All Episodes
Previous Next
April 21, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:17
April 21, 2016, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
Great to have you here.
It's Rush Limbaugh behind the Golden EIB microphone.
There's only two of these.
I have both.
One is here, and one travels wherever we happen to go.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program in the email address today, lrushbo at EIBnet.com.
I'm out tomorrow.
Therefore, we're going to do Open Line Friday today.
We call it Open Line Friday on Thursday.
And we're going to, well, we're not going to expand the universe of permissible calls, but I'm just going to include in the possibility that many of you just want to have at me.
I know it.
I can, the people that do get through here, I know you're holding back.
You're trying to be polite.
After all, we have a 27-year relationship here, but some of you, I know, you really want to unload and you're holding back.
And I just want to let you, if you want to unload, if you want to take the occasion of this opportunity here to let me know exactly what you think I'm doing that's screwing things up or on the other side, if you think something's praiseworthy, have at it.
But in addition to the normal and usual invitation to talk about things that don't have anything to do with politics, that's what Open Line Friday is all about.
Whatever you want to talk about is what we strive for.
So again, the telephone number, 800-282-2882, the email address, lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
Donald Trump confounding his supporters today and confounding many in the drive-by media.
Donald Trump in his acceptance remarks after the New York primary referred to Senator Cruz a couple of times, did not refer to him as Lion Ted.
And this prompted many in the drive-by media to applaud the Trumpster for now making the transition to presidential candidate a more serious and respectful demeanor.
And gone is the off-the-cuff, politically incorrect insults and barbs.
Except it didn't last.
Here is the Trumpster in Indianapolis at a campaign event yesterday.
In the case of Lion Ted Cruz, Lion Ted lies.
Oh, he lies.
You know, Ted, he brings the Bible, holds it high, puts it down, lies.
You know, Bernie's gone.
You know that, don't you?
Bernie's gone.
I love running against crooked Hillary.
I love that.
I've been so much fun.
Better, better.
Bernie wouldn't be as much fun.
Yes, if Bernie's gone, he can't wait to run against Crooked Hillary and Lion Ted.
Lion Ted just keeps lying.
He holds up the Bible.
He puts it down and he lies.
Lion Ted.
The drive-bys are beside themselves.
They can't figure it out.
The softer side of Donald Trump, all of that is out the window.
We're back to Trump being Trump, referring to Ted Cruz as Lion Ted.
Reverted to his nasty side when referring to top rival Ted Cruz.
Today's back to his attacks on Cruz, calling him Lion Ted.
Just when we thought Donald Trump was trying to act more presidential, he was back with his classic attacks.
That moderation did not last through today.
He's all sharp elbows and Lion Ted.
Today, Donald Trump's calling him Lion Ted Cruz by the middle of the afternoon.
Today, he's back to calling him Lion Ted.
Look who's back.
He's back to using Lion Ted.
We're all the way back, and we'll be at Scummy Ted in a week.
Scummy Ted, that's Chris Steyerwald at Fox News.
Lion Ted will become Scummy Ted.
But the point is, gone is Senator Cruz.
But we just getting warmed up here on the new Donald Trump.
This is the Today Show this morning.
They had a town hall event with Trump.
And during the Q ⁇ A with the audience, a woman stood up and said, my relative is a natural born American in the military.
His father and stepmother are undocumented people here in the U.S. for the last 25 years without any way of adjusting their status.
Means they're illegal immigrants or undocumented.
There's no way to change their status.
Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, if you're president, what will you do for those members that are the fabric of our country?
I.e., what are you going to do, Mr. Trump, for the illegal aliens and the undocumented who are the fabric of our country that have been here for 25 years undocumented?
What are you going to do for them?
Look, we're either going to have a country or we're not going to have a country.
But many people are very fine people, and I'm sure these are very, very fine people.
They're going to go, and we're going to create a path where we can get them into this country legally, okay?
But it has to be done legally.
We don't have a country.
They're going to be, and they're going to come back and they're going to come back legally.
We have some wonderful people.
It's too tough to say you'll never come back again.
They're coming back, but they're coming back into our country legally.
Okay, so now this is really nothing new.
This has always been what Trump has said he's going to do with this.
He's going to deport them and then bring them back legally.
They're going to come back legally.
They got to go.
They got to go.
But they're going to come back legally.
And when they come back legally, then everything is going to be fine.
But we don't have a country.
We don't have a country.
He doesn't have borders.
We don't have a country if this stuff doesn't stop.
So we're going to send them back.
We are going to deport them.
They got to go.
They got to go.
But then we're going to bring them back legally.
But it wasn't through, ladies and gentlemen.
Correspondent Willie Geist read a Twitter question.
Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, please be specific.
Tell us your views on lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders, and how you plan to be inclusive as president and speak about the North Carolina bathroom law in particular.
North Carolina did something that was very strong, and they're paying a big price, and there's a lot of problems.
Leave it the way it is.
North Carolina, what they're going through with all of the business that's leaving and all of the strife, and that's on both sides.
You leave it the way it is.
There have been very few complaints the way it is.
People go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate.
So if Caitlin Jenner were to walk into Trump Tower and want to use the bathroom, you would be fine with her using any bathroom she chooses.
That is correct.
Okay, so Trump is all in for LGBT people using whatever bathroom they feel like using that day, that year, that hour, whenever, however they decide to present, however they feel, whatever they think they are at that moment, he's got no problem with Caitlin Jenner.
That may not be the best example because Caitlin Jenner is a celebrity.
Trump likes celebrities, but just your average, ordinary, unknown 25-year-old guy wants to go into the women's restroom with a four-year-old he met on the playground.
I got no problem.
What Trump's answer seems to indicate here is that what North Carolina is doing is bad because it's causing harm for businesses.
And that's not good.
We can't be doing things that's going to hurt business.
We can't do things that are going to cause businesses to leave and all of the strife.
So he says, just leave it the way it is, meaning whoever wants to use whatever bathroom is fine.
And then there was this.
Do you believe in raising taxes on the wealthy?
I do.
I do, including myself.
I do.
Well, so we've got a trifecta here, folks.
We have a pathway to citizenship.
In one town hall meeting on the Today Show Today, we have a trifecta.
We've got a pathway to citizenship spelled out.
We have no problem whatsoever with fact, North Carolina and Georgia and all these states should not be doing what they're doing.
People want to use whatever bathroom is fine.
It isn't a problem.
People should be able to use whatever bathroom they want.
And raising taxes on the, yes, absolutely raise taxes on the rich.
Now, interestingly, ladies and gentlemen, there's also this from the Wall Street Journal, a headline: Donald Trump plans to adopt more traditional campaign tactics.
It says his campaign is evolving.
Coming soon are policy addresses, teleprompters, and a speechwriter.
And all of this is being chalked up to the hire he made, a guy named Paul Manafort, the convention manager for Trump's.
By the way, you know what we've just learned?
Paul Manafort, who's now essentially, he elbowed Corey Lewandowski out of the way there, and he's now running things for Trump.
He has a business with a guy named Charlie Black, who is a well-known Republican establishment figure.
I mean, well-known.
Charlie Black may be.
I mean, if you wanted to put a picture of the Republican establishment, a dictionary, his would be in it.
And Charlie Black is running the Kasich campaign.
And Charlie Black and Trump's guy are business partners.
And this has led to some interesting speculation.
Why is Kasich still staying in this thing?
What in the world is going on?
It only helps Trump if he stays in.
And then there's this scuttlebutt, the whispers and the that Kasich is hanging around to be VP.
We find out that Charlie Black running Kasich and Manafort running Trump are business partners, which means they're, well, I mean, you have to assume that they're friends.
So one of the big attractions to Trump has been the Lion Ted stuff, the off-the-wall off-a-cuff anti-political correctness stuff.
There's another thing here, folks.
Ed Morrissey has a post that's at Hot Air.
Trump handing the campaign keys to lobbyists.
Politico's Ken Vogel reported last night the shift from Lewandowski to Manafort has changed more than just personnel.
It has brought the Trump campaign under control of lobbyists.
That's what Charlie Black is, by the way, and that's what Manafort is.
It has brought the Trump campaign under control of lobbyists, an industry Trump explicitly derided earlier in the primary cycle.
And then there's one more.
You know, this quote-unquote controversy over the $20 bill.
Obama and his buddies want to take Andrew Jackson off of there and put Harriet Tubman on it.
And Trump has, in a reflexive, automatic way, come out and express his opposition to this.
Do you think he knows who Harriet Tubman is, Mr. Snerdley?
Let me just ask you point blank.
Don't mean to be putting you on the spot, but do you think he knows who Harriet Trump?
Do you think that he knows Harriet Tubman, if she were alive today, would be one of the biggest advocates of the Second Amendment?
That's what I'm saying.
No, she would be.
I'm asking, does he know that Harriet Tubman was a Republican?
Harriet Tubman, of course, ran an operation to help slaves escape the South.
She's a renowned figure in American history.
She was a Republican because back then the Republican Party was the party anti-slavery.
And nothing ever changed other than the Democrats co-op.
The Democrats have always been the party of slavery.
They were always the party of Jim Crumb.
The party of the Ku Klux Klan was the Democrat Party military branch.
The Democrats, Lester Maddox, George Wallace, all these guys in the South, these segregationists, J. William Fulbright, they were the segregationists.
They were the racists.
Harriet Tubman was a Republican.
But Trump has said, yeah, I don't like getting rid of Andrew Jackson.
This is political correctness.
We're getting rid of Andrew Jackson, putting a woman on there.
Those are not his words.
Those are, I'm paraphrasing.
Andrew Jackson, you know, a lot of people look at Trump as a modern-day incarnation of Andrew Jackson because he was thought off to be an outsider.
But there's something that Andrew Jackson is known for that if you did not benefit from the proper or not proper, if you haven't received a good American history instruction in your life, then there's something you may not know about Andrew Jackson.
Andrew Jackson wasn't just a figure and a Democrat.
He was a hugely controversial figure in the United States.
He sponsored what was called the Indian Removal Act.
The Indian Removal Act by Andrew Jackson paved the way for the tragedy known as the Trail of Tears.
You know what Trail of Tears...
Have you...
Okay, you've heard of the Trail of Tears.
The Trail of Tears was a Literally a march, Native Americans and Indians being forcibly removed from their ancestral lands and having to proceed by foot to their relocation area.
10,000 of them died on the way.
That's why it's called a trail of tears.
That's Andrew Jackson.
So it's Obama that wants to change all these.
He is a slaver on top of that true.
But it's Obama that wants to change the identity of people on the $5.
The Hamilton got saved because of the musical.
They're going to get rid of Alexander Hamilton because they had a hip-hop musical.
You can't take him off the $10 bill now, so he's still there.
So the $20 bill, Andrew Jackson is going to go with Harriet Tubman, but Trump just reflexively came out and opposed it.
And that also raised some eyebrows because then the question is obviously, did Trump do this because he needs to continue to appear to be anti-political correct?
And that means opposing everything the establishment wants to do, even with pictures of people on the $20 billion.
He does not know any of this stuff.
And time will tell.
It's going to be real interesting to see the reaction, if any, to his remarks on no problem with LGBT bathrooms.
I mean, if you think you're a woman at 2 o'clock this afternoon and want to use the ladies' room, have at it.
If you're really a guy, it doesn't matter.
If you like a woman, go in.
No problem.
We'll see if there's any blowback on that.
Trail of Tears.
You know, where I grew up, Cape Girardo, Missouri, there is a state park because where I grew up is not far from where the Trail of Tears actually was.
And the name of the park is Trail of Tears State Park.
It's where I went camping.
I got the Gold Brick Award.
It was my first Cub Scout Boy Scout camping trip.
Got the Gold Brick for not doing anything, but sitting around waiting for the camp out to end.
But we all called it Trail of Lumps because usually that's where your girlfriend broke up with you when you went out there to park.
You got the bad news.
Trail of lumps is what we all call it growing up.
This question that Trump got from an audience member at the NBC Town Hall today on LGBT Trump's answer was the politically correct position.
You understand?
Folks, this is worth a serious examination.
What's happening in our culture?
Some people think the culture wars are underway.
Others think that we've lost them.
And there's a fascinating piece today.
It's going to require a tremendous amount of effort on my part to translate this and explain it because it's written for a very, very highbrow audience with all kinds of terms in it that nobody knows the definitions of, like transgressive free speechism and niche in and waiting for Prometheus to show up.
But I'm going to wade through this because it's got a fascinating premise.
And the premise is that the reason we are losing the culture war is that the left in fighting the culture war has been using the free market and capitalism to do it.
And the upshot of it is, if I've got this right, the upshot of it is that objective truth and fact and substance are irrelevant now in determining how people decide what behaviors they're going to engage in, what behaviors they're going to support and oppose.
And instead, for lack of a better term, and it's more complicated than this, all right?
It's a little bit more detailed than this.
But instead, it's been theoretically here boiled down to a question of what is considered modern and hip or cool.
Although that doesn't quite cover it, it's a starter point to kind of get you locked in and intrigued on it.
But as I say, I'm going to spend some more time on it today translating this piece for you.
As I say, it's in the federalist.com.
And the LGBT question fits right in with this theory.
I mean, there's no way under the sun that one-tenth of 1% of the population engaging in behavior that Nobody 10 years ago, five years ago would ever ascribe as laudatory is now all of a sudden, not only is it accepted, you must love it.
You must support it.
And it is politically correct to support it.
And that happens to be the position Trump has taken.
Here's this guy running anti-political, correct.
This is his stance, and he's just following right along here.
Ha!
How are you?
Great to have you back here, folks.
They screw something a little tighter here in the microphone, boom.
There we go.
It's your guiding light, El Rushball, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Just to get this Andrew Jackson-Harriet Tubman thing up, so I want to move into this LGBT business.
This is this is a great teachable moment, a great learning opportunity.
And I'm not going to wait till later in the program to try to make something complex here understandable.
I'm going to just, I'm going to jump right into it here in just a second.
But here, I want to play for you what Trump said at the town hall event on this change of face on the $20 bill.
It was Matt Wauer who said: now, as you've seen, Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, Harriet Tubman will replace Andrew Jackson on a $20 bill.
Now, you have so often during this campaign, you've railed against political correctness.
Do you see this as a move that is all about political correctness, or is this a move that is simply way overdue?
Well, Andrew Jackson had a great history, and I think it's very rough when you take somebody off the bill.
Andrew Jackson had a history of tremendous success for the country.
And I think Harriet Tubman is fantastic.
I would love to leave Andrew Jackson and see if we can maybe come up with another denomination.
Maybe we do the $2 bill or we do another bill.
I don't like seeing it.
Yes, I think it's pure political correctness.
Well, see, that would be, I don't want to call it a knee-jerk, but that would be an understandable reaction.
Here you have Barack Hussein O in the Democrat Party making all these moves, and you can't look at it as an isolated move.
You have to look at everything Obama's doing as part of his agenda.
Now, here's Obama attacking the currency.
I mean, one of the things that people who are paying attention realize is that the entire Obama presidency has been an assault on America as founded and has been all about transforming America into something she would never founded to be.
Because Obama and people like him believe this country is illegitimate, immoral.
It was unjust as founded.
And he and his Alinskyite brethren have come along and have decided that it's time for this country to get a little payback.
It's time for this country and its majority to find out just what kind of pain and suffering they have forced on people of color, for example, and other minorities, not just in this country, but around the world.
And that's why Obama constantly apologizes for America and why he's doing his best to uproot all of these great traditions, why he supports uprooting traditions and institutions that have defined the country.
So if you think that about Obama and then you see one day that he wants to change faces on the bills, your reflexive reaction would be, got to disagree with Obama.
I mean, that's just a reflexive action you would take.
And you would assume that Obama, because he's a Democrat, that's the home of political correctness.
So you would just reflexively assume, if that's what you're doing, acting reflexively, rather than taking each of these instances of the Obama agenda and actually thinking about them, if you just react reflexively, of course you would assume, I oppose this.
I oppose what Obama's doing.
Obama's a bad guy.
Obama's destroying the country.
Obama's whatever.
And Andrew Jackson, nothing wrong with Andrew Jackson, he's a great guy.
He's on the bill for a reason.
That would be your reaction.
But the selection of Andrew Jackson to be on the $20 bill was always controversial.
Andrew Jackson, in addition to the story I just told you about the Trail of Tears, and it was his idea to have this massive march, Native Americans to relocate them, which 10,000 of them died.
And that route they took was called the Trail of Tears because of the deaths.
In addition to that, Andrew Jackson is credited as the co-founder of the modern Democrat Party.
Would it surprise any of you to learn that Andrew Jackson hired, named as his Attorney General, Roger Tanney?
Does the name ring a bell?
Roger Tanney.
Roger Tanney doesn't ring a bell for you?
Oh, good.
Okay.
So let me tell you Roger Tanney.
After Andrew Jackson appointed Roger Tanney Attorney General, he then named him Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
And it was Roger Tanney as Chief Justice who wrote the Dred Scott decision that essentially said that African Americans were slaves and could be owned.
The Dred Scott decision is one of the blackest marks, one of the darkest days of our history.
And there's Andrew Jackson right in the middle.
This is why his appointment has always, his picture on the bill has always been controversial.
He did great.
He did good things too.
Don't get the wrong idea.
I mean, even Newt cites Andrew Jackson as a great example of an outsider who came in and rocked the boat.
Don't get the wrong idea.
Not a total bad guy, but he's got elements of his past that are not laudatory and that you would be hard-pressed to defend today.
Roger Tanney, spelled T-A-N-E-Y, Roger Tanney wrote the Dred Scott decision, which was an attempt to write slavery into the U.S. Constitution, is what it was.
And it was Justice Bork who was turned down for the Supreme Court, who said the right to slavery is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
Roger Tanney, Andrew Jackson's Attorney General and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court thought that it should be.
Harriet Tubman was a Republican.
She was a big proponent of gun rights.
She ran the Underground Railroad and was involved in the women's suffrage movement, which, of course, led to the right to vote.
And she is the name replaced and named to replace Andrew Jackson.
There's a racial component here.
If you're just reflexively reacting to this, you've got political correctness and you've got a racial component.
And so if all anybody's going to do is reflexively, as I say, just reaction to this, rather than it'd be easy to think it's politically correct.
And then really, when you see Obama doing it, you want to take a white guy off the bill, put a black babe on the bill.
And I don't know where, don't know where Trump comes down on this.
But he, well, I do know where he comes down on it.
He said that he doesn't like it.
And he thinks it's pure political correctness to remove Andrew Jackson.
I'm sure he thinks that, because who's doing it?
Obama and the Democrats.
So it's, I don't know.
I think it's revelatory myself.
I think it's extremely revealing.
And I'm always, what's the word?
Not fascinated.
But it's always interesting to me to discover what people know and what they don't know, what they've learned and haven't learned, because it will help you a lot in making judgments if they say they want to represent you as an elected official at any level.
But Andrew Jackson, one of the reasons that Newt cites him in a favorable way is that Andrew Jackson was the first populist president.
Now, I don't want to taint Andrew Jackson any more than I already have, but there are historians who have studied Andrew Jackson who say that Elizabeth Warren sounds exactly like him.
Remember, he's the founder of the modern-day Democrat Party, Andrew Jackson.
He was a war hero.
So, I mean, if it weren't for him, we'd all be speaking Brit English.
But there's still these aspects to him that explain why something like this might be happening.
Now, other people have said, leave Jackson alone and create a new bill, like a $25 bill.
I think that was Greta Van Sustran suggested a $25 bill and put Harriet Tubman on that.
And Reverend Dr. Carson, Ben Carson, suggested putting around a $2 bill.
Well, nobody uses a $2 bill.
Do you even have you?
When's the last time you saw a $2 bill?
You have one?
Yeah, that's my point.
It's in a drawer somewhere.
Quick timeout.
We'll come back.
Let's look at the phone roster here.
Well, we'll grab a couple of phones, and I'm going to delve into this LGBT thing because this is another one today that Trump, I just wonder if his supporters care, surprised, not surprised, shocked.
That's what I'm curious about.
He said that he wants to raise taxes on the rich before, and he's said that he's going to deport them, but they come back legally.
He's said that before.
But his support for LGBT, this is new.
Quick timeout.
Don't go away.
Mark in Detroit, as we start on the phones.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Hello.
Thank you, Rush.
I just have a question about the bathroom situation.
Why, if we can let anybody into any bathroom now, why do we have separate bathrooms for male and female?
Are we going to go to just one common?
Where are we going with this?
You being facetious, rhetorical, or do you actually expect an answer to this?
I'm being a little facetious because I think it's kind of ridiculous what they're doing.
You see, it is.
But we have to ask ourselves, how did we get here?
See, this is what is fast.
And I'm going to get into this in detail as the monologue segment of the next hour.
But you don't have to go back very many years.
One year, maybe two years.
And the very idea of this would have been overwhelmingly rejected, laughed at, or angrily opposed by 95% of the population.
It wouldn't have stood a chance.
The very idea that we have men's and women's restrooms for a reason.
And we've always, like we've always had marriage, and it's always been defined as a specific thing for reasons.
And they're time-honored and time-tested reasons.
And they were not the result of people who had power lauding that over other people.
These are processes and behavioral patterns that established over the millennia as proper, just, moral, correct, sensible, you name it.
Now, all of a sudden, that gets thrown out.
And it's all up to how somebody feels about themselves at a particular moment in time as to which bathroom they want to use and with who.
So if you want to use, I'm assuming you're 35, 40, just doesn't matter, and you're on the playground somewhere and you see a five-year-old girl and you want to take her to the bathroom, we're not supposed to say a word about that today because that you're exercising your freedom of choice.
You're presenting and feeling like a woman that day.
So that's none of our business.
And we're not supposed to say anything.
So statistics, this is outrageous.
This is ridiculous.
And they have written legislation to stop it.
And lo and behold, major institutions in corporate America are now promising and threatening boycotts to pull out of these states.
And the people writing this legislation are being called bigots and sexists and racists.
How in the hell did this happen?
We're not, when things like this happen, we're not in the middle of culture war.
This is the sign we have lost it.
We are losing it.
So your simple question, why did we have men's rooms and ladies' rooms?
Why haven't we always had unisex from the beginning?
Well, the answers to that have to be that we had a patriarchal society that discriminated against women or whatever convoluted answer they would come up with.
But the key to understanding this, folks, in my humble estimation, is that it's not about right versus wrong anymore.
It can't be or we wouldn't be losing these things.
Right versus wrong.
The left has been clever in eliminating that, right versus wrong, as a determinant in behavior.
And what it's been replaced by is us versus them.
Us versus them.
And the us are the oppressed, grievance-filled minorities who feel like they have been denied liberty, freedom, whatever they think they've been denied by these evil majorities.
We are the them.
And that's the battle now.
But we don't know that.
We still think it's right and wrong.
So we're sitting here incredulous that all this behavior, anybody, a normal person, would say it's wrong.
It's not being looked at that way by the leftist culture warriors.
This is us versus them, and they are winning.
And it's payback.
It's a whole bunch of stuff.
More on this when we get back.
Don't go.
All I can tell you is, is that agreeing with and supporting LGBT, use whatever bathroom you want, that is political correctness.
That's not opposing it.
That is supporting it.
▲
Export Selection