Posted on 06/29/2009 6:06:40 PM PDT by GOP_Lady
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
On Today's Show... |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Terms of Use | Privacy Statement | Copyright & Trademark Notice | Unsubscribe
The Rush Limbaugh Show® Premiere Radio Networks © All Rights Reserved, 2009. Premiere Radio Networks, Inc. 15260 Ventura Blvd. Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
|
"While Bernie Madoff gets 150 years,
Waxman and Markey weren't even
cited in their scheme, their rip-off: this
climate bill."
To be added or removed from the "Rush In A Hurry" Ping List, FReepmail GOP_Lady.
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Bernie Madoff, 150 years. One-hundred-fifty years for Bernie Madoff means he'll be out by next spring, probably. While Bernie Madoff gets 150 years, Waxman and Markey weren't even cited in their scheme, their rip-off, this climate bill. Do you realize there was not even a bill? There was not even a copy of the bill in the well of the House, which is standard. It wasn't even written. These people voted on this bill -- not read it, it wasn't written, they couldn't have read it if anybody wanted to. I'm going to tell you, folks, what this was all about, and I must apologize for missing this. This was a huge miss on my part. I don't often miss much but when I do I fess up to it. Everybody is wondering why these eight Republicans voted for it, and the light went off for me on Friday. I was watching the Fox News All Stars, and Nina Easton, Fortune magazine, made a point about this, and it just turned on the lights. Three or four of these Republicans are from New Jersey, three of them are from the Northeast, and everybody is wondering why in the hell did these eight Republicans vote for this thing, the cap-and-trade bill, when all they were doing was giving Democrats cover.
They allowed certain Democrats to vote "no" for the sake of their own reelection. Pelosi woulda gotten those Democrats to vote "yes" had the eight Republicans not voted for it. So what is this bill called? Cap and trade. Where do trades take place? We're going to start trading what? We're going to start trading carbon emissions. We're going to start trading pollution credits. Well, where do trades get managed? Where do they take place? Who do you think is going to do the trading on this? Would anybody be surprised if it ends up that Goldman Sachs or Wall Street in general ends up -- this is what I missed. This is what I missed. You've got these Northeastern Republicans -- New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, it's all the same -- who are tied to Wall Street. It made all the sense in the world once I understood it, once I heard Nina Easton's opinion on it. Cap and trade is all about -- and the irony here, wait 'til Obama's voters find out about this, wait 'til they find out that the primary reason for this bill -- and it's a horrible bill, as John Boehner calls it, it's a pile of excrement. And it really is. It's horrible. Even some guy in the Financial Times over the weekend who is a big Obama supporter, a columnist, said, you know, what's crazy about this is that Congress is passing horrible bills, horrible legislation, and Obama doesn't seem to care.
Now, Obama is getting everything he wants here. The idea that Obama is some sort of innocent bystander here who's just at the helm leading things and he's got all these stevedores and captains steering the ship and as long as it ends up getting where he's wants it to go, doesn't care how he gets there, that's BS. This is Obama getting exactly what he wants. So the cap-and-trade bill is a big, big sop to Wall Street. Now, I find myself in an odd position because I'm a huge capitalist and I always have been as you well know. I'm a huge supporter and believer in the free market, but something seems rigged here. The whole piece of legislation is rotten, it is horrible, it is a disaster. In fact, there's a story in Bloomberg today, it is going to increase our oil imports, where the objective is to decrease them. You know how it's going to increase our oil exports? People who produce domestically are going to have to shut down and transfer the jobs overseas to avoid all the taxes. Meaning we're going to have to import even more oil. The usual unintended consequences of the brainiac wizards of smart in the US House. This is supposedly gonna go nowhere in the Senate, but I wouldn't bet on this, folks. This is conventional wisdom, and who are we hearing the conventional wisdom from? From the media. And the media is an absolute, total disgrace.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: People want to know who the eight Republicans were who voted traitorously on cap and trade. Here you go: Mary Bono in California, Mike Castle in Delaware. Now, all of these Northeastern names -- I've got a theory about why -- it's cap and trade. We trade what? We trade stocks, we trade bonds, wherever these trades happen, Wall Street, where is it? It's in New York, it's in the Northeast. These people at Wall Street make heavy contributions to a lot of people in the Northeast. I'm just guessing here, but it makes no sense since there was no bill to vote on. This is an outrage. This is something that everybody who voted for this thing needs to be sent packing because it wasn't even written. There is a requirement that the bill being voted on be in the well of the House. It was not there because it hadn't been written, much less read.
There's no reason for these Republicans to give cover to Democrats unless there was some overriding concern. And that is, campaign contributions for reelection efforts from Wall Street people who are going to be -- if this thing ever does happen, it will be a disaster. Folks, it will be a disaster. If it ever happens, Wall Street and the irony here is that Obama has tried to make you think he hates them, and he's throwing them one thing after another, he's throwing them bones left and right here. All this talk about capping pay, and we haven't really seen that yet, have we? We've just heard it talked about. Do you realize what a big business trading carbon credits is going to be when virtually every one of us has carbon? We're a carbon-based life form. We exhale what is now going to be traded, carbon dioxide. So here are the eight Republicans: Mary Bono in California, Mike Castle in Delaware, Mark Kirk in Illinois, Leonard Lance, Frank LoBiondo and Christopher Smith in New Jersey, John McHugh in New York, and David Reichert in Washington. Those are the eight Republicans. There were 30 some-odd Democrats that voted "no." And these eight Republicans made this happen.
I think anybody that voted for this thing you want to talk about Sanford and violating an oath and a trust, this is such a travesty. This whole bill, this nonexistent bill is so un-American everybody who voted for it from Pelosi on down needs to be jacked out of there in the next election. That's how bad this is. Don't sit there and get all comfy over the fact, "Well, Rush, it's not going to go anywhere in the Senate." That's what we're being told and we don't know that for sure. Dingy Harry wants to take it up in September. Now, Dingy Harry is one of these that said it doesn't have a chance in the House, but that's Dingy Harry saying it and Dingy Harry might be saying it just to get some of the Republicans in the Senate to sort of go easy. Here's Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, this morning on MSNBC answering a question, the question: "How does the administration plan to fight this, especially since it seems like it might be a squeaker in the Senate as well?"
MITCHELL: Well, more than a squeaker. They just don't have the votes. In fact Harry Reid has said that he's not going to even think about bringing it up to the Senate. This vote in the House, which is a huge tribute to Nancy Pelosi and to the president's leadership, to, you know, Phil Schiliro and Rahm Emanuel and the others and clearly David Axelrod and the others in the White House.
RUSH: That's what it's all about. It's a tribute to Pelosi, a tribute to a bunch of leftist, extreme leftist radicals from Obama to Pelosi to Rahm Emanuel to whoever the hell else, and that makes it a wonderful thing, whoa look what they did. Harry Reid, "It isn't going to go anywhere in the Senate, not even going to bring it up there." So somebody wanted to go on record as being all for this in the House, but it's just an abomination. This is one of the most outrageous things an elective body in a representative republic, a free country, has ever come up with.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Big Oil says they may have to import more fuel with cap and trade, and here's a pretty good observation. Reid says he's not going to take it up. Wait 'til they have a heat wave in Washington. Might be the perfect opportunity for them to take it up.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Bloomberg News has an interesting story today. This is in relationship to the cap-and-trade bill that the House of Representatives passed with eight Republican votes late Friday afternoon. "America's biggest oil companies will probably cope with US carbon legislation by closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending, and increasing imports. Under the Waxman-Markey climate bill that may be voted on today" well, this is from last Friday, "refiners would have to buy allowances for carbon dioxide spewed from their plants. This is the "trade" aspect. This brings Wall Street into this, which I think explains these Republican votes. I said in the last hour, "I really find myself in a unique, weird position here." You know, I'm a profound believer, supporter, defender of the free market system: capitalism. But it is apparent to me, you look at what this bill is called, how it's titled: "Cap and trade." Trade means Wall Street selling and buying, conducting the whole aspect of the trades -- and when you start trading pollution credits, carbon credits, it's a massive business.
Wall Street is going to make out like bandits on this. This is a sop to the very people that the Obama administration and Democrats want you to believe that they hate and despise. And I think when you look at these Republicans -- and here again are the names of the eight Republicans that voted for this travesty. Mary Bono in California. Mike Castle in Delaware. Mark Kirk in Illinois. Leonard Lance, Frank LoBiondo, and Christopher Smith in New Jersey. John McHugh in New York and David Reichert in Washington. As has been well established, this is undeniable, not arguable: a politician's first objective is to get reelected, and that takes money. And the people that give you money -- look at the unions and Obama. Look at everybody who gave Obama money. He's paying 'em back with policy legislation.
They happen to be, you know, the same bedfellows so it's not that Obama is doing something against his wishes. But I guarantee you, some of these eight Republicans -- and I can't specifically name one or more specifically but I'm just telling you my suspicion. My suspicion is that being in the Northeast, some of them, they've got ties to Wall Street with donations, contributions, and so forth, and that talks. That talks. So here I am ripping Wall Street. One of the reasons why is they got the bailout money. They got the TARP money. I've got a story coming up here in the stack about General Electric. General Electric got TARP money. I mean, some of the entities that end up getting money... It's the same thing as the stimulus bill. They told us we had to do this to save the country, to save the world financial system, and it was like every other piece of legislation. There was a bunch of crap thrown in there that had nothing to do with the intended purpose.
So the intended purpose was a disguise. The intended purpose was a feint. The intended purpose was to save the financial system. It wasn't in that great a danger, as we know, because when it was voted down the first time by the Republicans, it didn't pass another two weeks and we were still around, and the world financial system was still functioning. We were told we had to pass this thing now or else face the most dire financial consequences ever. So I think the intended purpose of TARP was a feint, a smokescreen for another... Just think of it as another massive earmark bill, and the stimulus was the same thing. So these standard operating procedure in the US House -- the Congress at large, the Senate and the House -- does not change, did not change regardless the crisis, regardless how had been they told us the crisis was. So this story from Bloomberg is interesting.
Because Big Oil is saying, "Well, look, we're going to be taxed out of existence if this thing ever becomes law. How do we avoid this? "It's very easy. We close fuel plants. We cut capital spending. We don't create any carbon. We try to reduce our carbon footprint as greatly as we can and we just import things." So we further weaken ourselves, make ourselves more dependent on foreign oil when the stated purpose of this debacle -- cap and trade -- is to, in ten or 20 years, end our dependence on foreign oil. We are supposed to, in 20 years, become entirely energy independent. And it will be just the exact opposite. As is the case with so much liberal legislation -- extreme, radical liberal legislation -- whether the consequences are intended or not, the exact opposite of what is intended happens, be it the Great Society, the war on poverty, you name it.
"...ConocoPhillips Chief Executive Officer Jim Mulva said would create a competitive imbalance. 'It will lead to the opportunity for foreign sources to bring in transportation fuels at a lower cost, which will have an adverse impact to our industry, potential shutdown of refineries and investment and, ultimately, employment,' Mulva said in a June 16 interview in Detroit. Houston-based ConocoPhillips has the second-largest US refining capacity. The same amount of gasoline that would have $1 in carbon costs imposed if it were domestic would have 10 cents less added if it were imported..." Well, what do you think they're going to do? And they're being up-front and honest about it right now what they're going to do and that is just start importing more -- which, of course, does what? Increases our dependence.
Forty-four Democrats, 44 Democrats voted against more government. Forty-four Democrats in this bill. In other words, you could say that 44 Democrats disagreed with Colin Powell. I know we didn't hear or see Colin Powell weigh in on cap and trade. We don't see him weigh in on any issue. But we have to presume, as a supporter of Obama, and as a supporter of more government, that General Powell stood shoulder to shoulder with the eight Republicans in the House who voted for Nancy Pelosi's cram-down bill that nobody read because it wasn't even written. This is a disgrace this country might want to think long and hard about. This is a national scandal. This is irresponsibility to the core. The bill was not even written, much less read, and yet it was voted on. So what we have here is central planning mechanisms are being put in place for a command-and-control economy, and the whole process was totally lacking in transparency. It's a perfect representation of the Obama presidency. You couldn't find... By the way, legislation like this is supposed to be on the website for five days so all of us can read it, right? It wasn't written! No wonder the Drive-Bys, the State-Run Media are so enamored of Colin Powell. He would remake the Republican Party just as Obama would remake America. And this would destroy it. We have to assume he agreed with all this; he voted for the guy; didn't come out against it. We have to assume these eight Republicans are Colin Powell's kind of Republicans, don't we? To the audio sound bites. Here Henry Waxman last Friday night on the House floor. He had this exchange with Ellen Tauscher about John Boehner.
WAXMAN: The, uh, Republican leader was yielded the balance of the time which I think amounted to around four or five minutes. He's talked for around 20.
TAUSCHER: It's the custom of the House to hear the leader's remarks.
HOUSE: (wild applause)
RUSH: Right on, right on, right on. The rules of the House are that the Republican leader gets to -- the minority leader gets to -- speak as long as he wants on something like this, and Boehner did good. He gave a 60-minute speech and went through the climate bill page by page. Waxman tried to interrupt, which is what you just heard. So Boehner shut up Waxman really well. Listen to this.
WAXMAN: ...further Parliamentary inquiry.
HOUSE: (applause)
WAXMAN: Is there any outside limit to the amount of time a leader might take? Do we have historical records that might be broken tonight? Or is this an attempt to try to get some people to leave on a close vote?
TAUSCHER: The custom of the House is to listen to the leader's comments.
BOEHNER: Reclaiming my time, the gentleman's had his 30 years to put this bill together, and the House is going to spend a whopping five hours debating the most profound piece of legislation to come to this floor in a hundred years. And the chairman has the audacity to drop a 300-plus-page amendment in the hopper at 3:09 a.m. this morning. Don't you think the American people expect us to understand what's in this bill before we vote on it?
HOUSE: (applause)
RUSH: You wonder. You really wonder. How could they know what's in it? It wasn't written! And it couldn't be two separate things because this 300-page amendment actually referred to the original bill in spots. "Section 1, paragraph 4, delete this and replace it..." But nobody had seen what was being deleted and what was being replaced with. It's just an abomination.
END TRANSCRIPT
That's how bad the media coverage is. All of these lies about the autopsy report, all of this misinformation about the doctor shooting him up with Demerol, the guy's lawyer said he didn't do it and so forth. For once I understand -- I don't believe I'm saying this -- but for once I understand the Justice Brothers getting in gear here to try to prevent some of the smirching of Michael Jackson's character that's gone on here. We don't know anything yet and yet all of these reports are conclusive. We don't know diddly-squat yet. So let it be on record El Rushbo supports the Justice Brothers. Just mind-boggling.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Ken in Livonia, Michigan. Hi, welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
CALLER: Yeah, Rush, I just wanted to comment that once again the news media has given us the proof that we needed, as if we needed any more, that not only do they lean to the extreme left, but they're... You know, they're... You know, they're just extremely liberal. Untrustworthy. Now, here we have President Obama continuing to reach into the wallets and the purses of the American people through cap and trade, you know, his Obamacare health plan.
RUSH: Right. And what are they doing instead, what are they reporting instead?
CALLER: Well, instead of that they're doing all these big stories on Michael Jackson -- who, by the way, I am still convinced is a child molester. Then you've got Farrah Fawcett, Billy Mays.
RUSH: Wait a second now. You're no different than the media! He was acquitted. I'm going to tell you something about Michael Jackson. We haven't talked about this. But he was acquitted of that charge. That kid and the kids' mother were the worst witnesses. That was an abomination of a case brought against him. That was a vendetta case. I'm not saying he didn't have some strange peccadilloes with kids but that case didn't prove it. So if you're out there saying, "I'm still convinced he's a child molester," you're no different than the media lying about what was in the autopsy report, lying about all the drugs he was supposedly taking, lying about this and that. We don't know diddly-squat yet. The autopsy details have not been released. All we have is a bunch of media speculation. This guy's talent was incomparable! We build 'em up and we tear 'em down in this culture, and it's wrong. I'll tell you, it's the first time in my life... The media in this situation has been so bad they're making Al Sharpton look credible. They're making the Justice Brothers look like they have a reasonable reason to intervene here. That's how had been it's gotten.
END TRANSCRIPT
| Read the Background Material... |
| • ABC: Lawyer: Jackson's Doctor Had Difficulty Summoning Help |
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I'll tell you, the news today is filled with examples of what's gone wrong with the media, given the chickification of news. The basic point of TIME Magazine's story is that women become obese after they get married. It's their husband's fault. It's the husband's fault that women get fat after marriage. I'm going to explain this later in the program. This is obviously not a priority. I'm just setting the table here, whetting your whistle for what's to come later. We gotta get to the serious stuff here but I'm going to let you know what's coming.
There are a number of stories from State-Run Media written by women about Governor Mark Sanford in South Carolina. TIME Magazine's had one of these, the Associated Press, I believe. Yeah, it's Jocelyn Noveck at OP -- I mean AP. Obama Press is in my mind. (laughing) Associated Press. The latest from the chicks in the State-Run Media is, hey, wait a minute, you know, this guy loved her. This is not like Clinton. This is not like the Breck Girl. Oh, speaking of which, there's apparently a sex video of the Breck Girl on YouTube. I haven't looked at it because I'm not a voyeur and the last thing I want to do is watch the Breck Girl have sex because I don't know how you comb your hair and have sex at the same time, but apparently there's a sex video out there. So you've got the Breck Girl, you've got Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, and they're all, "Yeah, I didn't love 'em. No way did I love them." Well, the Breck Girl might have loved his. He was talking about marrying her if Elizabeth passed away, but all of a sudden now as far as the chicks are concerned -- you know what? Go ahead and get divorced and marry the woman. Bonnie Fuller wrote this. Go ahead, I mean love is love. Wherever you find it take advantage of it. You only live once. And, by the way, when you do remember this is being denied gay couples. That was the story.
But this chick, Jocelyn Noveck: "If you're a governor who's in the doghouse for marital infidelity, is it better to have loved and lost or never to have loved at all? Granted, South Carolina's Gov. Mark Sanford may be too busy to wonder... but to some one of the most fascinating aspects of our --" No. It's fascinating to the chicks in the Drive-Bys. "One of the most fascinating aspects of our nation's latest ritual public apology from a straying politician is that Sanford, unlike many straying politicians before him --" spit, spit, "-- seems to really be in love with the object of the straying. Stephanie Coontz, a professor of family studies at Evergreen State College in Washington state --" how did they find her? Evergreen what? Evergreen State College? She said, "Yup, he's got it bad. There's enough out there to make you realize he just has a head-over-heels crush on this woman.
"Could the 'love factor' ultimately play a role in helping get this governor the forgiveness he seeks? To family therapist Elana Katz, the fact that Sanford displays passion, be it true love or mere infatuation, doesn't make his behavior more excusable or forgivable. But it might make it more explainable. "'All those things they say about love being blind - well, it's true, love changes us chemically,' says Katz, who counsels couples and families at New York's Ackerman Institute. 'People get into complicated situations.'" The whole thing is about it's a good thing he loved the woman, he loved her. The chickification of the news. It's on display all over. Here's another one: "Does love factor make South Carolina governor more sympathetic?" Rachel, does it? You're a woman. Does it make him more sympathetic? He loved her. He loved her. But if he marries her, she's going to become a tub. She may look great now, but according to TIME Magazine, she's gonna become a tub.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Barbara in Indian Head, Maryland. You're first today on the Rush Limbaugh program. Great to have you here with us.
CALLER: Thank you. How you doing, Rush?
RUSH: Very well. Thank you.
CALLER: In regards to the Governor Sanford case and some of those Dumbo lib women writing that it's okay -- you know, his cheating is okay -- because he apparently loved the other woman, I say it's not okay. He took an oath to his wife an oath of infidelity.
RUSH: How old-fashioned are you, on you old-fashioned are you?
CALLER: Oh, I'm very old fashion and had there are a lot of us out here. He needs to be a father to boys and a husband to his wife --
RUSH: You know what's...? (sigh)
CALLER: -- and not chase skirts.
RUSH: Do you know what some of these female reporters are saying?
CALLER: What?
RUSH: See, that's what they're saying. He wasn't chasing skirt. He was chasing heart. He loved her.
CALLER: Oh, that's baloney.
RUSH: Wait a minute. Let me just tell you what they're saying.
CALLER: (giggles)
RUSH: They're saying, "He loved her. Is not like Spitzer or Clinton or John Edwards the Breck Girl. He loved her, and gosh, that's gotta count for something," they're saying.
CALLER: No, it doesn't. You know, if that were accepted (garbled) in the world that would make it okay for anyone to leave a marriage --
RUSH: All right. All right. All right.
CALLER: -- and then the man, you know --
RUSH: All right. I'll tell you something else they're saying.
CALLER: It would be disastrous.
RUSH: I'll tell you something else they're saying. They're saying, "Hey, she kicked him out of the house. What's he supposed to do? When he gets kicked out of the house, I guess the signal is, 'The coast is clear.'" That's what some of these female reporters are saying.
CALLER: Oh, that's baloney. No, he's still married to her.
RUSH: Yeah, says he wants to reconcile.
CALLER: (chuckling) Well. I don't know.
RUSH: I guess you don't have a future in the media, because you're being awfully cold and hard about this, compared to some of the babes, the chicks in high positions in the media. Diane in Santa Barbara. It's great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Hey. Hey, in regards to the women gaining weight after marriage --
RUSH: Can you hang on here just a second? I have to make an observation.
CALLER: Sure.
RUSH: All right. I knew this was going to happen. We've got Sotomayor. We've got a horrible cap-and-trade bill that is an absolute disaster, a bill that was not even fully written that was voted on. We've got Honduras, which is coming up.
CALLER: (giggles)
RUSH: We've got health care. We've got all this stuff, and I knew all I had to do was mention "the chickification of the news" and the fact that these women reporters think, "Hey, it's not that bad. He actually loves her," and I knew what would dominate our first series of calls today and you are call number two wants to talk about love, Sanford, and the babe down in Argentina. So I'll get out of your way now. Go ahead and make your point.
CALLER: Oh, okay. Well, no, it just surprised me. You know, I see it everywhere women gaining weight after they got married. But, you know, it just surprised me. I mean, all the more reason was to... I'm not married and I'm slender, and I just don't... It's amazing to me 'cause I would just want to have more of a sweet body once I married.
RUSH: Hold it a second. You would avoid getting married because you want to stay slender?
CALLER: No, no. I'm saying I want... No, no. Just the opposite. I would have all the more motivation to be slender because, you know, once I'm married then, you know, I want to have a nice body for my husband.
RUSH: Oh. Oh. Oh.
CALLER: I mean, I don't get to gain so much weight. It happens all the time.
RUSH: Look, look, look, you're missing the point. I guess I didn't go into enough detail.
CALLER: Okay.
RUSH: That's how all women go into marriage but the damn husbands cause this.
CALLER: Oh. (giggling)
RUSH: The whole point of the TIME Magazine story is the damn husbands make 'em obese.
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: There's a counter theory. You know, I have a friend. I have a friend who got married. The guy ballooned up. The wife didn't care. The wife didn't care because she knew that the more he ballooned up, the less attractive he'd be to other women. She didn't care. (laughing) And by the same token I've heard... (interruption) What? What? (interruption) Not a whole lot, not a whole lot. No, no. Believe me, I'm right. I know these people! Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. For crying out loud, it's the 20th year I'm the host and my staff still telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: "Dear, Rush: Don't be stupid. I didn't hear the beginning of what you were saying about Sanford --" so here's somebody telling me not to be stupid who admits they didn't hear what I said. All I said was -- this is an e-mail from a subscriber at website -- all I said was that the chicks in the news are saying, "Hey, we may have to cut the guy some slack because he loved the girl," meaning Sanford, "loved the girl down in Argentina." In fact Eliot Spitzer, this guy is a nut; this guy is out there trying to rehab himself. You'd think Eliot Spitzer would go away during this. Eliot Spitzer is going out there rehabbing himself, "Hey, at least I didn't fall in love with any of them." That's his defense! Spitzer's gone public. "At least I didn't fall in love," as though Sanford made some kind of big flub here by falling in love with the babe. This woman that wrote me is Jackie. "Look, I don't care if he was chasing skirt or chasing heart. If a man will lie to his wife and be unfaithful, I expect he'll lie to me, too. I don't trust him to be faithful to any oath he takes." Jackie, I don't disagree with you here I'm telling you what has happened to the news media.
Do you understand what's happened to the news? The chickification of the news. This guy's a Republican. Normally he would be roasted at the spit by now. He'd be politically finished. You've got women in the news propping him up because he loves the babe. I find that incredible and quite telling and, frankly, I find it a little interesting at the same time.
END TRANSCRIPT
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I have a couple things written here by Alito who wrote a concurrence with Kennedy's majority opinion. By the way, the majority opinion was joined by Scalia and Clarence Thomas as well. Now, here's what Justice Alito wrote, essentially on Judge Sotomayor's failure of impartiality. "Petitioners," meaning the firefighters," "were denied promotions for which they qualified because of the race and ethnicity of the firefighters who achieved the highest scores on the City's exam. The District Court threw out their case on summary judgment, even though that court all but conceded that a jury could find that the City's asserted justification was pretextual.
"The Court of Appeals then summarily affirmed that decision. The dissent grants that petitioners' situation is 'unfortunate' and that they 'understandably attract this Court's sympathy.'" That's the opinion that was written at the Second Circuit when they granted summary judgment against the firefighters (the white firefighters) and for the city of New Haven. But, see, this gets to the whole point of Sotomayor. Obama has said, "Well, we need people with empathy." No, we don't! We got Judge Sotomayor and her other colleagues in this court... Don't forget that she was reprimanded by one of them, Jose Cabreras, for not even looking into the constitutional issues of this. The libs today, the State-Run Media, is trying to say, "It wasn't Sotomayor. She never wrote anything. It was a whole panel of the Second Circuit."
That's the whole point. Nobody wrote one. And Jose Cabreras said, "This case is a constitutional case and you didn't even deal with that. It was horribly done." So as Alito notes here, "The dissent grants that petitioners' situation is 'unfortunate' and that they 'understandably attract this Court's sympathy.'" Now, this is the Ginsburg opinion and so forth. But you see "sympathy" is not what people who go before courts want. They want access to the law. They want access to justice. They do not want sympathy. So what we have here is that Sotomayor and her gang and then Justice Ginsburg said that the "petitioners' situation" meaning the white firefighters "is 'unfortunate' and that they 'understandably attract this Court's sympathy.'"
No! That's not why anybody goes before a court. What do you win when the court feels sorry for you but they still rule against you in violation of the Constitution? They have a right to demand access to the law, and they didn't get it. They didn't get it at the Second Circuit, and they really didn't get it from the dissent here at the US Supreme Court. Although, I've talked to a legal beagle about this morning, and as you know, Scalia, in his concurrence -- well, you may not know. Scalia in his concurrence says that there's a day of reckoning coming, and that is the equal-protection clause cannot co-exist with federal laws that find discrimination based on disparate impact rather than unequal opportunity. And the court didn't have to decide that question to resolve this case and it's going to have to decide it at some point. So what happened here in this case is that the majority decided the case strictly on statutory grounds under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
"The majority held that under the statute, an employer cannot refuse for race based reasons to enforce the results of a test just because it might be sued. It can only refuse it if it can show that it would probably be held liable if sued. The court also said that under the legal principles of the Civil Rights Act, New Haven would not have been held liable and therefore the firefighters win the case." So because this case could be resolved strictly and narrowly under the statute, the court said it didn't need to consider what is the constitutional question: Do federal laws that call for disparate impact analysis violate the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? And, of course, there are wide and varying opinions on this and the... I'm not trying to throw cold water on this. It was the right decision. But Scalia is pointing out here that the day of reckoning on the big question is still ahead. We punted.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, the Sotomayor case. I want you to hear the State-Run Media describe the bad news. There's no question Sotomayor was overturned. Her court decided in favor of the City of New Haven and the black firefighters that didn't score as well on tests. Summary judgment without a trial, and they have been upbraided for this by not only the majority in the Supreme Court today (it was Anthony Kennedy's opinion) but also by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the dissent. And this is why brilliant legal analysts are saying this decision when you get down to it is actually 9-zip, not 5-4 when you look at some of the things that Ginsburg wrote about the mistakes and not even hearing the case, not even taking the constitutional questions. And the reason for this is... I go back to what I said at the beginning, and I stand by this.
Sonia Sotomayor was following her basic instincts. She is racist, in her own words. Remember she's out there and has said a number of times that a Latina woman would bring much richer and diverse experience to the court than a white male would. That's racist, pure and simple. And she had "sympathy" and so did the dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court, for the white firefighters, but that sympathy wasn't enough. She ruled on the basis of just a racist belief that minorities should always be found in favor of simply because they're minorities, pure and simple regardless the merits of any particular case. That's who Obama has nominated. Now, the State-Run Media here is desperate to spin this any other way. Here's Jeffrey Toobin on CNN this morning. Question: "Obviously there was a lot of questions about this case. We first heard her name, saw the nomination come. One of the first things that came up: 'Hey, what's going to happen with this New Haven thing?'"
TOOBIN: The five conservatives on the court have overruled the decision that Judge Sotomayor endorsed. That was her decision. So certainly there will be critics who say that she was overruled by the Supreme Court. But four justices were on her side including, of course, David Souter whose last date is today.
VOICE: Yeah!
TOOBIN: It's not like her position was so far out of the mainstream out of this case.
VOICE: Mmm-hmm.
TOOBIN: She got four justices to agree with her.
RUSH: In the end she didn't, and I don't want to be too technical here because 5-4 is 5-4; ideological grounds are ideologically grounds. At the end of the day, the Supreme Court overturned Sonia Sotomayor and her colleagues on the Second Circuit. But if you get into the dissent by Justice Ginsburg, you will find -- and you have to have a lawyer explain this to you because she writes this in legalese. But I of course have a cadre of legal advisors who assure me that the way to translate what Ginsburg said was that it was a mistake just to grant summary judgment here. And, by the way, also part of this is the black firefighters cannot sue the city of New Haven now. They cannot sue them as a countermeasure to what happened here today. So you might say 5-4 but this was really a slam-dunk and it's not good news for Sonia Sotomayor, not that it's going to matter a hill of beans. Also on PMSNBC this morning during the breaking news Pete Williams reported this.
WILLIAMS: The Supreme Court did reference a decision which Sonia Sotomayor joined from the Court of Appeals in New York. She voted to vote with the city. But I think so people will say, "Well, this is a reversal of what she did."
RUSH: Yeah, it is a reversal of what she did. And what she did was outrageous. She ignored the constitutional questions involved. She ignored the factual evidence of the case and she voted to decide this in summary judgment without giving the firefighters a trial, or even a hearing. And everybody on the Supreme Court found that a lot odd today, is the bottom line. Also on MSNBC "Live"... (laughing) I'll tell you how bad this network is getting, what bad shape they're in. They have a special guest today, Dan Rather. I guess (laughing) when your credibility is in the toilet like MSNBC's is and having somebody like Rather on can give you a lift, you gotta be pretty low. So the question to Dan Rather: "Sotomayor will obviously be careful through this process. My sense is, given her record in the past, we'll hear more from her than we do from most Supreme Court justices, Scalia being the exception. He sometimes speaks publicly."
RATHER: Justice Scalia has been very outspoken. He's been very aggressive and those who like him and liked his appointment to the court say, "Right on." As time goes along, I wouldn't be surprised to see her become an active, aggressive, articulate, uhhh, and vocal opposition, uh, to Judge Scalia. That will be something to watch as the years go by.
RUSH: That's just hilarious. I mean, if you're Dan Rather you might want to sit there and, you know, try to curry favor with women by talking about this Sotomayor as some sort of intellectual giant. But let me just tell you, folks: In a contest of intellectuals between Sotomayor and Scalia, they would cancel the game before it began or they'd have to spot her 50 or 75 IQ points. If they played the game the way we do high school or Pop Warner football -- you know, youth league football -- where the good teams get penalized for being good.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I am reminded of a key element in this whole Sonia Sotomayor fiasco, and that is that she said -- do you remember this? -- she said that her college and SAT and LSAT scores were nowhere near as good as her classmates' at Princeton and in law school, she said because the tests were culturally biased, and she said that everybody knows that. I guess they must be biased against people who grow up in the Bronx with a hardworking educated nurse mother, we got the sob story about how hard her mother worked to put her through school and gave up everything, all these conservative values she cited that got her where she went, and then she says, hey, you know, my own test I didn't do well because they were cultural biased and so I'm sure she's racist at heart. I mean there's no other way to put this. It is what it is. And political correctness be damned, I'm not going to shy away from it.
END TRANSCRIPT
| Read the Background Material... |
| • Washington Post: High Court Rules for White Firefighters in Discrimination Suit • National Review: 9-0 Against Sotomayor - Ed Whelan |
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: A couple of audio sound bites here, Der Kommissar is Here, is the title of the bump tune. It fits. Barack Obama this afternoon in the White House extolled the virtues of cap and trade.
OBAMA: Just last Friday the House of Representatives came together to pass an extraordinary piece of legislation that will finally open the door to decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, preventing the worst consequences of climate change and making clean energy the profitable kind of energy. Thanks to members of Congress who were willing to place America's progress before the usual Washington politics, this bill will create new businesses, new industries --
RUSH: Stop it. I can't handle it. All of this is lies and there's no other way to put this. All of this, everything you heard him say, is lies. Let's start from the top. Well, they did pass an extraordinary piece of legislation. That's true. But will it finally open the door to decreasing our dependence on foreign oil? It's just the opposite. We're going to be importing more because we're going to be producing less domestically to avoid the new carbon taxes. Preventing the worst consequences of climate change? We're not causing climate change! It is vanity unparalleled to say so. Making clean energy the profitable kind of energy. This bill will create news businesses, new industries, and millions of new jobs. It will also kill many more millions of new jobs. These millions of new jobs created are going to have to be subsidized by the government because there's no market for any of this stuff. I talked about this Thursday and Friday. There's no market for wind. If there were, it would be in existence. You cannot mandate the existence of new technology from Washington. You just can't do it.
I was watching the Fox All Stars on Friday afternoon, and it was a good illustration of what we're up against. Charles Krauthammer was making 150% sense in all this, saying exact same thing. You can't mandate the creation of new technologies from Washington. There's nobody there that knows how to do it. It happens in the private sector when there's a market need for it. When there's a profit to be made is when people will get into it, not before and Juan Williams said you don't understand, you don't understand, you don't understand, you don't understand, this is about taking a much needed step to getting rid of the kind of polluting forms of energy that we have. It has to be taken. This is the same Juan Williams -- who I like, by the way -- the same Juan Williams, who, when he heard Vaclav Klaus, one of the two Vaclavs who is, I think at the moment, the president of the European Union came to Washington, National Press Club, devastating speech on global warming and how it's all a fiction, and Juan Williams said, "I've never heard this before." He'd never heard a contravening view.
Do you realize conservatives are more informed on what the left thinks? Conservatives are far more widely informed than liberals are. Liberals have a narrow little focus and they don't allow anything that contradicts their little cocoon to enter it. So he may as well be taking dictation, Juan Williams, from Rahm Emanuel. No, Charles, you don't understand, this is about finally getting rid of all these old polluting forms of energy. This is about taking steps for the next hundred years and blah, blah, blah. The impact, the market aspects of this be damned because he doesn't even know them and Krauthammer made the point, Juan, Washington doesn't dictate new technologies. If it were that easy, any elected official, president would say, "Today I dictate that we can all fly like Superman, somebody get working on this and make it happen." That's not how it happens. The market drives invention when there is a profit in any kind of economic activity, that's when it will begin, or if there's at least a profit envisioned down the road. Sometimes you'll have to go in the red and take a risk, you take an investment on something, and nobody is willing to go full out on solar or wind. The only people doing it are being subsidized in one way or other by government. Here's the next Obama bite. Now, if this doesn't make you puke I don't know what will.
OBAMA: The first step we're taking sets new efficiency standards on fluorescent and incandescent lighting. I know lightbulbs may not seem sexy, but this simple action holds enormous promise because 7% of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and our businesses. Between 2012 and 2042 these new standards will save consumers up to $4 billion a year. We're going to start here at the White House. Secretary Chu has already started to take a look at our lightbulbs and we're going to see what we need to replace them with energy efficient lightbulbs.
RUSH: Jimmy Carter. This is Jimmy Carter all over again, the cardigan sweater, the thermostat down to 68 in the wintertime. We're going to start here in the White House, going to get rid of all these bulbs, we're going to put these compact fluorescents in there. And this is absurd. I know a lot of you are in the compact fluorescent business. If people want them, that's fine. I really don't care. But don't tell me I have to buy one of the damn things because I'm destroying the planet otherwise. I refuse to have my intelligence insulted that way. And that's the way all this crap is being sold to people, all this stuff that is irrelevant and makes no smidgen's difference whatsoever, is being pitched as, you have to do this to save the planet, and if you don't do it, we're going to make you do it, like the kind of car we're going to make you drive and all this other rotgut. Dictatorial, statist crap coming out of this administration. So we got hell breaking loose in Honduras. Oh, and you know we learned about Honduras? We learned the Obama administration tried to stop the coup.
Now, the coup was what many of you wish would happen here without the military. What happened in Honduras was that the president down there was constitutionally prevented from seeking another term of office, said, to hell with it. I'm going to run, I'm staying here. Right out of a book of Hugo Chavez. And opposition got the military -- you are not going to destroy the Honduras constitution that way. So they kicked him out of office, and now you've got the Obama administration upset about that and they tried to stop this from happening. So they'll meddle in all these countries that are going to promote dictators. Obama will be happy to help dictators survive, including in Iran. He didn't meddle there. He meddled in Honduras, but time to throw Israel overboard, an ally. With all this garbage going on, the president of the United States makes a little press conference speech about lightbulbs and a mythical financial statistic that between 2012 and 2042 Americans will save $4 billion in energy costs?
Can I share with you a dirty little secret? We don't have an energy shortage. There is not an energy crisis. All of this has been trumped up. We have all the energy we want. There might be brownouts in California now and then in the summertime but those are explained not by a shortage of resources, but rather a screwed up grid or a number of different stupid things that administrators are doing. We don't have a shortage of this stuff, and we're really not all that wasteful. We've been tightening up and becoming more efficient. This man talks to us like we're still a bunch of children wasting energy all over the place when people aren't. So the people of this country are under indictment when they're not criminals and so forth, all of this, and you don't know what you're doing, you're destroying the planet, you have to be saved from yourselves, that's a tenet of liberalism.
END TRANSCRIPT
WAXMAN: Since Obama has become president, the Republicans have said no to an economic stimulus bill, are saying no to the global warming bill, they're saying no to health care reform. They're rooting against the country. And I think in this case, they're even rooting against the world because the world needs to get it's act together to stop global warming. I wish they were playing a more constructive role. Some Republicans doubt the whole science of global warming even though the consensus is overwhelming. They don't want to believe it; they don't want to do anything about it. And, meanwhile, the evidence is mounting faster and faster that we're suffering already from carbon emissions.
RUSH: I am apoplectic. He could not be more wrong. The consensus has fallen apart. Nations that adopted it at one time and started implementing some of these economic changes have pulled the plug. Australia, Japan, it doesn't work, it only depletes their private sector, it doesn't fix anything, even this bill wouldn't reduce emissions more than two-tenths of a percent did I see, something like that? Henry Waxman is just -- I etter be careful. This is just dangerous. It's the Republicans that made the damn thing pass, for crying out loud, Waxman. Eight Republicans -- only four were needed. Eight voted for it, cap and trade. Republicans rooting against Obama, the country, and the world. What do you think he's talking about? They're rooting against socialism. Congressman Waxman, the Republicans are rooting for the country. Republicans are rooting for the world. It is your party, congressman, that's setting out to destroy what made America exceptional, and in the process, you're going to wreak more damage on the rest of the world than you could possibly imagine. You're an idiot. You are a dangerous idiot.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here is Pat in Chicago. I'm glad you waited. You're next on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Oh, thank you, Rush. It's a pleasure.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: You're making me crazy all over again. I watched Congressman Boehner on Friday --
RUSH: Oh, you're going to disappoint me. I thought you meant crazy in another way.
CALLER: No, no, no, no. I was crazy because I was sitting here listening to him say all these things and reading their words I'm going, oh, my God, oh, my God, oh, my God, and after an hour of this, I'm like, how can anybody vote for this? And this was just the amendment. This created a whole new bureaucracy.
RUSH: Boehner did do a great job on Friday, you are absolutely right. I don't know how many people had a chance to hear it, but you ask how can these people vote for it? There's an answer to that question. It depends on whether people want to face it squarely.
CALLER: I understand that but, you know, he did what the Republican Party has to do. Not modernize, not socialize, educate, read their own words.
RUSH: Amen!
CALLER: Don't sit there and say it's gonna do this, it's going to do that --
RUSH: Amen.
CALLER: -- that's objective, people say that's objective.
RUSH: You're making me crazy here.
CALLER: Use their own words because I've been telling people about what he read and people are like, "That can't happen. I didn't hear about that." Talk about going to sell your house. You can't put your house on the market unless it's rated by who? It's gotta be rated. You've gotta have all new windows, all new doors.
RUSH: Have you heard about this, folks? When you sell your house, environmental experts have to come in and do a survey to find out if you've got leaky windows, if all the environmental systems are correct, if you have relatively new appliances, and until you modernize in the way they say, you can't sell -- that's in the bill. I'm not kidding, Brian. See, you can't believe it. You can't. It's in the bill. It was in this amendment that Boehner read.
CALLER: I said that's not even half of it. I mean he went page by page by page and you're like, oh, my God. This was what's written. This isn't him saying, "Well, this is what they're going to do, this is what's going to happen," this is what they are doing. And they're doing it over and over and over and over again. It makes me nuts. And this is not going to be a country as we know it in the four years it takes him to get outta here.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: He gets no support, the congressman and the Republicans get no support from anybody. It was nowhere on the news, it was nowhere. It was their own words.
RUSH: Well, now, look. I know that they got no support in the news, but you shouldn't expect that to happen. I'm not trying to depress you. We gotta face reality and we're dealing with an Obama State-Run Media here. Of course they're not going to give Boehner any support or even any coverage or any publicity. But she's right, sell your house, before you can do that, you have to pass an environmental test that some government person is going to come in and make sure you have proper storm windows and if you live in a hurricane area the inspection is even more Draconian. You have to have modern appliances, a kitchen and that sort of thing, energy efficient TVs and this sort of stuff and until you replace all that stuff you can't sell it. Now, normally that would be up to seller and buyer. If the buyer wants to accept some old TVs and a kitchen that's not stainless steel, fine, you negotiate that on price. But now it's not going to be a matter of negotiation. Before you can be approved in selling your house, some government regulator is to come in and give you an examination.
Now, just to illustrate how this is going to work, once again I have a piece of property that would pass inspection, right now if this were the law. But do you think some government regulator coming into my house is going to pass me if it's the Obama administration or if it's some Democrat-run bureaucracy? No way. Everything is going to be political and this is how they are going to get people to switch party to become Democrat so that they're not harassed. Folks, consequences are dire here. And all this is happening under this umbrella of this kind soft-spoken very smart president who only wants to save our lightbulbs and save the White House and save the world and who, of course, can be against that, who's for dirty air, who's for dirty water, nobody's for that when that's not at all what any of this is about. Pat, I appreciate the phone call.
END TRANSCRIPT
It never ceases to amaze me how cogent his analyses are and how his perspective always comes up with what everyone else is overlooking or doesn't have the background to discover.
Obama is a hateful racist. And his goal is to make whites and especially the American economy bend over and grab the ankles as the third-world comes marching up behind us.
“Obama is a hateful racist. And his goal is to make whites and especially the American economy bend over and grab the ankles as the third-world comes marching up behind us.”
My sentiments exactly!
“This ruling for the white firemen gets to the whole point of Sotomayor. Obama has said, ‘We need people with empathy.’ No, we don’t! People want justice from courts, not sympathy.” -Rus
Hooray! I called my supevisor to ask to be exused for a request to be
1/2 an hour late to witness the USSC’s ruling. Glad I was given permission! This ruling made my day! Thanks
Gop_Lady!
: )
Good to see you!
Good to see you again, JJ!
Did you really get permission to be 1/2 hour late?
Wow! I wish I could have watched it live as it broke on the news!
You are definitely in a “Rush Groove” today then. :-)
Ping to my post. a few minutes ago.
Thank you for the ping.
And thanks for putting this together. I know it’s time consuming.
Thank you.
Yes I did. I was given my request and watched Megan
Kelly break the news live!
FOX NEWS ALERT! After the USSC ruling..I went on my way to work. Watching the decision braking LIVE over
The MSM was truly a monumental step for all conservatives! I am proud of those Fire Fighters!
Megan Kelly is an excellent reporter.
But now we're presented with a nominee who is supposedly The Most Outstanding, And Most Qualified Person to fill David Souter's chair -- and she gets caught not doing her homework. So egregious was this failing that even Justice Ginsberg spanked the Appeals Court! If I were reading between the lines here, I would think that even Ruth B G is telling the world: "There is a still a minimum standard of effort required to play up here in the Major Leagues. You didn't pass that test... and you better not disgrace my courtroom by coming up here without the skills to argue against these jurists -- you'll be eaten alive... and I won't help you."
If there is any place in America in which Affirmative Action should never be applied, it's right here -- for a seat on this court. And we apparently don't have a lot of brilliant material to sift through for Sotomayor to prove she belongs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
