This hour of the Limbaugh Wire brought to you by “anger” -- the most effective tool in the “minority” toolkit
By Simon Maloy

Just one more hour of Rush Limbaugh left this week, and Rush got it rolling by reading from a New York Daily News article on Dawn Cardi, a lawyer and one of Sonia Sotomayor's closest friends, who told the paper about Sotomayor's views on abortion: “She will follow what she thinks is the law on that, and her personal beliefs will not interfere with that analysis because my view of her is that she does not allow her personal beliefs to interfere with her analysis of legal issues.” Rush said the reason he thinks “something is going on here” is that Sotomayor is a liberal and usually liberals are eager to tell you about their abortion beliefs, but Sotomayor has gone to “great lengths” to keep her views quiet. If she's pro-life, Rush said, she's probably thinking that revealing that fact could do her a lot of harm among her supporters. So, Rush concluded, based on all the research he's done on the things Sotomayor hasn't said, he has to “say that there's a better than 50-50 shot she's pro-life. She's Catholic -- I know that some Catholics are pro-choice, but let's understand, she's Puerto Rican Catholic; they're devout. My gut instinct tells me that all the factors are there.”

Then Rush moved back to Obama's Buchenwald visit, reading from an AP article that quoted the president saying that Buchenwald “teaches us that we must be ever-vigilant about the spread of evil in our own time, that we must reject the false comfort that others' suffering is not our problem, and commit ourselves to resisting those who would subjugate others to serve their own interests.” Rush responded: “Somebody help me out -- did he say that in Cairo yesterday? Are you sure, Mr. Snerdley? Are you sure he didn't say 'evil must be confronted' in his speech in Cairo? My memory is like yours. My memory is that he wasn't -- that that was not a theme. It was not a focal point.” Acutally, Obama did touch on that theme in his speech in Cairo. In fact, it was the first issue he touched on in his speech: “The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.” Obama added: “We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children.”

After quickly noting Sarah Palin's latest grasp at the 2012 Republican nomina -- er, sorry, comments attacking Obama's economic policies, Rush said that Snerdley just told him a funny story -- a friend of his who works in a bank says people are asking him if they're still issuing mortgages with no money down. It's amazing, Rush said, what people learn and hear.

After the break, Rush took a call from a gentleman saying that the land-for-peace policy is a crock and will never resolve the Israel/Palestine conflict. Rush said the Palestinians and Hezbollah and Iran don't want land, they want no Jews. It's plain and simple. You don't have peace until one side is defeated, and thus surrenders, said Rush -- that's “the Limbaugh Doctrine.”

Then Rush returned to a caller from yesterday who wanted to explain why Michelle Obama and Sonia Sotomayor are so “angry,” but didn't have enough time. Well, she had more than enough time this afternoon -- it was “Open Line Friday,” after all -- and was able to lay it out in full. Essentially, the caller said that she grew up in the projects, and her minority peers were coached to be angry. Using this anger, she said, they obtained scholarships and internships and so forth, and so they learned that anger is an effective tool. Rush said he's not surprised that they're angry because that's what they were “taught”: “They're taught that they've been cheated. They're taught that they've been discriminated against. They're taught this country is unfair. They're taught this country is unethical. They're taught that this country is discriminatory. They're taught that this country is immoral and unjust.” Rush like this caller's theory -- anger got them where they are, and to stay there they have to stay angry. Rush couldn't say whether this “anger” was genuine or not, but regardless, he said, it's dangerous because they are inspiring anger in those who support them.

After the break, Rush had a few news stories that he wanted to share with us. The first was a Los Angeles Times article from last June about how the “brains of gay men resemble those of straight women.” Naturally, we assumed that the only reason Rush would waste time reading an article from last year about the brains gay men resembling those of women was so he could make some tasteless joke about the whole thing. But there was no joke, and even Rush sounded kind of surprised that he was reading this article on the air. Then it was on to the Senior Journal reporting: “Thirty states currently have laws making adult children responsible for their parents if their parents can't afford to take care of themselves. While these laws are rarely enforced, there has been speculation that states may begin dusting them off as a way to save on Medicaid expenses.” This was amazing to Rush because “in the old days” this was a matter of course, it was how families behaved, you take care of mom and dad. Now, he said, we need laws to do this because Social Security and Medicaid made people believe that the government will take care of you. Rush thinks it's representative of one more degradation of the culture.

Then it was time for another caller, this one bemoaning the “dangerous precedent” Obama is setting by “kowtowing” to the Muslim world. More and more people, said Rush, have now examined Obama's Cairo speech and found it reprehensible. Obama's words are for him, Rush declared, and he was trying to make them love him. He needs the love and adulation, and the way he gets it is ripping his own country. Then Rush read extensively from blog posts from the American Thinker and the Heritage Foundation, both of which, as you might expect, were not kind to the president's speech.

After one more break, Rush took one last caller, this one explaining that it's impossible to improve relations between the Muslims and the U.S. because the Muslims have problems with everyone, just look at Europe. This is an interesting point, said Rush -- the caller made him look at Obama's Cairo speech in a different perspective. The militant Islamists base everything they do on their religion, said Rush, so essentially Obama was over there negotiating with a religion. How do you negotiate with a religion? So the caller's right, said Rush, the Muslims don't have a problem just with us, they have a problem with the world.

And that's it for the Limbaugh Wire for this week. We'll be back on Monday and we do hope you'll be back as well. In the meantime, enjoy your weekend, but not so much that you can't take any time to peruse Media Matters' all-knowing and still-growing Limbaugh archives.

Greg Lewis and Lauryn Bruck contributed to this edition of the Limbaugh Wire.

Highlights from Hour 3

Outrageous comments

LIMBAUGH: We know what she thinks of affirmative action. We know what she thinks of a lot of other public issues by virtue of her rulings and what she's written, but on this one issue we don't know. And I would think that if, for example, she is pro-life, she's probably calculating that could so more harm to her than by admitting she's pro-choice. Am I correct in this? You're dealing with liberals here. They're going to vote on her, so it would be no pain, no harm. She might get some grief about telegraphing about the way she's gonna rule on an issue, and I know that no nominee comes out and says what they think about this, but she hasn't said what she thinks about it ever. And I'm just -- my instincts tell me that it's because people who are her friends on other issues might not appreciate what she really thinks about abortions. So as I have continued to delve into this, as I have continued to investigate and research this and try to get to the quick, try to get to the soul of this where she comes down on it, I have to say that there's a better than 50-50 shot she's pro-life. She's Catholic -- I know that some Catholics are pro-choice, but let's understand, she's Puerto Rican Catholic; they're devout. My gut instinct tells me that all the factors are there.

[...]

CALLER: We're brought up to basically -- you know, you have bright people. They're going to go on to college. They're going to get great jobs. The difference was my peers were coached to be angry. You know, when all things were equal, you know, you're a minority, you know, get angry about it. Don't let the opportunity slip away, you know, build on the anger. So they got the scholarships. They got the internships. They got, you know, their first jobs, and so anger became part of their tool set. And it's so much a part of their success and, you know, like we all do, if you behave in a certain way and it's successful and you get rewarded for it, you know, continue to use it. So when we have a whole generation of folks who are sort of coming up that have been coached this way, you know, post the civil rights era to leverage their anger on their mistreated historical status, I don't know why anybody's surprised they continue to behave angry. They've been rewarded for being angry.

LIMBAUGH: Well, let me clarify. I'm not surprised that they're angry, and I'm not surprised to hear you say that they're coached. I would say they're taught.

CALLER: Taught, OK, yeah.

LIMBAUGH: They're raised, and when they get to school, it's affirmed.

CALLER: Yes.

LIMBUAGH: They're taught to be angry. They're taught that they've been cheated. They're taught that they've been discriminated against. They're taught this country is unfair. They're taught this country is unethical. They're taught that this country is discriminatory. They're taught that this country is immoral and unjust. They're taught this.

America's Truth Rejector

Falsely claimed Obama didn't talk about “confronting” evil in his Cairo speech:

LIMBAUGH: “Evil must be confronted,” Obama said. Somebody help me out -- did he say that in Cairo yesterday? Are you sure, Mr. Snerdley? Are you sure he didn't say “evil must be confronted” in his speech in Cairo? My memory is like yours. My memory is that he wasn't -- that that was not a theme. It was not a focal point. This is why I think Angela Merkel was fuming standing there next to the guy. He's sitting there ripping Germany for 65 years ago one day after going to the country seat of militant terrorism around the world, the Middle East, and doesn't talk about evil. If I were Merkel, I'd be mad too. I'm mad as it is.