Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH: You know, I hate to mention this folks. We’ve had all this talk of the Zimmerman trial, and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press says that public interest in the Zimmerman trial (at least in the end of the Zimmerman trial) was very, very low. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press says that only 26% of the public followed the George Zimmerman trial closely. I wonder what the answer would have been if you’da asked them, “How many of you followed the Trayvon trial?”


No, no, no, no. I’m being serious.

How many people thought it was the Trayvon Martin trial? Remember we’re talking about low-information people here. It’s like the Reverend Jackson said yesterday that Trayvon did not have “a jury of his peers,” and that would be right. Trayvon wasn’t on trial. George Zimmerman was. But anyway, the Pew Research Center says only 26% of the public followed the Zimmerman trial closely, which is down 10% from when the story first broke in March.

It was 35% cared about it then.

That’s sort of the opposite of the way these stories usually trend. The news media and the professional race-baiters really screwed this up. This is a big drop-off in the interest compared to Rodney King and the OJ trials, but the Pew Center doesn’t mention the fact that there are a lot more viewing choices today than there were back in 1992 or 1994. But the gap between black and white interest has grown since then.

The article says, “About as many blacks reported watching at least some live coverage of the Zimmerman trial as watched the OJ Simpson trial in 1995.” However, “Whites are far less likely to say they tuned into the Zimmerman trial than the Simpson trial. … Moreover, fully 67% of blacks say they watched at least some live coverage of the Zimmerman trial, compared with 38% of whites.”

The bottom line is that despite the way it appeared in the Drive-By Media, there wasn’t a lot of national interest in this. I actually think, folks, that it is reprehensible. It is journalistic malpractice, irresponsible, whatever you want to say for the media to continue to cover this as though it’s an ongoing thing and still trying to gin up the racial angle, when, folks, we learned last night from Rachel Jeantel that race was not any part of this.

This is gonna be real interesting to see. I fully expect to be raked over the coals for my interpretation today, because I have offered a viewpoint of what Rachel Jeantel said that the left does not want out there. “This is racial! It is racism,” is the narrative. “This country is still a slave state for all intents and purposes. Trayvon was killed because he’s a black guy. This evil ‘white Hispanic’ Zimmerman is an innate racist ’cause he’s an American.

“He went out there and just saw a poor black kid in the neighborhood and said, ‘I’m gonna kill the guy because he’s black!'” That’s what they want you to think. And Rachel Jeantel last night, one of the witnesses for the prosecution in the case, was on CNN. Folks, I’m just telling you: Based what she said, if anything frightened Trayvon Martin, it was the possibility Zimmerman was a gay male predator. Rachel Jeantel told a TV audience last night that she told Trayvon to run, run, run; that he might be dealing with a rapist.

She said you see some “creepy ass cracka” following you around, it could be a rapist. You’ve been taught from when you’re very young to be “creep out” by that, and you run, run, run. And then she pointed out that Trayvon did not want this guy following him home ’cause his little brother was at the house. She didn’t say one thing about race, and neither did the jury. Yet the media can’t let it go.

Now, pointing this out… I just want to warn you. I know you in this audience are the finest audience in all of media. Your loyalty to this program and to me, and your devotion to it, sustain me. You get me through all kinds of stuff, and I’m just gonna tell you: It has popped up in other places now. There’s PJ Tattler. PJ Media has a interpretation like mine, and so does a guy posting at Mediaite, and it’s starting to pop up in other places.

But my guess is that when the left finally hears about it tomorrow if not tonight, they’ll blow a gasket, ’cause this is not at all what they have manufactured. And, believe me, they have manufactured this whole racial theme, when it never was there. It was not even a component, when you get down to the bare essentials. Well, I don’t know that they’d even considered it or if anybody had, until Rachel Jeantel spoke last night on CNN.

She did allude to it at trial, under oath.

She did allude to the homosexual aspect of this.

But if I really wanted to stir it up, I would make the case that it was Zimmerman’s civil rights which were violated. Here is Zimmerman, a properly accredited Neighborhood Watch captain or whatever his title was, patrolling his neighborhood, and the guy sees him and starts beating up on him ’cause he thinks he’s gay. That sounds like a civil rights violation to me. That sounds like it almost might be a hate crime, to me.

I mean, the way I’ve been conditioned by the Democrats and the left in this country, that sounds like a hate crime: Trayvon Martin starts pummeling Zimmerman ’cause his gal on the phone, Rachel Jeantel, says, “Hey, the guy could be a rapist. You better run.” But Trayvon’s no coward! He doesn’t run away from stuff. So he starts pummeling on Zimmerman. What do you think the left will do with that when they hear it might have been Zimmerman’s civil rights that got violated?


RUSH: This is Kevin in Naples, Florida. Great to have you on the program, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Hello. How are you?

RUSH: Good. Thank you.

CALLER: Good. I was calling because I heard what you were talking about earlier, Rachel Jeantel saying the definition “cracka” could be a cop or security person. If they’re on the scene and they’re being paid to provide security for that area, then Trayvon Martin was willing to commit a felony by turning around and starting a physical assault against someone in a position of authority in a law enforcement-type duty.

RUSH: What? Uh, what…? I’m sorry. What is your point?

CALLER: If he was willing to turn around and start a physical altercation with a “cracka,” which could be a cop or a security person who is being paid to provide security for that area, then he was willing to turn around and actually commit a felony by attacking that person.

RUSH: And you’re saying that’s okay?

CALLER: No, that’s not okay. I mean, she just —

RUSH: You’re saying that she’s saying it’s okay?

CALLER: She’s saying that he was willing to commit a felony on that night. If he thought it was a cracka, he was willing to commit a felony to attack that person. Which, you know, they’re trying to make him look so innocent. But if you’re willing to commit a felony, how innocent can you be?

RUSH: Oh, you’re saying that she has inadvertently pointed out that Trayvon was committing a felony?

CALLER: Yes, he could have been. Yes. By her own definition of the word “cracka.”

RUSH: Well, but you’re saying it’s a felony to do what?

CALLER: To attack a police officer.

RUSH: But he’s not. He was a security guard. He doesn’t have the same authority as a cop.

CALLER: I understand that, but by the definition of “cracka,” it could be a cop or a security person, and Trayvon did not know that. But he said he had a “crazy ass cracka” (sic) on him, which means he had a cop or a security person. So he’s going to turn around and attack that person.

RUSH: Your point is that she didn’t know it, but she was essentially saying that Trayvon committed a felony?

CALLER: He was willing to, yes.

RUSH: Okay. All right. Well, I don’t know that that’s gonna fly. Get Jesse Jackson on the horn. “By the way, Trayvon’s the guy that committed the felony!” See what the reaction to that is. Kevin, thanks for the call. I appreciate it.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This