me at KFBK Sacramento.
He's now a uh talk host of the Fox Radio Network, and he's a business analyst at the Fox Business Network.
And they were talking uh about Behar's comment that she thinks Trump is the most dangerous man alive.
So this is this is Cavuto and Tom Sullivan from yesterday afternoon The Fox Business Network.
She's talking about Donald Trump.
You know, which is a good point.
It usually is a talk show host.
Our buddy Rush Limbaugh, for example, has been the most dangerous man in America for a decade or two.
So I mean it's just now there's a leadership swap.
Yes, and it's certainly no news flash to me.
I mean, of course she thinks that anybody who doesn't agree with her point of view is the most dangerous person.
I think it's interesting to hear other people's views.
I don't find them dangerous, I find them interesting.
But for some reason, Joyce Behar and people like her are afraid to hear another view.
That's exactly right.
That's why we have safe zones on campus now where you won't have to hear anybody who disagrees with anything you believe.
I mean, but that's where the left is.
That's where they've been going for a while and where they are.
There's no free speech.
There is what they think and what they say, and that's it.
And if you don't say and think what they do, they will find a way to shut you up.
So Trump's the most dangerous man in America now, where I used to be.
I'll get it back, folks.
Don't worry.
Coco, I tell you what I want you to do.
I want you to go back and grab the transcripts from the website on December 17th of 2007.
And that rather than read to you what I said, then just go read it when you have a chance.
We'll link it on the free side.
And it was I was bouncing off an unflattering picture of Hillary that was on a drudge report.
And I launched in it was headlined the toll of a campaign.
And I launched into my analysis of it as far as you know what it means about American culture, uh, where we're headed in that regard for you know the possibility.
She was running for president then.
Female president, what's it gonna mean?
Meaning uh people are devoted to the looks of other people on TV and and uh how they form opinions.
It was not a an attack on Mrs. Clinton in any way, Shea Man or Form was actually a defense of her.
Well, you read it and you'll see.
You're smart enough to read between the lines for what was really going on there.
Because I want to move on here, but if Coco will link that, you'll see exactly what it was all about.
Because there I I guarantee you that's now been resurfaced by the left to dump me into this mix, war on women attacking somebody's looks and so forth, when these people forget the things they've said about Margaret Thatcher, for example.
I mean, these people on the left make fun of the way people look all the time.
It's always a two-way street.
Anyway, I went to stick back in the phones here with Chris in Pleasanton, California.
Great to have you on the program, and I really appreciate your patience.
Hello.
Yeah, hi Rush.
I'm Megadetto.
Thank you, sir.
Uh I was watching uh Dr. Charles Krauthammer on uh Fox last night, and he was saying in no uncertain terms that Trump has absolutely no chance if he makes it to the general election.
Um he was even saying it'll be worse than Goldwater in 64.
And his reasoning uh in part was there's so many negatives about him, and and he basically will have no opportunity to modify his tone and and change his tactics.
And the reason is because there's such a thing as he put it as recordings and video tape.
And I'm watching this and I'm screaming at the at the television.
Well, we got recordings of videotape of pundits like you for the last six months being wrong daily, weekly, uh, same thing.
We can go back and look so he has no shame or no recognition of that fact.
It's it's very uh it's very irritating.
Well, now wait just a second.
Just one minor correction, Dr. Kouthammer did acknowledge last week that about something very crucial on Trump, he was wrong and been wrong.
And he did, I think he actually even used the word apologize for laughing all along at Trump.
He he he was of the belief that Trump would never be taken seriously, would never mount to anything what whatever it was, and he acknowledged last week that he'd been wrong about it.
So he knows you're right that there's videotape evidence of all these pundits, too, in addition to videotape evidence of candidates.
The theory is that Trump's negatives are so high that there's no amount of acting presidential he can do to reverse them.
The conventional wisdom, remember, it's what establishment types here, Chris, and they believe polling data is the closest thing to the Bible, and in many cases it is the Bible.
So if in polling data your unfavorables with women are, say, 60 percent, you're done.
Stick a fork in you.
There's no reversing that.
You can't win anything, no matter how much avid support you've got, you got that much negative, you can't convert that to votes.
Those are votes automatically for other people.
That's what they think.
Instant death.
You you you can't have unfavorables any higher than 40 and win anything.
And that's at the outside.
You they they want unfavorables around 2025 max.
Anything higher than that in your toast in their world.
Don't you think the whole issue is a bit of a red herring?
Uh like I saw I saw Carl Rowe, I think it was last week as well.
Uh, he was saying the reason he's not in favor of Trump, same thing, he has no chance.
But if you think about it, his idea of maybe somebody coming in from the outside and a white knight, you know, somebody that didn't even run in the primaries, is if that person would have a chance.
I I don't think they're even bringing this up.
I don't think they really believe this.
My greatest fear is like you said earlier, so some so many of these really are okay with somebody like uh Hillary Winnie.
There you go.
And I don't know.
That's something don't ever forget that.
I I don't know how big a percentage of the quote unquote Republican or conservative uh establishment population is of that view, but it's it's it's significant enough that it's not news.
I mean, they will gladly lose a presidential.
Remember, these people don't think the country's in crisis to begin with.
So they don't look at the circumstances in the country like your average Trump voter does, your average cruise voter does.
We all think that we're in a crisis, and if we don't stop where we're going, the country is founded ceases to exist, and it could be this election.
They don't think anything like that.
Chris, they don't at all to them this is just the evolutionary period where the Democrats are in the White House and their turn is coming.
But beyond that, they're doing great.
They're all earning a lot of money, their homes are all nice, the unemployment rate where they live is around three percent.
Everything's fine.
They don't see or sense a crisis.
And when people do, they think those people are stupid.
They think those people are reactionary, in you know, not balanced or what have you.
So if you start out thinking we're not in a crisis, and your primary objective is to protect what you've got, and if that means Hillary has to win the next election, then so be it.
Well, that's a it's a scary thing to me.
But I think that I th I think there's so much in this campaign cycle, we've already had I can I can't count the number of so-called you can't get away with that.
That have that have happened and and people have continue to do well.
I think the number of campaign violations that are considered to be instant death for any candidate.
The candidates have survived all kinds of things.
My point is that I think some of the ways that establishment types analyze elections are not going to work in this cycle.
You've got, for example, let's talk about Trump's negatives with women, whatever they are.
They're over fifty, right?
55%, whatever it is.
I guarantee you that Trump camp thinks they can win despite that.
They're not at all deterred by it.
And there are a number of other people that think that I I think some of the establishment types even think Trump can win.
It's why they're panicking.
I think enough of them realize that some of the old rules here are just out the window in this campaign.
Trump wasn't supposed to survive opening day in their world.
His opening announcement should have nailed his campaign right there.
Should have been the last coffin nail.
And then every subsequent remark they can't believe he survived.
So all these things they use to tell you who's gonna win, who can't win, I think it's all out the window in this in this particular season.
We'll see.
You know, when you're talking about female negatives, I mean, look at Hillary's.
Hillary's negatives with women are just as high as Trump's are, and nobody over there is talking about how it dooms her candidacy.
Go figure that out.
How come it doesn't apply to her?
She ought to be as disqualified as they all say Trump is.
Anyway, another big hour to go, folks.
▲
Export Selection