×

Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu





RUSH: If this doesn’t say it all. If somebody doesn’t stand up and say, ‘Mr. Holder, it’s time you resigned. You’re not qualified for this job of attorney general.’ Yesterday afternoon, there was a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Department of Justice oversight. Eric Holder testified. Ted Poe, Republican from Texas: ‘Have you read the Arizona immigration law?’

HOLDER: I have not had a chance to. I’ve glanced at it. I’ve not read it.

POE: It’s ten pages. It’s a lot shorter than the health care bill, which was 2,000 pages long. I’ll give you my copy of it, if you would like to have a copy. Even though you haven’t read the law, do you have an opinion as to whether it’s constitutional?

HOLDER: I have not really… I have not been briefed yet. We, as I said, have had underway a review of the law. I’ve not been briefed by the people who have been — who are responsible for that review.

POE: Are you going to read the law?

HOLDER: I’m sure I will read the law in anticipation of that briefing. I know that they will put that in front of me, and I’ll spend a good evening reading that law.

RUSH: So he hasn’t read it. He’s sure he will read it. Now, my good buddy Andy McCarthy said: Isn’t Holder guilty of profiling then? He hasn’t read the law, and yet he’s out there making judgments about it? He’s the attorney general, for crying out loud! It’s a ten-page law. ‘I’m waiting to be briefed on it,’ and yet he’s out there ripping the law to shreds proving once again that the Department of Justice has been purely politicized, much has every other cabinet post and czarship in the country with this regime has been politicized.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Okay, let’s go back to the Eric Holder show. He is our attorney general. He has not read the Arizona immigration law that he has trashed, that he has criticized. As my friend Andy McCarthy says: Is he not guilty of profiling, in essence, of Arizonans and the governor and the law itself? He hasn’t read it. This from yesterday, Q&A with Congressman Ted Poe, a Republican from Texas. Poe: ‘Have you read the Arizona immigration law?’

HOLDER: I have not had a chance to. I’ve glanced at it. I’ve not read it.

POE: It’s ten pages. It’s a lot shorter than the health care bill which was 2,000 pages long. I’ll give you my copy of it, if you would like to have a copy. Even though you haven’t read the law, do you have an opinion as to whether it’s constitutional?

HOLDER: I have not really… I have not been briefed yet. We, as I said, have had underway a review of the law. I’ve not been briefed by the people who have been — who are responsible for that review.

POE: Are you going to read the law?

HOLDER: I’m sure I will read the law in anticipation of that briefing. I know that they will put that in front of me, and I’ll spend a good evening reading that law.

RUSH: It’s ten pages. He’s going to ‘spend a good evening reading the law.’ I thought the Supreme Court determined whether a law was constitutional. Am I wrong about that, or does Eric Holder’s team reporting back to him determine whether or not the law’s constitutional? I’m just asking. Now, let’s go back to last Sunday. He hasn’t read the bill and doesn’t know what’s in it. He was like he was on Meet the Press. David Gregory said, ‘Arizona, what’s specifically wrong with the anti-immigration bill law that’s been passed there?’

HOLDER: The concern I have about the law that they have passed is that I think it has the possibility of leading to, uh, racial profiling and putting a wedge between law enforcement in the community that would, in fact, be profiled. People in that community are less likely then to cooperate with people in law enforcement, less likely to share information, less likely to be witnesses in case[s] that law enforcement is trying to solve.

RUSH: He said all that without having read the bill. He was asked yesterday, Thursday, if he’d read it. He said, ‘No, I haven’t read it yet. My team’s working on that. They’re going to report back.’ ‘Well, you gonna read it?’ ‘Oh, sure. I’ll get briefed and I’ll read it before. I’ll spend some time at night with the ten pages, sure.’ But he’s denouncing the law last Sunday when he hasn’t read it. ABC’s This Week fill-in host Jake Tapper said you said, ‘You’ve said we’re ‘a nation of cowards’ because we don’t talk freely and openly about race. So in that spirit let me give it a shot: Do you think the Arizona immigration law is racist?’

HOLDER: Well, I don’t think it’s necessarily a good idea. And it’s certainly one of the concerns that I have, that you will end up in a situation where people are racially profiled.

RUSH: But he hasn’t read the bill, and if you read the bill you find out that it is not profiling that takes place here. Specifically so. So all this means is that, once again, you had a law passed and it’s an opportunity for a bunch of socialists to trash it, to advance their agenda or to create chaos and tumult for the express purpose of advancing their agenda. This guy is not a serious man. He’s an ideologue running the Department of Justice. Justice is supposed to be blind. Well, I know it sounds good: Justice is supposed to not care about any economic or political aspect of your case should you run afoul of the law. But we have a pure socialist radical ideologue in charge of the Department of Justice. Yesterday afternoon in Washington on Capitol Hill, House Judiciary Committee, Eric Holder. Representative Lamar Smith of Texas: ‘Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions they did because of radical Islam?’ meaning the Times Square bomber and a number of other would-be terrorists. ‘Do you think they took the actions they did because of radical Islam?’


HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. One I think you have to look at each individual case. I mean, we’re in the process now of talking to Mr. Shahzad to try to understand what it is that drove him to take the action he took.

SMITH: Okay. But radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?

HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why people —

SMITH: But was radical Islam one of them?

HOLDER: There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious cases, so —

SMITH: But all I’m asking is if you think, among those variety of reasons, radical Islam might have been one of the reasons that the individuals took the steps that they did?

HOLDER: You see, you say ‘radical Islam.’

SMITH: Yes.

HOLDER: I mean, I think those people who espouse a version of Islam that is not —

SMITH: Are you uncomfortable attributing any of their actions to radical Islam? It sounds like it.

HOLDER: No. I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion.

RUSH: And there you have it. ‘You’ll end up in a situation…’ Not you ‘might’ end up in a situation. ‘You will end up in a situation where there’s racial profiling,’ and now we can’t say ‘radical Islam.’ Potentially religious? I mean, it’s infuriating and it’s hilarious at the same time. (doing Holder impression) ‘Radical Islam? I… I… I… It’s… We can’t…. Um, potentially religious reasons? Yes, there might be potentially religious reasons.’ Potentially? Potentially religious reasons? Why can’t they say it? Why can’t he say it, do you think? What is his problem? What is his reluctance to say, ‘Yeah, this are some radical Islamists out there’? They say it about themselves. Why can’t he? What’s he afraid of? Who is ordering him? Now, to be fair to Attorney General Holder, ladies and gentlemen, it’s probably hard to consider somebody an enemy when they share so many of your values.

Well, the radical Islamists do not like Western democracy. Neither does Holder. Radical Islamists are not crazy about Western civilization in general. Neither is Holder. Neither is Obama. (interruption) Oh, yeah, I mean to say it. I’ve been saying this for over a year since Obama took office. Isn’t it clear to everybody Obama doesn’t like certain aspects of his country and culture? Isn’t it patently obvious that he doesn’t? He wants to return the nation’s wealth to its rightful owners. So maybe the problem is that. We gotta be fair here to Attorney General Holder. Maybe it’s tough to look at these guys as a huge enemy when you share some similar political views. I mean, that’s as good a guess as any other as to why he’s so reluctant to answer the question about radical Islam as a motivation, and maybe we can find a clue here. Remember this, Mayor Bloomberg, back on May the 4th?

BLOOMBERG: I want to make clear that we will not tolerate any bias or backlash against Pakistani or Muslim New Yorkers. All of us live in this city, and, uhh… Among any group, there’s always a few bad apples, but people that live in the city are proud of the fact that this is the city that gives everybody from every place in the world an opportunity no matter what religion they practice, no matter where they or their parents came from.

RUSH: This is the mayor of New York after he learned that it was not an angry, middle-aged white person upset with Obama’s health care. In fact, this is May 3rd, CBS Evening News, Mayor Bloomberg.

BLOOMBERG: If I had to guess 25¢? This would be exactly that. Somebody —

COURIC: A homegrown.

BLOOMBERG: Homegrown. Maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.

RUSH: Okay. So, yeah, it could be anything! It could be a white guy doesn’t like the health care bill with a mentally deranged political agenda. Then we find out it was a radical Islamist from Pakistan. ‘Well, we’re not going to tolerate any backlash! We’re not going to tolerate any backlash because Pakistanis or Muslims in New York. We’re not going to tolerate it,’ and you got Holder, ‘Well, I would not… Uh, it’s potentially religious in nature yeah, but I would not — I would not — would not say radical Islam is a motivation.’ (long sigh) What are we to make of this, folks? What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of a backlash against ‘radical Islamists’ if they say ‘radical Islam’? It sounds to me like that’s what they’re afraid of. Bloomberg is so afraid of a backlash against radical Islamists, ‘We’re not going to tolerate it!’

We’re not going to tolerate another oil leak, we’re not going to tolerate nukes in Iran, we’re not going to tolerate any backlash against Pakistani or Middle Eastern people here in New York City. Well, maybe we’re not going to tolerate a backlash against ‘radical Islamists’ because we are worried about our relationship with the Muslim world. I don’t know. I mean, somebody’s going to have to help me. Is there ever any concern about a backlash against radical Christians? Is anybody worried about a radical backlash against health care opponents? No! No. It’s the health care opponents who are out there, they hope, doing all the bombing. But they’re not. Bottom line here, ladies and gentlemen, is that Attorney General Holder is not up to this job. He’s clearly not up to the job. He’s out of place. He needs to be a czar.

If he’s going to be in the administration someplace he needs to be a czar where he doesn’t have to testify about what he’s doing, where he doesn’t have to be accountable to anybody. Loretta Sanchez, by the way, this morning on MSNBC, the anchor, Peter Alexander said, ‘A group like that from so far away could funnel money to the US, to a citizen here?’ They’re talking about the funding for the Times Square bomber. ‘And a car bomb winds up in Times Square? I mean how do we combat the circuitous flow of money from all over the world to a guy here in Connecticut who pays for the creation of a bomb and buying an SUV off Craigslist and takes it to Times Square, parks it, and were it not for his screwed-up alarm clock, would have blown up Times Square? How do we combat that?’

SANCHEZ: It because it’s more important for us to have groups within the government to take a look at what’s going on on some of these websites, to understand the psyche of these people, and ultimately what they’re going to try to do is recruit from within. So we need to be sure that we don’t give them a reason, that we’re able to spot this.

RUSH: Yeah. Don’t give them a reason to hate us. Don’t give them a reason to be able to spot us. That will just make them mad. Now, when these people are out of power, they’re funny as hell saying stuff like this, but now they’re running the country, and it ain’t funny.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: And greetings and welcome back. I can give you the answer, folks, since we’re not going to get any phone calls on this. Why is Holder reluctant? It’s as clear as the hand in front of me face, why Holder is reluctant to say, ‘Yeah, radical Islamists behind this. Sure.’ His law firm — don’t forget this. His law firm, ladies and gentlemen, represented a bunch of terrorists at Guantanamo, as have some of his appointees at Justice! His law firm represents these people. So he can’t say, ‘Yeah, it’s radical Islam,’ ’cause then he’s condemning his own clients or his former firms’ own clients. That’s why he can’t say it. Stop and think of that. Radical Islam, there’s no question it’s our enemy. They say so! (laughs) We don’t listen to them but they say so. Eric Holder, the attorney general, his former law firm represented a bunch of them at Guantanamo. Some people in that law firm actually showed pictures of things to their clients, the terrorists, that they were not allowed to see or shouldn’t have seen. And he’s appointed a bunch of lawyers as his assistants in the Department of Justice who have also represented (he won’t tell us the names) radical Islamist terror suspects. So of course he can’t say, ‘Yeah, radical Islam,’ ’cause he’s condemning his own firm and he’s condemning his own firm’s clients. Our attorney general. That’s his problem.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Eric Holder cannot say ‘radical Islam’ might be one of the motivations behind people blowing up or wanting to blow up America. It’s the same Eric Holder, ladies and gentlemen, who can’t even bring himself to say the world ‘Muslim’ or ‘terrorist.’ He can’t bring himself to say either of those two words. This is the guy in charge of setting up the CIA’s new interrogation unit. Maybe that’s why it hasn’t been set up yet because he doesn’t want those terms used.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This