The views expressed by the host on this program still documented to be almost always right 99.7% of the time.
Great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh, behind the golden EIB microphone.
Our telephone number, 800-282-2882, the email address, lrushbaugh at EIBnet.com.
We have We Got Audio, President Obama and Governor Christie at the Jersey Shore, with the president telling the people there how he successfully rebuilt it.
Even though it isn't rebuilt yet, Obama took credit for it.
Here's the first of two.
First, a little bipartisanship here, Obama and Governor Christie at the arcade.
Governor Christie and I just spent some time on the Point Pleasant boardwalk.
I got a chance to see the world's tallest sandcastle being built.
We played some touchdown fever.
I got to say, Christie got it in the tire the first try.
Although I did pay for his throws.
I played a little frog bog, and Governor Christie's kids taught me the right technique for in the hammer to get those frogs in the buckets the way I was supposed to.
And of course, I met with folks who are still rebuilding after Sandy.
Oh, and by the way, I did meet with some people still rebuilding after Sandy, but what I really did hear the frog bog and Christie's kids told me how to really get it in the tire the first try.
Although I paid for Christie's throws.
But we played a little frog bog and his kids taught me the right technique for hitting the hammer to get those frogs in the basket.
But, but, but I met with the folks still rebuilding after the hurricane.
And then the president took credit for rebuilding New Jersey.
Seven months ago, I promised you that your country would have your back.
I told you we would not quit until the job was done.
And I meant it.
I meant it.
Since the storm hit, we've provided billions of dollars to families and state and local governments across the region, and more is on the way.
So it's okay now.
Everything's done.
The money's been spent.
It's been appropriated.
And Obama gave it.
Obama gave the money.
He saw to it that everything he promised is happening.
Or will happen.
Or did happen.
Not might.
So that's it.
The bipartisanship.
That was a feel-good moment, and it worked.
That was the objective, and it took place.
Dick Durbin, the senator from Illinois, on Fox News Sunday yesterday with Chris Wallace.
And Durbin actually defended writing a letter to the IRS telling it to investigate a conservative group.
Durbin said, hell yes, I did.
Chris Wallace said, why single out Crossroads when you didn't mention a single liberal group?
And there were a bunch that were applying for tax-exempt status at exactly that point with the word progress in their name.
I can just tell you flat out why I did it, because that Crossroads organization was boasting about how much money they were raising as a 501c4.
Let's get back to the basics.
Citizens United really unleashed hundreds, if not thousands, of organizations seeking tax-exempt status to play in political campaigns.
The law we wrote as Congress said that they had to exclusively be engaged in social welfare and not politics and campaigning.
And so here is the IRS trying to decide whether or not these organizations really comply with the law.
Crossroads was Exhibit A.
They were boastful about how much money they were Democrats.
You're damn right they did.
That's Citizens United.
That unleashed all kinds of unfairness to us Democrats.
That meant that people besides unions go out and raise money for the Republicans.
And that meant we were going to have competition.
I'm not going to permit that.
Ain't going to be any competition here in fundraising.
We're going to shut the other guys out.
That's why I sent him a letter.
Damn straight, Chris.
What do you think we're doing here?
We're not going to give the other side a chance to raise any money and compete against us.
That's not what that law was about.
That crossroads guy, whoever did that, a bunch of charlatans.
And that Supreme Court, what a bunch of, I mean, that was a horrible decision.
We're not going to put up with it.
So he had no bones about it.
So Chris Wallace said, but okay, moving on to something else.
Talk about Memorial Day weekend.
It's also about the First Amendment and the very important role the media play.
Honestly, are you comfortable with the idea that the president asked the Attorney General to review the Attorney General's own actions?
What is a journalist today in 2013?
We know it's someone who works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger?
Does it include someone who's tweeting?
Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection?
We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision in our Constitution that was written over 200 years ago.
Oh, you see what they want to do, folks.
That's right.
They want to set up licensing of journalists.
That's where the Democrats are headed on this.
You tweeters, you bloggers, you're not journalists.
We are going to determine who is a journalist and who isn't.
We are going to license journalists.
I mean, that Constitution's 200-plus years old.
It's no longer relevant, is what he means.
No, he didn't say license journalists, but what are they talking about?
I mean, if a leading Democrat senator wants to talk about who's a journalist and who isn't, and if he thinks bloggers and tweeters aren't, then he wants to stop them.
How's he going to stop?
You've got to license journalists.
So the government will decide who's a journalist and who isn't and grant licenses and approvals.
And if you don't get your license and you don't start doing journalism, you could be sent to jail.
Or you could be reprimanded.
I just want to be clear.
He didn't say those words, but where does it go?
You got a leading Democrat senator here trying to say that bloggers aren't journalists and tweeters aren't journalists.
And journalists, who are they?
Well, we all know that Fox and AP does journalism, but tweeters and, by the way, Fox won't be if these people have their dream.
Chris Salizza in the Washington Post how the IRS scandal helped immigration reform.
On Wednesday, last Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would comprehensively overhaul the country's immigration system.
It was a major step for a Congress that's shown an inability to do just about anything the past few years.
You probably missed it.
The immigration bill's forward progress was entirely drowned out by a series of House and Senate committee hearings on the IRS, targeting of conservative groups.
That drowning out was, quite simply, the best thing that could have possibly happened for the immigration bill.
In fact, without it, the immigration legislation's path out of committee might not have been so smooth.
The simple fact is that political Washington really can't pay attention to two big stories at one time.
Or, more accurately, it can't fight two battles simultaneously.
It can't walk and chew gum, which is laughable, folks.
The news media can juggle any number of scandals at one time if they want to.
For example, when the Republicans are involved, the media can handle as many scandals as they want to invent.
The truth is, the media is using the IRS scandal as an excuse to ignore the push for amnesty, as well as all of Obama's other scandals.
Now, a lot of people thought that the timing of a lot of this, the IRS scandal, the making it public, Lois Lerner making it was to distract us from Benghazi.
But it was also maybe to distract us from Obama's push for amnesty, what have you.
The bottom line here is that it gave the media an excuse, and so they can create whatever explanation for why they're not covering something, all they want.
Oh, yeah, well, we can't walk and chew gum at the same time, we can't do two things at once here.
And we had to cover the IRS scandal, so they were allowed to just sort of sneak amnesty through and out of the committee.
It would not have happened otherwise.
It happened exactly as they wanted it to happen.
Now, last, well, that's true, they were covering me when the IRS scandal.
In fact, the New York Times, folks, let's not forget this.
The New York Times in a story last week actually blamed me for the IRS scandal not being covered.
The media, the New York Times, said we were too busy covering Limbaugh.
We're too busy reporting on Limbaugh to cover the IRS scandal because that IRS scandal broke at the same time as all this testimony on contraceptives.
And we all know what Limbaugh did.
And we were so busy covering Limbaugh because we had Limbaugh on our crosshairs.
We were going to get Limbaugh for once and all we're going to get a Limbaugh, and that's all we can.
And so the IRS scandal broke, and we didn't even notice it because we were covering Limbaugh.
The New York Times actually reported that last week, folks.
Mr. Irrelevant here was the sole reason the media, according to the New York Times, couldn't cover the IRS scandal when it was happening, 2011, 2012.
They couldn't cover it when it was happening because of me.
Washington, here's a headline in the Daily Caller: Washington launches four different investigations into the IRS scandal: House Ways and Means Committee, House Oversight Committee, Senate Finance Committee, and the IRS itself.
Now, remember, there was a story we had last week that the Speaker of the House did not want to consolidate all the investigations into Benghazi into one select committee, but rather let all five committees that had purview over a part of it have at it.
And the reason that they did it that way was because these committee chairmen have egos, and they're all running for re-election, and they want FaceTime on TV.
And so the speaker said, You know what?
Well, I'm going to let these guys have their FaceTime.
The problem there is that the Benghazi investigation isn't going to go anywhere with five committees looking into it.
That's the best news Obama could have had.
Five committees looking into this?
That means nothing is going to happen.
Instead of consolidating them all and having one committee look into everything.
Five committees looking into a part of it here and a part of it there.
Well, now it looks like the same thing is going to happen on the IRS scandal.
Four different entities investigating the IRS.
Sad to say, might have the same result.
Just utter confusion.
No progress.
Four committees looking into this?
House Oversight Committee, House Ways and Means Committee.
The IRS itself is investigating itself.
And the Senate Finance Committee.
This, folks, is how Washington, the ruling class, circles the wagons around itself to protect itself.
The country sees Washington really intensely investigating, but nothing comes of it because nothing's learned.
Because none of these committees have total authority to go look at everything.
Otherwise, they're stepping on toes of another committee.
So one committee can look at maybe Lois Lerner.
Another committee can look at the Ingram Babe.
Another committee can look at what happened in Cincinnati and whatnot.
But when they all finish, there's no resolution.
Same thing with Benghazi.
But it looks like they're really taking it seriously.
Five investors, a low-information crowd out there.
Well, Mabel, look at that.
Five committees.
They must really be serious about that, Mabel.
They're going to get to the bottom of it.
Same to the IRS.
Well, Mabel, look at that.
Four committees.
Meanwhile, nothing gets done.
At the end of it all, Washington is praised for all of its serious oversight.
But when it's all over, said and done, nothing changes.
I checked the email during the break.
I am not trying to be negative.
Yeah, I get people saying, why are you saying none of these investigations are going to matter?
If they're done the way they're being done, folks, it's going to be problematic.
Now, I am not a potted plant.
I am a here's the bottom line: is this.
I have to tell you what's happening.
There are five committees looking at a Benghazi.
That's, folks, it isn't going to work.
And there are already, and I mentioned that last week.
I made a big deal of that last week.
And there are a couple of pieces in, I don't know, mainstream media blog posts or whatever now echoing that.
So pressure is being brought to bear.
And it's going to be the same thing with this IRS stuff.
I understand how you could hear this stuff and think I'm being negative and throwing up my hands in sort of surrender and sacrificing.
It's the exact opposite.
I'm trying here to highlight, you know, everybody involved here is trying to take the easy way out.
Nobody really wants to get to the bottom of this stuff because that's going to be hard work.
And then once they get to the bottom of this, that's going to require consequences.
And nobody in Washington wants there to be consequences for what they do.
Well, that's got to stop.
There are consequences to you and I for everything we do, particularly if it involves government.
And if we do something they don't like, we got consequences, right?
Well, they ought to have consequences too.
We've got four dead Americans in Benghazi, and we have an absolute voter suppression scandal at the IRS.
And there's no doubt in my mind the ruling class at Washington would like to make it look like they're really looking into it, but at the end of the day, nothing ends up being done about it.
You know as well as I do, if they can exempt themselves or excuse themselves from any kind of consequences, they'll do it.
All I'm doing is trying to highlight what is happening because it can't go on this way.
This stuff has got to stop.
This IRS scandal, I'm going to tell you, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, and amnesty, all these things happening combined with Obamacare, all of this is going to cause an implosion.
None of this can actually work.
All of it represents a huge giant mess that, and the debt too, throw that in there, and all of it's being kicked down the road, which is standard operating procedure.
People in power now don't want to deal with this.
They don't want any consequences, don't want to pay any consequences, don't want to face any.
They'll just kick the can down the road, delay whatever they can so that when whatever hits the fan, they're not around.
It's been going on for ages and ages.
And it's hard to say which of these angers me the most.
If you look at amnesty, if that actually does happen, all the rest of this is academic.
You say, well, if they get amnesty, then that means one-party Democrat rule, and then whatever they want can happen with hardly any opposition to it.
That's the overriding problem.
That's why I, to this day, do not understand the Republicans going along with this.
Even I hear McCain say it's not going to get us one vote.
Why do it?
Well, because it's going to put us in play.
We're going to have a chance to get votes from these people.
How does that, why can't you go do that now?
Well, do you have to wait for amnesty before you think you've got a chance?
It's just pathetically absurd.
Here's Samantha, Cincinnati.
Hi, Samantha.
I'm glad you waited.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
It's great to talk to you.
Thank you.
Hey, first and foremost, I want to thank you on behalf of my family for all that you do to promote his funds for the Leukemia Lymphoma Society.
It matters and it makes a difference, and we just want to say thank you.
I really appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
Regards to Obama owning his policies or not owning his policies, you know, here in the swing state, a big part of that is because Ohio Republicans pushed his policies.
And it has caused, you know, it's caused a major upheaval in the grassroots who elected them in 2010.
You know, liberty-minded folks in Ohio in 2010 gave Republicans the majority.
And they have beaten us over the head with it ever since.
We have fought them on Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, which in 2011, 67% of Ohioans voted for a constitutional amendment preventing the state from facilitating any of that mandate.
And we have fought them on severance tax increases on over 250 small businesses in the eastern part of our state, one of the most blighted areas of our state.
I know, you know, it is one of the frustrating.
You elect Republicans.
And then at the end of the day, they end up joining Democrats to one extent or another in the advancement of the Democrat agenda under the guise of bipartisanship and having Democrats like them.
Here's Bruce in Farmington, New Mexico.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Bruce, hi.
Hey, Rush, retired Predator Pilot Air Force Dittos to you.
Thank you so much for taking the call.
I've got so much I want to talk to you, but while I was on hold, one of the things I was thinking about is your complaint about the bastardization of our language.
And one of the things I really hate is this is America.
We do not have classes here.
We are all Americans, and we all have the same opportunity, which plays into the main point that I called you about.
This Gang of Eight bill has a built-in booby trap.
And what I see is we are developing a government-instituted subclass of Americans.
These will be citizens that can't vote and don't have some federal benefits.
And that's prohibited by the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment.
And what I see Chucky and the liberals doing is they're going to say, yeah, we'll buy into this.
We'll do it.
But we learned our lesson in the health care debate.
We're going to make sure there's a severability clause in there.
So they get it, they get it instituted, and then they immediately go to the Supreme Court.
They argue that previous point, and they should easily win that.
That's an easy one.
Supreme Court throws out the restrictions, and all of a sudden, whenever these guys are naturalized, whether it's a year or 10 years, they're complete citizens.
Let me walk you through this.
Well, hold on.
You've gone through this lickety split.
I want to make sure people follow what your theory is.
First off, you say the government, I'd say the Democrat Party, you think government needs a permanent underclass.
That's basically what you're saying, right?
Well, the bill will produce a government-sanctioned underclass.
Right.
Government-sanctioned underclass of low information, low education, low-skilled people.
You don't have to pay them very much.
Then what you say is they're going to grant them, they're going to give them amnesty and whatever, but they're not going to grant them citizenship right off the bat, the right to vote and this kind of stuff.
And then they're going to go sue themselves.
They're going to go to the Supreme Court and say, wait, we can't do what we just did.
Exactly.
What we just did is unconstitutional, and you think the Supreme Court could agree, yeah, what you guys did is unconstitutional.
You've got to give them benefits right now.
You've got to let them vote right now.
You have to let them have access to the welfare system right now.
That's your theory, right?
Exactly.
And they don't even have to wait until somebody's actually naturalized.
Just pass the bill, and they'll go, oh, we made a mistake.
And they go to the Supreme Court.
Yeah, severability clause is in there.
Everything else stands, but they get benefits soon as they're natural.
Well, I can see that.
Some of it, they wouldn't even have to go to the Supreme Court.
All they would have to say, you know, it's just not fair what we just did.
I mean, these people, we've just put them on the path of citizenship, but we've told them they can't vote.
How fair is that?
Bad for us.
Our bad.
So, you know what?
It really isn't.
So we're going to give them the right to vote tomorrow.
We should have done that.
But his point is that after they get the bill signed into law, then they're going to go do what they really intend the bill to accomplish.
They're not going to wait 10 years or 13 years, whatever the legislation says for these people to acquire all these rights, benefits, or what have you.
It's not fair they have to wait.
It isn't fair they don't get AFTC.
It isn't fair.
How can we do this to these people?
What were we thinking?
We're horrible.
So we're going to correct our mistakes here.
That wink-wink.
That's an interesting theory.
I do think it's applicable to voting because I think that's the main reason for doing this.
You get two main reasons for doing it.
You get voting for the Democrats and low-wage labor for everybody else.
And maybe a third reason.
The Democrat Party does need a permanent underclass wherever they can get it, but they need it.
They need a large voting block made up of people that don't know very much and don't have too many skills, therefore don't have a whole lot of potential, therefore have a lot of dependency.
And Democrats want to turn them into entitlement staters, if you will.
Reliable votes every election.
And all they would need for this is one or two liberal federal judges to see it this way, which they could easily, easily find.
But I'd say it's, folks, it's not irrational at all to be thinking this way.
I mean, there's always something in every piece of legislation, an unintended consequence, or something pops up that nobody thought of, although they actually did, they just didn't tell you, that has to be dealt with right away.
Mistake that was made in our haste, blah, blah, blah, blah.
That's why the focus here is in talking about this is what do people really want?
Why are we doing this?
Simple question.
Why are we granting amnesty?
Why are we providing lip service to Border Security?
Why are we doing it?
I mean, if you've got two scenarios, one scenario is that there are 11 or 12 million people here who are not legal.
They have violated the law in coming, but they're here.
And they're doing things.
They're working or whatever they're doing.
Situation A. Over here, that's not, we've got to bring those people out of the shadows.
We can't have 11 million people here that are here as a result of breaking the law.
Why?
Why?
We've been getting along just fine since 1986.
Well, not just fine, but why are we doing this?
And you ought to hear what that question is asked, and it's not very often that it's asked.
The answers are quite telling.
We're doing it to bring them out of the shadows, Mr. Limboy.
That's why.
Bring them out of the shadows.
Okay, we'll bring them out of the shadows.
They're not in the shadows.
They're all over the place.
They're not in the shadows.
Well, it's inhumane what we're doing.
What's inhumane?
They've got health care.
They go to the emergency room.
What's inhumane?
They're working.
It's all about voting.
You get right down to it.
That's all that this is.
11 million people here who can't vote.
That's got to change.
However we do it, it's got to change.
And from a Democrat standpoint, we've got to make sure they vote for us.
That's what this is about.
Mr. Limbaugh, you are really just, I can't believe that you are so cynical.
Well, Mr. New Castrovi, it's not cynicism.
It's honest, straightforward analysis.
I always ask the question, why are we doing this?
Why do you want whatever?
Why are you doing this?
Republicans say, well, you know, we're not really getting the Hispanic vote.
Hispanics hate us.
And we've got to show them they hate us because they think we hate them.
And so we've got to show them we don't hate them.
Okay, so how are we going to do that?
Well, we're going to say that we're for a pathway to citizenship.
And that's what they'll say.
We're going to show them that we don't.
I don't think they hate us to begin with, but they may have been talked into it.
There may be some genuine dislike here, but the way to fix that is not this.
But it's all about voting, folks.
Both parties, both parties think there are votes there.
The Democrats know there are.
The Republicans, they see it happening.
Well, my gosh, we better sign on to this.
They're going to really hate us, and then we'll go off for their votes later.
It's all about votes.
What else could it be?
Is there anything else it could really be about?
Not to me.
Somebody can show me that there's something else where I'm wrong.
I'd be more than willing to listen to it.
By the way, Chris Saliz's point, that piece that I was sharing with you about how all of these scandals are distracting everybody away from amnesty, not here.
And I just, I want to reiterate with all of these things that are going on, amnesty is the biggie, folks, because if amnesty is achieved, then all the rest of this is academic.
We basically have a one-party government and country for at least a generation.
Now, just to be clear, well, by the way, Chris Salizz, even in his story, Chris Saliza's point was that the IRS scandals were distracting talk radio from raising the alarm about amnesty.
He admitted that it was talk radio that stopped amnesty in 2007.
Chris Saliza, the Washington Post.
And he said, all these other scandals, Benghazi, IRS, are providing cover for amnesty, got talk radio distracted, so they know where their real problems lie.
Saliza admits it.
But here's the point: the amnesty bill, as it's written, or the pathway to citizenship bill, delays citizenship for a number of years.
That's why you're hearing pathway to citizenship.
Well, what will happen, the theory is, and it's a good one, what will happen is if the law is passed, then it'll immediately be challenged, that this citizenship provision is unconstitutional.
You can't bring these people out of shadows.
You can't grant them this.
You can't do that.
They're citizens now.
And all you need is one Obama judge, one liberal judge, and they're not hard to find these days.
And bamo, you've got instant citizenship, instant voting.
So they know if they put this into legislation, it's not going to pass.
So this is how they're going to get it.
Even Bob Menendez, there's a political story today.
Bob Menendez, Democrat Senator New Jersey, admits that the problem with the bill right now in the Senate is Democrats, not Republicans.
They don't have 60 votes for this thing because they don't have enough Democrats for it.
But he says, give us time and we'll get 70 votes.
What the time is needed for, they can't in this bill come out and say we're going to grant them citizenship the minute Obama signs it.
Nobody.
Nobody will stand for that.
So the trick or the deception is a pathway to citizenship that delays citizenship for a number of years or whatever it is.
I think it's 12 or 13, but regardless.
The minute that bill is signed, the next day it's going to get challenged.
Maybe even Schumer will challenge himself.
Who knows?
But some activist group is going to challenge the bill as unconstitutional.
All you got to do is go to a federal judge that agrees with the liberals and demo.
You've got instant citizenship.
That is the caller's theory, and it's a good one.
And it probably is the stratagem because they know in Congress, House and Senate, the American people do not want, you know, we did this once in 1986.
They don't.
The American people may want some kind of immigration reform, but blanket amnesty, they don't want.
So this is the way to get it.
And it has the added benefit of having it done in the courts.
When it happens in the courts, it's over.
You can't challenge the courts.
Federal court, Supreme Court, what have you.
Okay, folks, you are on your own after today.
Executive decision made, and we'll go with the plan.
Mark Stein will be here tomorrow, and Urbanski at the end of the week, and then Mark Stein a little bit next week.