All Episodes
Previous Next
June 17, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:49
June 17, 2013, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi folks, great to have you back, Rush Limbaugh.
This is the one and only Excellence and Broadcasting Network serving humanity.
Executing a signed host duties flawlessly, zero mistakes.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-288-2.
And the email address, L Rushboard EIB net.com.
There's another interesting.
What should I call this?
There's an interesting assertion in the Ryan Lizza New Yorker piece about immigration.
The Ryan Lizza piece, the highlight of the piece is that Obama is running the gang of eight bill.
That Obama's running the gang of eight.
Quietly in the White House.
Everybody in the gang of eight knows it.
Nobody's saying anything.
Because of course, Obama can never be seen as having his fingerprints on anything.
But the gang of eight bill, according to Ryan Liza, is exactly what Obama wants.
It isn't Rubio.
It isn't Schumer.
Rubio is the face of it as far as conservatives are concerned, but it's Obama's bill.
Now there's another interesting aspect in this Ryan Liza piece.
He claims that some Republicans have gotten Fox News on board for amnesty as well.
Not the whole network, but this story, when it hits, asserts that some elected Republicans have put pressure on people at Fox News who have changed their minds and have come on board for amnesty.
Doesn't mention any names.
But I just I don't remember if any Republicans have ever approached me to come on board for amnesty.
I don't think that's happened.
I think I would remember it.
If it's happened.
So Obama says that his only opposition is Fox News and me.
But if some people at Fox News have been turned, that means it's me.
The Ryan Lizza story says that McCain, Rubio, and Graham had discussions with top hosts.
Oh, it does mention names.
Uh-oh.
Oh no.
Do I have to mention the names?
Oh, geez.
No, I'm not.
But this is Fox News.
Ryan Lizza story indicates that McCain, Rubio, and Graham had discussions with uh O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Neil Cavuto.
And then the story says, quote, now relatively, all of whom are, quote, now relatively sympathetic to the gang's proposed bill.
Now, Rubio, I have spoken to Rubio.
Rubio has made the case for the bill to me.
He's been on the program.
You've heard it.
I never got the impression that Rubio was putting pressure on me to change my mind about it.
In fact, when I talked to him last week, he acknowledged, I know that you don't agree with a lot about this bill, but I want to explain to you something, and he started explaining.
I forget what it was.
We talked about it when it happened.
I just don't remember.
It was something that had been asserted.
That turned out to be not to be true, and he wanted me to know.
But regardless, uh so this Ryan Lizza story of the New Yorker has the potential to uh shake some stuff up.
I want to get back to the audio sound bites on this.
I want to play Bob Menendez again because this.
I need somebody to explain to me.
I really do.
I know this is naive.
I know that if I were a true member of the Washington establishment, I would understand this.
But I Bob Menendez is a Democrat from New Jersey.
Now I know Democrats like the back of my hand.
And I know that Democrats want to beat us in elections.
I have never in my life heard the Democrats talk about how bad They feel when Republicans lose elections.
Have you?
I don't recall that.
I'm not aware of Democrats expressing regret or sorrow or sadness over the fact that Republicans aren't winning elections.
In fact, it's just the opposite.
Yet, on CNN State of the Union, yesterday morning, his Democrat Senator Bob Menendez from New Jersey.
I would tell my Republican colleagues, both in the House and the Senate, that the road to the White House comes to a road with a pathway to legalization without it.
There'll never be a road to the White House for the Republican Party.
So you think without passage you can't elect a Republican president?
I'm convinced that the last election uh, you know, had a demographic shift in the nation.
It didn't.
There wasn't a demographic shift among Hispanics in the nation.
What would they all of a sudden voted Democrat after voting Republican all these years?
What demographic shift?
The Hispanic turnout was less in 2012 than it was in 2008.
What demographic shift?
But bes b besides all that.
Don't you just love Candy Crowley here?
So Menendez comes out and says, without it, without the Republicans supporting the bill, there'll never be a road to the White House for the Republican party.
And Candy Crowley says, So you think without passage you can't elect a Republican president?
Do either of these two people really care about that?
Think Candy Crowley wants a Republican president elected?
Bob Menendez?
Menendez is unconvinced.
You're never going to elect a Republican unless they sign off on Amnesty.
So Menendez wants to lose the presidency to the Republicans.
Is that what he wants?
And now here's Senator Turbin.
Dick Turbin from Illinois was on CBS this morning, this morning.
Charlie Rose said, some people argue that the decisions on this immigration reform could be determinative of the politics of the future.
What the question?
Senator Turbin, some people are arguing that the decisions on this reform could be determinative of the politics of the future.
Really?
Anyway, here's what Turbin said.
There's no question in my mind that America is changing, more diverse, the voters are changing, and they're going to look to those parties and candidates who are receptive to this change.
If your party candidate for president is saying leave, as in self-deport, it really says, well, you don't care much for immigrants.
And people say, well, that means the Hispanic vote.
The number two vote for the president after after African Americans was the Asian American vote.
They're listening to this immigration debate just as closely as Hispanic Americans.
Oh, so there's another Democrat worried that we might never win the White House again.
and This is amazing.
So two senators in two days have openly publicly fretted over the fact that Republicans will not win the White House ever again.
If they don't agree with Democrats on an issue like immigration.
So both Menendez and Turbin are saying, if you Republicans, if you ever, ever hope to win the White House again, you better agree with us.
Because we're the only ones that are ever going to win presidency.
And if you want to win it, maybe so you don't have a prayer unless you agree with us on this.
So And I just never knew that Durbin and Menendez or any other Democrat wanted the Republicans to win the White House that badly.
I've never seen them endorse a Republican.
And McCain, by the way, in 2008, he's very pro-amnesty.
Did he win?
I've forgotten.
Oh no, he did.
He lost.
McCain was really, really pro-Annesty 2008, and he must be in aberration.
Sarah Palin, Saturday in Washington, the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference.
We have a one, two, three sound bites here.
It is said that she rocked the place.
Something more is going on than your garden variety, government corruption, Or even illegality.
What's going on says something fundamental about our relationship to our government?
The scandals infecting this city, they are a symptom of a bigger disease.
And it doesn't matter if it's Republican or a Democrat sitting atop a bloated boot on your neck, out of control government.
Everyone gets infected.
No party is immune.
Next up, her comments on Jeb Bush.
It's kind of dangerous territory, touchy territory to want to debate this over one racist fertility rate over another.
and I say this as someone who's kind of fertile herself, I don't think that's where we want to go in deciding how will we incentivize the hardworking, responsible families who want to be in the line, follow the law, and become Americans versus those whose very first act on our soil is to break the law.
And she went after Obama and Allah in one sound bite.
DC is one hot mess.
For instance, militarily, where is our commander-in-chief?
We're talking now more new interventions.
I say, until we know what we're doing, until we have a commander-in-chief who knows what he's doing.
Well, Chief, in these radical Islamic countries that aren't even respecting basic human rights, with both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line, a la Akbar, I say, until we have someone who knows what they're doing, I say, let Allah sort it out.
Sarah Palin over the weekend at the uh uh faith and freedom coalition conference will be back.
Your phone calls.
I can't wait coming up after this.
And back to the phones.
We go to Fresno, California.
Hi, Brian.
Really gradu glad that you waited.
Great to have you, sir.
Hi.
Rush, honored uh to speak with you and and I'll get right to my point.
I I'm seeing today's uh decision by the Supreme Court in the Arizona case maybe as a temporary setback, and I'm hoping we can encourage their state legislature and their people to continue to move forward in the right direction.
Uh uh in reading and and looking at the the literature, the majority said citizenship is a requirement to vote in any federal election, and federal registration forms require states under penalty, uh uh person under penalty of perjury to say they're a citizen, and even Clarence Thomas in the dissent said that you know the Constitution authorizes states to determine qualifications of voters in federal elections.
So I'm hoping that maybe uh well voting for the president, uh, Congress, Senate, you have to have this uh or you can get by with this voter motor voter registration.
Hopefully, in county, state, and local elections that the state can require a higher level of proof.
So maybe if they just tweak the uh legislation just a little bit to say, okay, for the feds, we'll let them have the voter fraud, and we won't you won't require anything of you.
But if you want to vote for anything here in the state of Arizona for uh your your Senate or assembly members here in the state or your county officials or any referendum statewide, you're gonna have to prove to us that you're actual a citizen.
So maybe we can get rid of the voter fraud in the state and local arena, even if the feds don't want us to get rid of the city.
Well, you know what's gonna happen.
You know, you know what would happen if any state tried that.
The ACLU would find that person and go to federal court and say the state's trying to do an oun uh and run around your law.
They're requiring people to show proof of citizenship and other stuff that the federal law doesn't or doesn't give them the right to challenge uh in federal elections, but a federal election is being held today while these other people are voting and they'd get it shut down.
Yeah, yeah.
Um I'm just looking for the the bright side because I think they said they're really overstepping and just trying to Sarah Palin just said they they've got their their boot on your neck and they're trying to crush us in ways that we can fight back, I'm hoping we'll look for.
No, I understand what you're saying.
The uh I mean, the reason Arizona did this is because they obviously at the time felt like the federal government was not holding up its end of the bargain on a whole bunch of stuff.
Uh enforcing immigration laws, voting laws, and uh and this kind of thing.
But they were struck down seven-two today on uh on all their requirements because the Supreme Court said, look, these are federal elections.
The form, the registration form is a federal form.
You have nothing to say about it, so you can't do this.
Nice try.
And Scalia said is not an issue.
There really isn't even an issue here.
This is so out of bounds.
Um the true problematic nature of this would be down the road if the feds ever stopped requiring citizenship as a prerequisite to vote.
You know, then we'd have a uh bit of a problem.
But I think I think at the time that Arizona did this, they just felt overwhelmed.
I mean, that they felt like everything the federal government was doing was an obstacle.
And the government was not enforcing its own laws, particularly on immigration.
But they uh and I I understand your idea.
You little trickster out there.
I like the way you're thinking.
What?
Well, I don't know if the uh Hispanics because this Supreme Court decision to Hispanics like the court now.
Like do Hispanics like Scalia now, since he wrote the opinion on this.
I don't know.
I'll get asked Miss Alabama if they do.
I um I don't know if they've gotten a word yet on this.
But the guy's guy, it's a neat trick here, because when there is a state or local election, oftentimes there's a federal race, too.
And if the state says you gotta meet this criteria before you can vote, it wouldn't be long before somebody would take that whole thing to court and get it thrown out as the trick that uh it would be.
Um, the uh state laws have to follow the federal guidelines.
It's just it's it's that simple.
The joke is you know, there's no way to enforce the borders without a photo ID requirement.
And how do you how literally when you get down to that, how do you do that?
And if the feds are not going to enforce something like that, then you know, we're you know, we're whistling past the barnyard anyway on this stuff.
Uh Brian, I appreciate the call.
Really do.
Craig in St. Louis, you're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Craig in St. Louis, are you there?
Hey, Rush, honor and a privilege.
Thank you, sir.
How are you?
I'm doing all right.
Yourself?
Good, thank you.
My question, and uh, I'll go because we're short on time.
But I, you know, I really like Marco Rubio.
I like his plan.
But you know, we have 11 million people who broke the law to get into America.
Do we really think that they will pay whatever fines are necessary?
Do it out whatever benefits they're gonna do and go to the back of the line in order to become American citizens.
Can I ask you a question, Craig?
Huh?
Why do you Republicans have to continually insult these people?
Do you realize what they think?
They already hate us, and they hate us in a year.
You call it the.
You've just accused them of of avoiding not paying the fine, being a bunch of cheap skates.
What are they to think about?
They'll be no different than they are now.
So why why do this amnesty thing that will I mean actually it'll benefit some who maybe actually will go to the road of of, you know, getting citizenship.
But common sense says the following.
We pass the bill.
This is hypothetical.
We passed the bill as it's written.
For thirteen years, they're in the woods.
They have a pathway, but they don't have citizenship, therefore they can't vote, and they can't get Obamacare benefits or welfare benefits.
And theoretically they have to come forward and say, Here I am and pay their fine and go to the end of the line and wait the thirteen years, uh, and that's the price they pay for having come here illegally, but we have enabled the pathway.
And let's say that passes and Obama signs it.
Two to six hours later, Senator Chuck Schumer will find the nearest camera and talk about how lacking in compassion and how mean spirited and how extremist it is to tell these people that we have just now granted essentially citizenship that they can't have it for 13 years.
And how inhumane are we to deny these people and their children health care benefits.
So an immediate amendment will be offered to reduce the 13 years to 13 days or whatever.
And the same debate will spring up again.
Admittedly, this is the cynical view of this, and I have in my discussions with Senator Rubio, I've expressed this to him under the guys that I know Democrats.
And I've said, Senator, I think this is the plan.
I think the 13 years is in there to get this passed, but nobody involved wants to wait 13 years for these people to count, so to speak.
And he was steadfast in his insistence that that was not the case and it wouldn't be the case and that he wouldn't support it if it came up.
But you can't blame people for looking at this in a cynical way, given the history of amnesty and illegal immigration and the way it's been dealt with in this country, and how I mean there's there is there any doubt that since 1986 the whole notion of amnesty has been a boon to the Democrat Party.
Is there any denying that?
There isn't.
So if you know that you add everything else to the equation, the cynicism here is easily understandable.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have Rush Limbo, the EIB network.
Bob in Colorado Springs, thank you for the uh call, sir.
Welcome.
You got it.
Hey, Colorado Springs Black Forest Fire Almost Al Diddle studio.
And in light of the Supreme Court decision, proof of citizenship isn't required in order to vote.
So therefore, I say that we go to every union place, and since we don't need proof of citizenship, we don't need a union card, we don't need anything, let's go vote and take those clowns down.
Now wait a minute.
The federal government does require citizenship.
That's the point.
No, they require citizenship, but not to vote.
You don't have to have proof to vote.
Well, you mean proof to register?
Proof to register to vote.
You don't need it.
So if I don't need that, why can't I go into any union place that's having a vote on what's going to take dollars out of my pocket that I have to pay back through taxes through Obama's crap to hell with them?
Well, I'm a little bit at a disadvantage because I didn't hear about this until right before the program started.
I haven't had a chance to look at the decision, and I'm sort of flying blind on it.
And when you tell me, and nothing against you here, Bob, but when you tell me that the federal government does not require proof of citizenship to register to vote or to vote, I've got to be certain of that.
On my own, I have to independently confirm that.
I can't see the Supreme Court throwing this out and basically saying there's no issue here if that were the case.
I know when I go vote, I have to prove those unions react to that.
Well, when I when I go vote, I have to prove it.
I have to give them a photo ID, my voter registration.
I can't go in anywhere and vote by just telling somebody I'm a citizen.
I can't cash a check without a proof of ID.
I can't use my my credit card with proof without proof of ID.
Well, exactly.
So, you know, I spent 20 years ago.
Some strip clubs are even requiring it.
Yeah.
And you know what?
I spent 22 years in the Army and all of it in special forces, and I've been sent all over the damn world to do the things that they're asking that this these this government is asking, and and I can't even provide my citizens in my home country that I went and fought for in order to be able to go vote without having somebody else from another country.
Let me go to Mexico and vote.
You think that's gonna happen?
Well, no.
No.
I've had enough of these guys.
No.
I mean, you you can't even you can't even go to Mexico and become a citizen without you their their immigration laws are so much different than uh than ours, but but but but but Bob, per federal law, first time voters who registered by mail must present a photo ID or copy of a current bill or bank statement in order to be able to vote per federal law.
So you you you don't you don't have to have a photo ID to register, but you do have to have some other kind of proof.
And otherwise otherwise the court would have dealt with this in a in a far uh different way.
The fact of the matter is you you legally must be a citizen to vote.
We haven't gotten to the point yet where you I mean, legally.
Now I'm sure there are people that vote the dead vote.
There are people that vote multiple times.
We all know that voter fraud takes place.
Not I'm not I'm not denying that at all.
Mike in Point Pleasant, New Jersey.
Hello, sir.
Great to have you here.
Mike in Point Pleasant, New Jersey.
Are you there?
Yes, Megadiddoes, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
The reason I'm calling, I was wanted to comment about Lindsey Graham's comments.
He was saying all the Hispanic votes he was going to lose, but I say they're going to pick up a lot more votes from independents, Democrats, conservatives, Republicans who want an end to this crap.
I I really think that he'll pick up votes.
He's not going to lose whatever he loses in Hispanics, he's going to pick up tenfold on other people who are really tired of this.
They want it to stop.
It stands to reason, but they're not looking at it that way, Mike.
I mean, it just makes total sense to me.
I I mean, I I know people who don't vote who would rush out to vote for anybody who's going to put an end to this illegal immigration.
Uh this well, I know what you're saying.
The this is this is why I'm telling everybody, focus on the money here.
The money is the motivating factor.
Republican donors are demanding this.
And they want it for reasons, nothing to do with the reason you're for it or against it.
They want it for business reasons.
They want this legislation to pass for business reasons.
It is not anything to do with electoral politics.
They don't care.
Modern American big money industry, I don't think really cares.
The political party that's in the White House.
They don't care.
What they care about is being in bed with whoever's there.
It used to be.
It used to be, not that long ago.
The the the old axiom that big money, you know, American business, this sort of stuff voted Republican.
Um because that stood for getting government out of people's way and business wanted fewer obstacles.
Uh something else to come along and replaced it now.
And that is corporate cronyism.
If you can profit and profit big by being involved in the government, then you don't need to be worried about government as an obstacle.
They're your partner.
Yeah, what better partner to have than somebody got three trillion dollars to spend every year.
That doesn't matter.
Well, I'm not talking about those businesses, not at least talking about Obamacare.
Those businesses don't care.
I'm telling you that the Republicans, big money Republicans that that that are that are weighing in on immigration to elected Republicans, uh are doing it for financial reasons.
They want that pool of people in the country for business reasons.
It is it is attractive to them.
But the whole concept of corporate cronyism is a it's not all that new, but it's a relatively new phenomenon to the extent that it is taking place in uh in the country now.
Look at you're talking about Obamacare.
Who was in bed with him right off the bat?
Hospitals and insurance companies.
Why they got a break?
If they helped fund Obama's ads to sell it, they would not be ripped and criticized by the regime in ads as the bill was rolled out or written.
You know you remember that.
The American Hospital Association, the insurance companies that help fund Obamacare's ads to sell it to the public.
Well, now they're all panicked.
We knew they would be, because after a while they're gonna this is what we never understood.
Why didn't they see they were going to eventually be out of business when this thing gets fully implemented?
But another assumption that we make that's always wrong, and that is that exceedingly wealthy people must be really smarter than you and me.
I can tell you that's not the case.
No, no, no, I have not forgotten.
I mentioned in the first hour of the program that as part of our new plan to have outreach to low information voters that we would have the latest on the happy birth of the child of Kim Kardashian and Kanye West.
And here is the latest news that we have from ABC's Good Morning America.
Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's new daughter was born late Saturday.
Reportedly, five weeks early, but healthy.
Kim's sister, Chloe, tweeting, I cannot even begin to describe the miracle that is now a part of our family.
Overnight eNews, the TV home of the Kardashians reality shows, reported the new bundle of joy weighs under five pounds, has dark hair, and may even have a name beginning with a K. Well, the 32-year-old has stayed mum about her new daughter so far.
On Sunday, Kardashian posted this message on her website.
To all the fathers out there, happy Father's Day.
And to all the baby daddies out there, you are loved.
What's the difference in a father and a baby daddy, snerdly?
Because Kim Kardashian uh posted messages to both.
You are loved.
The wedding ring.
That's it.
You're right.
The difference between a father and a baby daddy is the wedding ring.
Exactly right.
Gil in Austin Town, Ohio.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Good afternoon, Russia and the Buckeye State.
Thank you.
I know you're the mayor of Realville, and I'm a long-term resident of Obviousburg.
And my and my obvious question is, what are they going to do with the Supreme Court ruling when they have to enforce it from federal agents when either dozens or hundreds or hundreds of thousands lie on the form?
Which form are we talking about?
I swear I am a citizen of the United States.
Oh, what's going to happen when federal agents try to enforce that amount of fraud?
Yes, it technically, of course, is perjury, but they might just use the Mrs. Clinton defense.
What difference does it make?
But why would they lie about it?
Are we talking about immigration here after so-called amnesty?
I'm talking people who are not citizens who want to vote.
Oh, you're not you're talking about the Supreme Court ruling.
Yes.
Oh.
So there are millions and millions, thousands and thousands, hundreds of thousands who've lied, have committed perjury.
And uh government agents are gonna have to track this down.
Your your point is it's too big.
They'll never be able to find them.
Yeah, how are they gonna put them all on paid administrative leave and take the Fifth Amendment?
Uh uh I have no idea.
What what is your point?
Well, my question with this coming to you, because there's always uh in any kind of court ruling, there's always two things.
There is fact and then there's meaning.
And I'm thinking you're the one who would understand the meaning.
Now I know as you said you're getting caught cold today, but maybe during the evening you can think about this and what meaning is behind that.
How are they going to enforce that?
So you're disagreeing with the court decision.
I don't disagree with the with the primacy of the federal law.
But what I what I wonder though is how what sort of onus are they putting on federal agents to try and enforce this?
When even when Arizona tried to use their own techniques to enforce federal law, they said no, no, no, no, no.
Only we can do that.
Right.
So your question, and what well, you're just saying what what impetus do they have to do it in the first place?
How are they physically going to do it?
Okay, I get the point now.
Gotta take a break.
Back after this.
Reminder, folks, we have a huge sweepstakes coming up starting Wednesday, two if by T. It's our second birthday, and it happens in conjunction with Independence Day.
It all kicks off on Wednesday.
Hope you have a great day the rest of the day, and we'll be back tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection