All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 30, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:08
January 30, 2013, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying.
You know why?
Because they do.
Because we are engaged here in a relentless and unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
And we find it and we proclaim it.
And some people can't handle it and others like it.
Regardless, it's all fun and it's a delight to have you with us.
The phone number, you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, the email address, lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
As I said, the interview yesterday that Marco Rubio had on this program, there were a few reactions to it, which are interesting, puzzling, funny.
Some people said, you know, Limbaugh started out.
He was really skeptical.
He wasn't.
He wasn't on board at all.
But Rubio charmed Limbaugh.
And by the end of the interview, Limbaugh was on board for amnesty.
And that's a, that not only is a total misreading, that is a wish list.
That is what those people hoped happened.
They misinterpreted my compliments and my attaboys and my praise for Senator Rubio.
And I was doing that simply because I thought he was impressive.
And I thought he stuck to his guns.
And if he was telling us the truth, it's going to be great.
If he meant it, he said that if they don't get border security in this bill, the president doesn't follow through on that, then he's going to vote against it.
That's fine.
But he was articulating conservative principles, very well, leadership and so forth.
And I thought, in that sense, he was very impressive.
But others are looking at it in a little bit different way.
It's fun to listen to.
Let's start out with Senator Schumer.
Senator Schumer was on the political playbook breakfast forum, whatever that is.
And the White House correspondent Mike Allen interviewed Senator Schumer, also had Senator McCain on there.
And during a discussion about Rubio and immigration reform, Mike Allen said, how hazardous is it?
He's talking to Schumer now.
How hazardous is it for Senator Rubio, a young senator, possibly running in 16, to be your talking point on this?
He's sort of, he's been Daniel in the lion's den.
After we came out with our principles, he signed up to go on all of the talk shows of the very conservative radio and TV hosts.
And it was amazing.
He started out the Rush Limbaugh show.
When the show started, Limbaugh was far more hostile than at the end, and that's going to be a real service.
Yeah, I was hostile.
You heard that.
I was hostile at the beginning of that interview.
Hostile means I asked Rubio, why are we doing this?
That was hostility, disagreement.
Skepticism is hostility.
Next up, Senator McCain, he wanted to weigh in.
What we're trying to do is make our talk show friends and people on the right at Fox and others that the status quo is unacceptable.
The status quo is unacceptable to have 11 million people in the shadows forever in this country.
We have to get a secure border.
Look, it's a fact.
In 1986, we gave amnesty to 3 million people, said we'd secure the border, and it would never happen again.
Now we have 11 million people in this country illegally.
I don't want to hand down a situation where we have another large group of people who have come to this country illegally.
Chuck understands that.
That goes a long way in assuaging the concerns of a lot of my friends on the right.
Senator, here's the problem.
You just articulated the problem.
You did this in 86 with the same promises that are being made today.
You were going to secure the border.
That's how Reagan's support was obtained.
He said you were going to secure the border.
And Ted Kennedy and all the others said that if you signed that amnesty bill, Simpson Mazzoli were never, ever, ever going to have any more illegals in the country.
Great numbers have to ever, ever, ever have to deal with this again.
And here we are.
Now the number always changes.
Now they're using 11 million.
It used to be 12.
It's been as high as 20.
Nobody really knows.
But it's millions.
And we're having to do it all over again.
And we're hearing the same promises and the same claims.
And you still have to convince the same people, our talk show friends.
The reason there are skeptics is that we happen to know why this issue is attractive to Democrats.
They're looking at these people as future voters that are going to do a number of things.
They're going to replace the Democrats who are being aborted.
I mean, let's face it, most abortions taking place are among Democrats.
That's a shrinking Democrat voter base.
It just is.
I don't care if that sounds insensitive to you.
It is what it is.
There are fewer Democrats being born than otherwise.
And theoretically, during economic growth, there isn't any, obviously, but during normal economic growth cycles, people grow out of the middle class.
They become upwardly mobile.
And the more financially independent they become, the less inclined to support big government they are.
And as such, they become less inclined to vote Democrats.
So you need an influx of low-income, low-information people to replace people that are growing out of the middle class.
That has been the tradition and history of the country.
Now, it's an all new ballgame now because we've got an administration which is doing its level best with policy to make sure there is no growth out of the middle class.
And I don't say that lightly either.
But A, the economy isn't growing.
B, wages aren't going up, but taxes and the cost of living is.
And so the opportunity for people to accrue wealth is declining.
The progressive income tax is the greatest tool to prevent wealth that there's ever been in a free market society, other than putting people in jail and dungeons.
But the progressive income tax, which takes ever more of what people earn as they earn more and become successful, what does that keep them from doing?
Accruing wealth.
If the more they earn, the higher their tax rate, the less they keep, the less wealthy they become.
So that's where we are now.
Prior to the Obama administration, the purpose, the promise of America was, the American dream was, roll up your sleeves, work hard, devote yourself to it.
It may take time, may take a long time, may take longer time than others spend on it, but you can score.
You can become prosperous.
You can tap into the prosperity this country offers.
Well, the policies in place now are making it increasingly harder for the middle class to experience that.
But in the old days before Obama, you needed a constant replenishing of the lower levels of the middle class.
You need a replenishing of low-skilled and low-wage labor.
The economy has need for that, as requirement for that.
But those people, as they work, learn more.
They gain experience, and they cease being low-information, and they cease being low-wage, and they get better jobs, and their income goes up.
That's always been the cycle.
Well, when that cycle was in full-fledged, the Democrats would need to replace the people who are upwardly mobile.
So these millions of immigrants, illegals, represent the future of the Democrat Party in terms of just voter numbers.
And they represent the demographic profile the Democrats want.
They want relatively poor people that depend on government for their prosperity.
That's what the Democrat is.
That's what Obama is.
That's their business model, if you will.
Now, they still want those voters.
Don't miss they still want those people as voters because that's how they win elections and winning elections and holding on to their power so that they continue to grow government, shrink the middle class, shrink the private sector.
That's the objective of it.
That's why this is a must-do.
But for Senator McCain, we can't have 11 million people as shadows forever.
Granted, but in a pure political sense, why should we just sit by and do nothing and let the Democrats have their way and write the policy that's going to secure them more voters?
That's our opposition to this in one part.
Then the reality is on the other side, the Republicans, some of them want the same thing.
The Democrats are looking at this 11 million, 12 million, 20 million, whatever, as also a pool of potential voters.
And the way the Republicans are looking at it is that they think that Hispanic immigrants are made to order conservatives for some reason culturally.
They think that they're invested in hard work and using the Cuban exile model, they're exactly right.
But the Hispanic demographic, if you will, or population has shifted.
And the Cuban exile model is no longer the dominant model.
The Mexican immigrant model is.
And that they arrive with an entirely different view of America.
And I'm sorry if this is offensive, but it's true.
And I'm not just asserting it.
The scholarly research from academia is out there.
A full 75% of voting Hispanics believe that prosperity is the job of government.
And so they'll vote for the party that espouses those beliefs.
It happens to be the Democrats.
So we sit here, and we think it's a lost cause to favor amnesty, illegal immigration, simply to get voters.
We want to secure the border.
We want to shut down the rampant illegal immigration for a whole host of reasons.
A, the rule of law being number one.
Number two, after that, then we want to assimilate.
See, there is a distinct American culture, or was.
And in the old days of immigration, people came to this country seeking a better life for themselves.
They were fleeing tyranny, fleeing oppression, fleeing economic poverty.
They wanted to come here and they wanted to be Americans.
They wanted to become part of that great American culture.
Well, now that isn't happening.
Our culture is being balkanized.
New arrivals are not assimilating.
They're setting up their own cultures, and there isn't a distinct American culture anymore.
Well, there is, but people are not assimilating to it.
What we want, as conservative Republicans, is for that assimilation to take place.
We want them to learn English because that's the best thing for them.
Learning English is the fastest way they're going to be able to get a good job and have a good career.
Learning English and learning American history, becoming Americans is the greatest thing in the world for people.
We're actually interested in them as human beings, not as people who show up at the polls every two or four years.
But the Democrats, that's their primary objective.
They need their permanent underclass.
They need to replace demographics that they're losing because of various policies.
And you add to that, they have convinced the Republicans that their problems at the polls are because Hispanics don't like them.
Now, why would that, why would Hispanics not like Republicans?
You think it might have to do with what is said about Republicans by Democrats and by the media day in and day out?
I think that's a large part of it.
So we're told, well, we need to reach out.
We need to do trips into the Hispanic community.
The Hispanic leadership and the activist base is committed liberals.
We're not going to change their minds on anything.
Not the political leadership, not the La Razas and groups like that.
But new arrivals, sure, we seek, would love for them to assimilate.
It also troubles us that we're talking about this because it's something the Democrats want.
Okay, so the Democrats want this.
Okay, so we've got to join.
They set the agenda.
Then they set the format.
Then they define the terms of discussion.
And we go right along with it.
And our position gets constructed on the basis, well, we don't really agree with these guys.
We can do it smarter and better or whatever.
Rather than saying, no, we're not going to do amnesty.
We're going to secure the border for the only discussion securing the border.
Nothing else.
We're not going to discuss anything else.
This should be the Republican position.
We're not going to talk to you about your path to citizenship.
We're not going to talk to you about your green card, about what you want to do with the employer of everyone.
None of that, until we secure the border.
Once we stop the flow, then we begin the assimilation.
That's our position, or should be.
And that's what I heard Rubio saying.
He was insistent that border security was first and foremost, and that without that, he wasn't voting for any of this.
Well, good.
That's the way it ought to be.
It really isn't complicated.
But the Democrats' objective is totally, they don't care about the border.
The Democrats, I think, in fact, I heard a Democrat say on Monday, I forget which one, I wish I could remember, about this gang of eight, yeah, we throw in this border security as a talking point for the Republicans.
Meaning, there's four Republicans in this gang eight.
And one of these senators said, yeah, yeah, we kind of threw that border security stuff in so that the Republicans can go out and talk to their base and promise.
But they don't really mean it.
They need the influx.
Obama's speech yesterday was demagogic as it could be.
He was mixing and matching immigrants in completely erroneous ways, like citing the Instagram CEO or the Intel CEO and trying to make people claim that they were originally illegals from Mexico.
They weren't.
They came in with the H-1B visa.
They followed the route.
The whole it was apples and oranges, but he was mixing them yesterday for purpose.
I got to take a break here as I look at the clock, but sit tight.
We got much more straight ahead.
You know, I didn't see this.
I was just told, opening sentence from Time magazine.
And I guarantee you, this is not going to make the president happy.
He's already singling me out.
Listen to how Time magazine wrote up the Rubio thing yesterday.
Listen to this.
Two big things happened Tuesday with regards to immigration reform.
One, President Obama announced his plans at a Las Vegas hash scroll, and Florida Senator Marco Rubio called into Rush Limbaugh's radio program.
The second event mattered more.
Oh, no.
There goes, you know, I lost my low-profile desire a long time ago, I guess.
You just know that's going to tick Obama off if somebody shows him that.
But you know what's happening?
These people think I've changed on Amnesty, and they're showing me some respect now.
Some of these people, that was their takeaway from yesterday.
I find that very interesting.
Let's continue here with the audio soundbar except Bill Nelson, a Democrat senator from Florida.
He was on starting point on CNN today, and the info babe is Soledad O'Brien.
She said, here's what Senator Rubio said yesterday.
She said, quote, I'm concerned by the president's unwillingness to accept enforcement triggers before undocumented immigrants could apply for a green card.
That sounds like he has some problems already.
No, give him a break.
He's got to cover.
Just wait till you get to the details.
They'll hammer it out.
Remember, he had to go on Rush Limbaugh and start convincing Rush Limbaugh, who, as recent as last Monday, said, no way, Jose.
And as a result, Marco was successful.
And by the way, I complimented him as the two of us stood on the floor of the Senate yesterday.
He is going to give a lot of cover to the Republicans who otherwise would choke on this.
All right, let me translate this for you.
You probably don't need the translation, but what Soledad O'Brien was saying, you know, Rubio, he said that he's not going to accept any of this immigration bill until there are enforcement triggers on border security.
And when she said that sounds like he's got some problems already, she's talking about Obama.
And Bill Nelson said, oh, no, give him a break.
He didn't really mean that.
He just had to say that to Rush Limbaugh to fool Rush Limbaugh.
He's got to cover.
Just wait till you get to the details.
They'll hammer all that out.
Remember, he had to go on Rush Limbaugh and convince Rush Limbaugh.
Meaning, he's got to say things he doesn't mean.
Is that what Bill Nelson meant by that?
What do you think, Don?
He's got to go on Rush Limbaugh.
He had to convince Rush Limbaugh.
So all of this talk about border security, don't sweat it, Soledad.
When the bill gets written, it'll be done the right way.
Well, Rubio was emphatic.
And by the way, not just to me.
He's been doing a lot of interviews, and he's told everybody that if he's not satisfied on the border security mechanisms, he's not going to vote for it.
He hasn't just told me that.
So here, Gloria Borger.
This is an interesting bite.
Now, you can look at this one a couple of ways.
I think she means with this bite that Rubio can probably save the Republican Party from people like me.
I think that's what she means as you hear it.
But if Rubio pulls off what he's trying to pull off, he could also save the GOP from the Republican establishment.
Because the Republican establishment is willing to give the Democrats blanket amnesty.
Can we just be honest about that?
You know it, and I know it, and that's what you're afraid of.
The rhinos will give blanket amnesty.
If anybody is not telling us the truth about border security, isn't Rubio.
That's not what our fear is.
We think Rubio is telling us the truth on that.
It's the other guys about whom we have some concerns.
Here's Gloria Borger.
See what you think of this.
I don't think you can overstate it, Wolf.
It's very, very important.
Here's someone with undeniable conservative credentials, a bona fide member of the Tea Party, who is effectively trying to save, I would argue, save the Republican Party from itself on the question of immigration.
He is somebody who can go on the Rush Limbaugh show and say, look, I care about enforcement.
We have to secure the borders, but we have to find a way out of the immigration mess that we have.
I believe he's staking his entire political career on it, and as I said, helping the Republican Party in his own way.
Okay, so I think that what she's talking about is that Rubio can save the GOP from people like me.
Because people like me really don't, we don't want these people here.
That's what she thinks.
We don't want these people here.
And she couldn't be more wrong.
It's all about the rule of law and assimilation and border security, as I explained in the first hour, or the previous half hour.
But at any rate, save the Republican Party from itself and find a way out of the immigration mess that we have.
I think this group think among the liberals in the media, the immigration mess that we have, why do they care about it?
What is the mess?
When you get down to brass tax and the human being factor, what is their real concern about this?
Are they really wringing their hands over the fate of all of these 11 or 12 million people in their daily lives?
Is that what they're really worried about here?
People like Gloria Borger.
Is that really what's troubling her?
Is the circumstances of these people?
Or is it something else?
I think everything with these people is political.
I think this is just another avenue to get rid of an effective Republican opposition.
That's the value of immigration.
It's an issue on which they hope to be able to relegate Republicans to insignificance.
This Republican immigration problem is largely one they have manufactured.
Jessica Yellen, CNN Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.
This is what she said.
The president's critics are howling.
When Senator Marco Rubio defended reform to Rush Limbaugh, he got an earful.
What you are doing is admirable and noteworthy.
You are recognizing reality.
My concern is: the president wants people to believe something that isn't true, that you really don't want an improved life for Hispanics, that you really are still racist.
But conservatives on Capitol Hill are more supportive.
What does she mean?
I got an ear, he got an earful for me.
I said, you're admirable, noteworthy.
You're recognizing reality.
That's an earful.
So she doesn't get everybody else saying I was too praiseworthy of Rubio.
She thinks I was being too mean or too whatever.
Folks, I don't know.
Gloria Borger talks about the mess of illegal immigration.
What is the mess?
Where is the crisis?
What's the rush?
I know it's something that has to be dealt with, but in 2007, they told us the same stuff.
We've got to do this.
It's a crisis.
We must come to what crisis?
I mean, all of this to me seems to be quite beneficiary to the Democrats.
The status quo seems beneficiary to Democrats, as far as I'm concerned.
I don't know what the mess is or what the crisis is from their standpoint.
Here's Annette in Highland, Illinois.
Glad you waited.
Great to have you on the program, Annette.
Thank you.
I just want to tell you, I'm so glad you're saying what you're saying today.
I was a nervous wreck yesterday that we were going to lose you as conservatives.
And you're just right on today about the immigration thing.
My family immigrated here legally in 1955, and some more of them immigrated here in 2007.
And we are against any kind of amnesty.
The Republicans didn't lose because of Hispanics.
The Republicans lost because they're not conservative enough.
I happen to think you're dead right.
I think that's why so many voters, Republicans who did vote in 2008, didn't in 2012.
I think that's why.
Many of my friends and acquaintances did not vote for Mitt Romney because they said they held their nose and voted for a moderate with McCain, and they only did that because of Palin, and they weren't going to do that again.
And the one thing, and I don't, you know, I hate to say this.
I like Marco Rubio when he first came on the scene, but the one thing I'm not hearing from any Republicans is that anyone who came here illegally is never given the right to vote.
And if they want to do that first and then go from there deal with this problem of illegal immigration, I support that.
I proposed that.
I proposed, not yesterday, but last year, Annette, I said, look, as a means of illustration, the same point you're making, I said, I, L. Rushbo, will support blanket amnesty right now if they can't vote for 25 years.
And nobody took me up on it because the whole thing is about votes.
Why did you think you're going to lose me after yesterday?
Well, because Marco Rubio is really convincing, and I was very worried.
People tend to listen to what he says because of his ethnic background.
And he does not necessarily speak for the Latinos and Latinos who are here legally in this country.
And he seems to think they lost because of this Hispanic and Latino issue, and they didn't.
So I feel like he's a little bit deceived.
And he had a huge audience yesterday.
And I just really, I feel like, as a conservative, we've lost so many people.
And I just, I've listened for 20 years, and I was scared.
Never, ever fear that I will ever do anything like that.
I thank you because right now I feel like I'm a woman without a party.
I know how you feel, but I'm never going to betray myself or you.
Never, ever.
What I said in the first half hour of this hour about immigration is exactly what I think about it.
It's an assimilation issue.
It's a cultural issue.
And I don't have time to go through it all here again, but I don't know what you're afraid you heard yesterday, but if you heard or if you were afraid that you heard that I somehow bought into amnesty, no way, any way, shape, man, or form.
What I was praising Rubio on was what I heard as his unalterable position on border security as a first step.
And if that doesn't happen, he's not voting for this.
That's what I was praising him on.
Well, and I think it comes from a fear as a conservative of being abandoned by the Republican Party and feeling really hopeless when I supported these people with my vote for 25 years.
And I feel very betrayed.
And like I said, myself and many others feel like we don't have a party now.
I know.
I know exactly what you're talking about.
You have been betrayed so often you expect it now among, I mean, I could give you names that I know you would agree with me on, people that you loved and you were just ready to go to the wall for it.
And then one day they abandoned you.
I know what you're talking about.
We're not going to do that.
That's not, you know, one of the biggest fears that soldiers have is being abandoned on the battlefield.
We don't do that.
I couldn't betray myself, wouldn't do it.
But I appreciate your calling, Annette.
Thank you so much.
We'll be back.
I take a quick timeout.
Much more straight ahead.
Okay, Jeremy Nomaha.
I'm glad you leaded, sir.
Hey, what's up?
Hey, Vittos from Omaha.
Thank you, sir.
I'm actually just calling to implore you to please stop talking about climate change in terms of whether or not it is happening for the sake of the Republican Party.
Because it is actually unimportant as to whether or not it is happening.
What's lost in framing the question or the issue that way is what the federal government would have if it were to happen.
What's happening right now is the liberals get to run the argument.
Let's say it gets worse and worse and that it does end up being the case that climate change is happening and that's going to cause it.
Wait a minute.
But I know it may very well be the case that it is not happening.
But you still have to frame the argument in what the federal government would do.
We give away the whole argument of whether or not the federal government is efficient or effective in doing anything if we can't even have an argument on those terms.
Well, wait a minute.
Jeremy, I got 30 seconds.
If I shouldn't frame it as though whether it's happening or not, how should I talk about it?
Just as to whether or not what the federal government's role would be if there were some sort of existential threat like that.
Because the federal government can't do anything right, much less save the entire earth from something.
And that's the discussion we're having.
The liberals will run with the solution if they win that argument.
And that cannot happen because it won't work.
I don't know.
I'm not sure I understand.
HR, would you give us your phone number?
Let's call you tomorrow because I don't really know what you just said.
And it could be my hearing.
It could be a time crunch.
But I want to, are you free tomorrow to talk more about this?
You betcha.
All right, because if it's a discussion on how to reach people, I'm open to hear your ideas.
And I don't quite get what you're saying here.
We'll try again tomorrow.
Be right back.
Don't go away.
Okay, I get it.
The dude is saying that the government can't stop global warming anyway because they're too incompetent, and that needs to be the argument.
Is that what the dude's saying?
Maybe.
Well, I guess we'll find out tomorrow, and we have a little bit more time.
We'll see you then, folks.
Have a great rest of the day.
Be back.
▲
Export Selection