All Episodes
Previous Next
April 18, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:20
April 18, 2014, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Filling in for rush today, very thankful for the opportunity.
I'm also the national security editor of the Blaze dot com.
And national security is very much in my background, and that's why I wanted to transition with you now from the regulation state, if you will, to regulation nation to what they plan to do, uh how they plan to get more of this information.
It's very relevant to our discussion now that at the same time that there is an increased push or an increasing push.
And this is by the numbers, as I said, what was it?
Uh uh seventy-nine thousand three hundred eleven pages in the Federal Register 2013.
While they're telling us more of what we have to do all the time and every nook and cranny of our professional and personal lives seems open to whatever they plan on uh manipulating and and infiltrating.
Infiltrating being a good word for what we're about to discuss.
We also see that there is this push to have more information about all of us than ever before.
Now Obamacare is of course a part of this.
That Obamacare, this huge uh bureaucratic monstrosity is going to have more of your data, more of your personalized data, meaning what medications you get, what illnesses you have, and of and as we know, there's going to be a portal if there's not one already directly between that information and the IRS.
It's just a question of when and how.
That same IRS, by the way, that we've seen has a proclivity for oh political activism, it seems.
Has some very senior officers who, when it comes to their professional activities, have had to plead the fifth.
But President Obama promises you not a smidgen, not a smidgen, the folks say not a smidgen of corruption from this IRS situation.
Well, it's fascinating that the president will weigh in sometimes on an ongoing investigation or trial, for example, and other times he's silent because he doesn't want to prejudge the situation.
He certainly wants to prejudge the IRS in favor of it being a a bureaucratic uh just a little bureaucratic mishap.
Things happen.
Stuff happens.
And as Hillary Clinton said, what difference at this point does it make?
Well, the IRS not only just got a whole bunch of your money uh, you know, this past week, on top of all of that, they're planning some interesting new things for you, rolling out some new tech, if you will.
This is from Fox News.com.
The IRS and other federal agencies reportedly used license plate tracking technology.
Hmm.
Oh, you don't say.
The Internal Revenue Service and other federal agencies reportedly awarded contracts to a licensed plate tracking company to provide access to license plate recognition databases or technology used to collect plate information.
Bloomberg News reported that the IRS and other government agencies awarded about four hundred and fifteen thousand dollars in contracts to Livermore, a California-based vigilant solution California-based vigilant solutions before the Department of Homeland Security dropped a plan for similar work after privacy concerns were raised.
Ooh, let's just let that marinate for a second, shall we?
DHS, the enormous organization that in order to find a mission folded into itself all these other federal agencies that already had a mission.
That was its mission.
DHS was like, you know, the the lard spread atop the rest of the buffet.
It was the the icing put across the rest of the unnecessary cake.
And now it has a mission because it is, of course, the umbrella organization.
It's essentially the shell corporation that we fit all this other stuff into.
So you're never getting rid of it now.
I gotta say, quite the bureaucratic sleight of hand from those guys.
Because at some point the whole CIA, FBI, oh, we've got what, fourteen intelligence agencies in this country, or I think it might actually be sixteen.
I should know I was in the intelligence community for five years.
Um but we've got all these agencies bouncing around.
Why do we need a Department of Homeland Security?
Oh, we we have, yeah, because it streamlines it, of course.
They're gonna be the guys.
This is also why we need a director of national intelligence.
Because when you have a dysfunctional bureaucracy, the the absolute proven success, uh the proven successful technique here, is to just take another bureaucracy, plop it on top, and then assume that it's all gonna float downstream.
It's all gonna be fine.
Just do that.
Oh.
That's it must have worked every time in the past, right?
Because why not just add more add more lard on top of lard?
So you've got all these different agencies.
You've got all this going on.
You got DHS that knows that Americans are a little uh a little iffy on the whole DHS mission thing.
You know, don't we have an FBI and state and local law enforcement and what exactly Oh no, of course, streamlining makes the situation seem like it's going in the right direction.
Because only in government do you make something more efficient by uh clo uh uh cobbling together many inefficient organizations.
This is like success.
This is essentially the same thing they did in the mortgage meltdown, right?
Well, you got a bunch of bad, you got a bunch of bad paper, so you stick it all together and boom, triple A, baby, you're good to go.
Well, wait a second, each one of these things individually was crap.
It wasn't gonna work.
Ah, but you put them all together.
See, this is the secret sauce of government.
You gotta just pay close attention to this stuff, because that's how they make it all work for you.
That's how you get this great federal government with its 70,000 page tax code, it's 79,000 page federal register, it's 4500 criminal statutes, not including regulations with criminal uh penalties attached to them, which nobody can even count.
That's how you get lean and mean and efficient federal government.
But so the IRS here, they've decided to go in and use a license plate reading technology that even DHS was like, whoa, that's a little big brother for us.
Maybe we're gonna back off on that, at least for now.
We'll back off on that.
Ah, but why would the IRS want this?
What's the purpose of this?
Now though they say in this piece that law enforcement has been using similar technology for years.
And you know, there was some concern, as there always is from privacy advocates, although the privacy advocates recently have been just getting shellacked.
I mean, they're not winning very much, are they?
Uh doing what they can.
But the federal government unsurprisingly tends to side with the federal government.
So every time a citizen says, Ah, I'm not sure about this whole thing, maybe we should roll this back just a smidgen to coin a phrase or borrow a word.
Just just push it back, a little a tad.
The federal government can come in and say, nope, actually, that agency's correct.
They have that purview, they have that right.
Well, what about my rights?
I'm a citizen, I'm an individual, I pay taxes.
Do you really pay taxes, sir?
Do you pay all of your taxes?
And then all of a sudden you start sweating, because they've got you.
Because you live because of the nature of the current regulatory system and laws and Obama in this regime loves this, by the way.
And they've inflated this concept to something that could never have been imagined before.
You are in constant noncompliance.
No matter how hard you try, that was the heart of the Rumsfeld letter to the IRS.
No matter what you do, no matter how smart you are, if they want to get you, they can get you.
And they only have to burn down one village to send a message to all the rest.
Everyone else gets in line.
They call this in law enforcement, deterrence prosecution.
Maybe worth talking to Dinesh D'Souza about what it means to get on the wrong side of the federal giant.
Oh yeah, they're gonna make an example of him.
How many other people are gonna decide to make a conservative documentary now that takes the Obama administration to task?
I don't know.
Not that many.
Despite the huge monetary incentive of making such a successful documentary, do you really want the U.S. Attorney's Office rooting around in your life?
Probably not.
And now we see that not only do you have that constant threat over you, the bureaucracy is not it's self-aware, it's growing.
It views itself as an extension of policy in this White House, President Obama's Praetorians, his Praetorian Guard, essentially these agencies and the individuals in them who think that they're always doing the right thing if they're getting their marching orders from the White House.
And you get the IRS with these license plate readers.
Why?
So they know exactly where you are.
Why do they want to know where you are?
Oh, I don't know.
Maybe you have dual residency.
Maybe you're in a couple of different states and they want to make sure that you're paying the proper amount of taxes for that state.
Well, you could say that under the current tax code, which is ridiculous, of course, as we know, that maybe they have that right.
Well, having that right and having it be wise for them to do so are two different things.
Being correct under statute and being proper in principle are not the same thing.
And so why exactly is it that the IRS thinks that we sh it should be trusted with even more information?
It knows everything about you, and it has access to even more.
And the giant trapdoor between Obamacare and the IRS is just beginning to get opened up.
But it's gonna be there.
Because who enforces the Obamacare?
The IRS.
What was in the statute?
The creation of how many doctors?
Zero, baby.
The creation of how many IRS officials?
15,000.
Oh.
Like we didn't have enough.
But you see, at the same time that there's this surge of regulation that tells you what you can do, that eats away, slowly but surely, that erodes your freedom, that erodes the liberties that are supposed to be enshrined and protected in the Constitution, it just nibbles and nibbles and nibbles.
It's like a bunch of anti-liberty termites.
At that same time, they're also getting more and more information about you.
So you are a bigger and bigger target for the federal government if they decide to silence you.
They've got all the data they need.
And oh, then you add on top of that the fact that even if you are totally fine and somehow manage to, by a miracle, be in compliance with Obamacare, with your taxes, with these regulations, the process is the punishment.
It's uh, you know, uh heads you lose, tails they win.
That's what we are in right now.
And the only way it changes is if people start to call it out for what it is and believe that something different is possible and that maybe we shouldn't let the IRS know our comings and goings in our vehicles as a means of trying to understand how much more money they can squeeze out of us because it's never enough.
800-282-2882 is the call in.
Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh.
Back in a minute.
Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh today.
The call in is 800 282-2882.
And now let me take Josh from Pennsylvania.
Josh, this is Rush Limbaugh Show, but this is Buck Sexton, you're talking to you.
What's up, my friend?
How are you doing today?
I really appreciate everything you're saying today.
Um Thank you.
I you know, with uh the way things are going uh with our government and uh regulating this, regulating that, telling us we owe money for this and that, uh like the Bundy uh situation.
Uh you know, you can almost draw a parallel lines between uh uh Europe or I'm sorry, but the British government and uh the uh early colonies with the taxation um and what Clyde Clive Bundy is doing with uh refusing to pay uh his grazing fees to uh to the federal government,
the uh uh open or I'm sorry, the uh Josh, no worries, but go go ahead.
But uh, you know, the British government and the federal government are almost the same thing nowadays, you know.
Uh Cliven is willing to pay uh his fees to the to the state of Nevada, but not to the federal government that doesn't really do anything with the money.
Right.
All right, Josh, thank you for calling it.
Josh, thank you for calling in.
Um, you know, you raise this issue of the noncompliance, and I think that's uh that's very necessary to look at it in in that context because Bundy is essentially taking a stand against what he believes to be an improper federal rule or regulation.
Now, that's something that we'd like to see in other places.
And it's going to require people standing up and saying, I'm just not gonna do it, and to suffer the consequences, by the way, but at least to do it in the full light of days the American people are aware of it.
And to that caller's other point about the British, if you look at the Declaration of Independence and you read what the grievances were, they are things that are regulatory and process in nature in many contexts.
They are political, yes, but also the notion of a general warrant.
General warrants now have become something that we don't seem to remember or even talking about ever.
But the British had in their mind that they could come in, they could go through a customs house, they could go through your home, they could go through your business, and look through anything you had because what do you have to hide?
I hear the repetition of this principle sometimes with people who say, Well, I've got nothing to hide, so so what if the NSA is snooping on all emails and phone calls?
I've got nothing to hide.
Well, it's not just about one individual who has nothing to hide or not going to prison on top of that.
It's about creating impediments, Speed bumps to the consolidation of power for the federal government.
Because as you know, knowledge, information is power, and if the government has endless information and access to it about all of us, that's a problem.
And there's also something inherently debasing about always having to just open your open your briefcase, open your home, open whatever, your computer, to the federal government because it feels like it.
That's not the way it's supposed to be.
Let's take Tommy from Tennessee.
Tommy, you're on the uh Rush Limbaugh show.
This is Buck.
Yeah, thanks for taking my call.
Just I just wonder.
Now, my insurance personally has gone up three hundred dollars a month, and I realize that that is probably, you know, more than some less than others.
However, with that said, what happens now when people realize, start realizing that now that this has become a law, and by not paying it, you can be in violation of that law.
Now comes the decision.
Do I make my health insurance payments?
Or do I make my home my my house payment, my car payment?
What happens when people realize that they can't make all of these payments, which ones are going to go lacking?
Does this mean that that there's going to be another another housing burst to where the government and us are going to have to bail out mortgage companies and the m car manufacturers are going to come back saying, hey, we're having we have a massive influx of repossessions, we have a massive influx of foreclosures.
We need help with all of this because we're going broke.
Now, Tommy, you you are uh establishing something that I think is essential on a few levels, and I just want to talk to one or two of them.
One is that this is what happens when you have a country run by uh a white house, and I don't just mean President Obama, I mean his top advisors, who are inherently hostile to the operation of a free market.
They don't like this concept that there can be winners and losers, or that there can be a transaction even that is uh freely entered into by both sides without the government having a say.
They believe that the market is always going to bring out a less good outcome than they will create through their regulations and their pronouncements from on high.
They can't even fathom, Tommy, a situation in which their policy, Obamacare, is forcing exactly what you talk about.
In fact, they claim, and they've done this very publicly, and Jay Carney has done this, they claim that people like you, and Tommy, I'm sure what you're saying is true.
I have friends who have lost their health insurance, had to get new health insurance.
I mean, I know people in uh you know in my own life who are suffering from the same sort of issue you're talking about right here, but they have uh the Harry Reeds and the and the Jay, the smarmy Jay Carney, as I call him the smarmy smurf of the West Wing, they have them come out there and say that you're lying.
Say that this can't be, it won't be true.
So they won't accept the reality, the bald face reality that's staring everyone in the face right now.
And ultimately, Tommy, the other side of this is that as long as there are more people who are getting subsidized health insurance, then people like you who can't pay their bills because of this health insurance, they consider it good.
They're happy.
So you suffer for their policy, they don't care, and they hope that the numbers favor them when it comes to uh the ballot box.
I'm sorry, Tommy, I wish I had more uplifting stuff, but I think that's just the reality of it.
Well, on a whim, I called in about getting Obamacare health insurance.
And when I when I commented, I can't afford this.
Oh, well, uh, if you qualify, there are there are a lot of subsidies out there that um you could essentially not have to pay for it.
Right.
So basically what they're telling me is number one, my insurance has gone up three hundred dollars a month to supposedly help these people who don't have insurance.
So what they're telling me is my insurance has gone up to help pay for this, and essentially the people who haven't paid for health insurance up until this point will continue not to have to the reality that's right, the reality of what's happening here is that $300 that you now have to pay in excess, that is going to other people, other people who did not earn it, who did not Pay taxes on it.
That is going to them to subsidize their health insurance, and the Obama administration's plan is that there's enough of those people that your vote doesn't matter.
It gets canceled out, and there'll be more people that say, This is great.
I'm getting free stuff.
Free stuff versus freedom, if you're a progressive, is a very that's very clear how you come down on that.
This administration is all about free stuff.
Tommy, thank you very much for calling in, sharing that personal story.
Look, this stuff does have consequences.
This is hitting people in their pocketbooks.
It's nasty, and we got to call it out for what it is.
All right, I got a lot more uh in just a minute here.
800-282-2882, Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh.
Back in a minute.
You can check out my stuff at the Blaze.com/slash Buck Sexton on the National Security Editor for TheBlaze.com.
And I have to tell you, I'm always in the midst of the news cycle.
I am a news junkie.
But there are some things you sort of have to see to believe, or at least you have to see them with your own eyes to really get the full impact.
And I see this here.
This is from um I think it's the San Francisco Chronicle.
And you see, Nancy Pelosi, yes, that Nancy Pelosi.
She is washing the feet.
I'm going to read this to you.
To honor the dignity and work of immigrants, Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi helped Bishop Mark Andrews wash the feet of Two Children Thursday at the St. John the Evangelist Episcopal Church in San Francisco.
Pelosi also used the occasion to talk about passing H.R. 15 bipartisan immigration legislation that her office says would reduce the deficit by nearly one trillion dollars.
I know, we'll get there.
Secure our borders.
Oh my.
Unite our families, protect our workers, and provide an earned pathway to citizenship.
Okay.
There's a lot of stuff going on here.
Now, first off, Nancy Pelosi who touts her Catholicism for political gain in a way that I find, as somebody who was raised Roman Catholic, pretty offensive.
She's sort of Catholic in the way that the Saudi royal family is very ostentatiously Muslim.
It's kind of a joke.
It's not really serious.
She doesn't take it seriously except for domestic political consumption.
It makes her look good, so she sort of goes with it.
I mean, you look at her policies, I'm surprised that the church does not uh oh, I don't know, refuse communion or call her out a bit more than they do.
But here she is washing the feet of immigrants specifically to quote honor the dignity and work of immigrants.
It is impossible for this woman to do anything without some immediate political implication.
It's impossible for her to just, oh, I don't know, maybe treat Good Friday as a solemn occasion for Christians and not just go on this bender of demagoguery, which is essentially what she has done here.
Now, as I said, Pelosi is somebody who I'm not even sure she understands what what the church believes on different issues.
I think that she doesn't really much care.
It's sort of all a joke to her, a ruse, it would seem to me.
But then to use the occasion of this religious footwashing ritual, of course, for the biblical undertones, trying to present herself as somebody who is familiar with and abides by, oh, I don't know, the core tenets of the Bible or of the Catholic faith.
But then to stand up on the soapbox and start just banging the drum for major comprehensive immigration reform.
Let's just look at H.R. fifteen, for example.
What she's talking about here.
She says it would reduce the deficit by one trillion dollars.
Now, how that is the case is an astonishing situation.
You've got when people are here illegally, of course, they are and no one says, oh, they pay taxes.
No, they pay some consumption taxes.
They are not, by and large, paying federal income taxes.
And as we know that there is a disproportionate connection between those who are here illegally in this country and the consumption of public services.
Welfare stuff in one form or another.
In fact, one of the main means used to pass Obamacare was, well, you can either pay for it this way, or you can have uh people of illegal background waiting in emergency rooms and other, of course, uninsured people waiting in emergency rooms.
And now what we've seen, by the way, are campaigns to get people who are obviously of questionable legal status in this country to sign up for Obamacare, despite the promises President Obama made explicitly to the contrary.
And you can remember there was some little bit of a nasty back and forth.
At least one member of Congress didn't believe President Obama when he said Obamacare would not be given to illegal immigrants.
But she says it's going to reduce the deficit by nearly a trillion dollars.
That is just uh an outright fabrication, it would seem to anybody who has a basic understanding of either politics or math.
If you get both, then you're really just beyond this.
You can't you can't believe she'd say it.
But the notion that somehow bringing in people without any regard to their socio and socioeconomic status or skill set is going to inherently solve our fiscal problems in this country is just again an act of shameless demagoguery.
Now, this actually brings us sort of, oh, wait, wait, before I go full circle, that it will secure our borders.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that any s no sane person would believe that the Obama administration would actually keep its end of the bargain in securing the border.
That's always been a precondition, if you will, a pre-existing condition of getting comprehensive immigration reform through, we will secure the border and then everything else will happen.
But as soon as we started to look into the details of this a little bit, as soon as you start to actually get a sense of what their well, it was sort of a report card that they score themselves, right?
We'll secure the border, but we'll be the we'll be the deciders of what securing means, sir.
And that means, of course, it won't be secure at all.
And that would be contrary to their entire stated goal, which it seems is to bring in as many illegal immigrants as possible and get them onto the voter rolls as soon as possible in order to vote Democrat.
Because if you're here, you don't speak the language or don't speak it very well, have no familial ties, and are outside the legal system, chances are you're gonna go for the guys who are promising you free stuff.
Now that stuff comes from someone, as our last caller made very clear, that $300 he's paying into Obamacare, that is money that is going directly to subsidize other people.
It's not going to his own care.
That's going to subsidize other people.
But securing the borders, what we found out is that actually while Obama there was this dissonance in their in their immigration policy for a while.
They promised that they were doing more deportations than more deportations than Bush.
They're doing so many deportations.
And now even the New York Times has come out this week and said that in fact there's been a dramatic downward ramp of deportations.
Once again, cooking the books, changing the core numbers upon which we are supposed to be able to make policy and therefore political decisions.
What's actually happening in this country?
Either deportations are going up or going down, and then we get to decide who to vote for, who we who we think is going to do a better job handling that.
But this administration, in just an act of brazen cynicism, changes the very numbers themselves, lies about it openly.
More than half the American people think Barack Obama lies on big issues, and this is one of them.
Given their absolute obsession with passing comprehensive immigration reform, someone tell me how that would then logically translate into them being tough on border enforcement.
Of course not.
That can't be the case.
And what we've since found out, because there has been a little crunching of the numbers, some of the data has seeped out.
They can't completely transform perception and reality on a whim, although the drive-by's, as Rush says, do a great job trying to help them.
What we found out is that all along this has been a ruse.
They've been trying to cook the books, make us think they're tough on the border, when in fact they will never be tough on the border because they don't believe that we should really turn anybody away.
They don't worry about the long-term cost to the welfare state.
They don't really care much about what this means, as long as it means the Democrats stay in control.
This now brings me back full circle to the de facto one party state they are trying to create.
They believe very firmly and reasonably so, it is a rational belief that some of the policies they are currently pushing through or trying to get pushed through, while Nancy Pelosi out there in this sort of show of religious fervor is washing the feet of uh washing the feet of immigrants in order to make some kind of a political point.
They do all of this because they recognize that this is a game changer.
This dramatically shifts the goal posts.
We are not in the same country anymore.
If you have the legalization of eleven, which turns into fifteen or twenty, it changes the electorate.
And look at recent elections.
You're talking about a you know, a few million votes here or there that are having a dramatic effect on who is in charge in this country.
That's it.
You're gonna tell me that when you have a population that d votes 70 percent Democrat, 80 percent Democrat, depends on how you want to slice and dice it, that they don't recognize what that would mean.
This is essentially for the party an existential issue.
And so when you have people who are out there who are willing to believe, let's just call it what it is.
She also says in here that we will uh an earned pathway to citizenship.
That's impossible.
If you aren't willing to enforce what's currently on the books, why would you be able to enforce this pathway?
It's not a pathway, it's a conveyor belt.
Once you're on it, you get to the end.
There's no way around that.
Because there won't be, if there's not the political will to actually enforce even things like e-verify, I know.
This is where my my left wing friends, and believe it or not, I've got a lot of them.
They start yelling at me saying, Well, you want to round everybody up?
No.
But I do believe in our legal system.
I do believe that you should have to pay taxes.
I certainly have to pay taxes, much to my chagrin.
You should abide by federal law, and the federal government should enforce the federal law as written, not through executive fiat, as President Obama has done, decide to unilaterally change what the immigration laws are, because I don't know.
It's what the folks want.
Or, you know, we are the change we've been waiting for, or the ones we've been waiting for, or whatever other Pablum he feels like spraying out on the public.
It's nonsense.
But this is what Pelosi's doing, and I have to tell you, and I want to have to go to a break now.
When we come back, it's not just Pelosi.
It's not just the Democrats.
The other side, the the Republicans, the GOP, they're getting brought into this thing too.
More on that in just a minute.
It's not only the Dems that are up on this issue, it's not only the leftists, as Rush would say, the liberals.
It's not only them that are uh looking to get something done on immigration, as you know, Pelosi, uh, and as I've called her before, the the wicked witch of the West Coast, uh, she is washing feet, she's doing everything she can, all going to great lengths to at least make some sort of to make hay of this, political hay of this, on Good Friday, because nothing is sacred to Democrats other than power, it seems.
Nothing.
There's nothing.
They they trot out religious belief to see who they can fool.
But what we have here now is also, and this is courtesy of the Wall Street Journal hat tip Laura Mechler, we also have House immigration bills still in the mix.
Boehner tells attendees at Fundraiser he's quote, hell bent on getting this done.
Hell bent on getting this done.
Speaker John Boehner and other senior House Republicans are telling donors and industry groups that they aim to pass immigration legislation this year, despite the reluctance of many Republicans to tackle the divisive issue before the November elections.
Many lawmakers and activists have assumed the issue is off the table in election year, but Mr. Boehner said at a Las Vegas fundraiser last month that he was hell bent on getting this done according to two people in the room.
A spokesman for Mr. Boehner didn't dispute the account, but said no action is possible until President Barack Obama proves himself a trustworthy par partner to Republicans.
Someone tell me when that's gonna happen.
If that's the precondition, as I put it, if that's the pre existing condition of this discussion, someone explain to me how that's supposed to work.
President Obama's now going to be, after just shamelessly and endlessly heaping ridicule and defamation on the Republican Party.
Now he's going to decide that he's gonna play ball.
He's gonna be a uniter, not a divider.
All that stuff he promised in the Hopi and Changey days.
Uh I really don't think that's gonna that's gonna work.
Yeah.
Um let's take uh Vinny from uh Port Wentworth, Georgia.
Vinny, what's on your mind?
Hey, Bosco, the reason I called was exactly what you're talking about.
Ronald Reagan passed the immigration reform uh can uh California embassy model back in 1986, it really didn't take uh grass roots until eighty-nine, we haven't won the state of California since all three million millions live in California.
Well, I think the sinister plan of the Democratic Party, why they want to push us all bad understanding Republicans at all because it's suicide.
They're gonna take those 40 million, and there's 40 million of them living here, and migrate down to all thirteen possible states, and do the same damage that happened to California to the 13th states, and we'll never have a Republican president, the Republican Party will be reduced to a regional uh regional institution.
No, Vinny, this is and thank you for calling Vinny.
That's exactly what I mean about a one party, a de facto one party democracy.
In some countries, it's a matter of law.
There can only be one party.
That's sort of like in Mubarak's Egypt.
Remember that guy?
He was our ally.
Not a Barack Obama, he's gone now.
And now we have another version of Mubarak in charge, L Sisi.
But that's Egypt.
Let's keep it focused on here.
A one party democracy would mean that essentially all of the mechanisms of government uh are pointed directly towards the continuation of power from one side of the aisle, the Democrats.
And the electorate is constantly not just changed in their favor once, but all of the demographics and all of the future projections of who's going to be voting shows that it will be Democrats for the foreseeable future.
That's why this is such a big issue.
That's why this matters so much to both sides.
Look, there's the principles in this argument of coming here legally, illegally, a nation of immigrants, they always say all that stuff.
And then there's the well, what does this actually mean long term?
And we better be real sure.
I mean, when when we hear that Boehner's office isn't disputing this account, but he's saying that we're waiting for Barack Obama to be a trustworthy partner.
We're not just putting the future of the midterms on the shoulders of that trust with President Obama.
The same president that 60% of this country thinks lies on prominent issues.
That same guy.
So he's talking about the folks.
That guy.
We're going to put all of that on his shoulders.
No, no, actually, we're going to put the future of the Republic on his shoulders in the sense, or on the shoulders of that trust, I should say, in the sense that if this isn't the way they say it's going to be, well, we lose.
Conservatism is done.
It's a minority hobby, essentially, at that point in time.
It's no longer a real political force in this country because we will be outvoted for the foreseeable future for generations to come.
That's what they're those are the stakes they're playing for.
We're arguing about whether we should roll out Orion budget as a sort of a template for going forward and what what our policy is going to be long.
Yeah, that's great.
Intellectual, I appreciate all that.
They're playing for keeps.
They're going all in on this thing.
Why do you think they will not give this up?
Despite the fact that even it shows all the polling proves this, even for the Hispanic community in this country.
Immigration reform is not the number one issue.
The economy tends to always be the number one issue in all of these polls, as we've seen.
And they have a way of dealing with that, which I'll get into in the next hour.
But make no mistake about it.
This is the highest of high-stakes poker for the future of this country.
The Democrats are well aware of this.
And I just have to wonder, for example, with a Speaker Boehner on this, does he is this just an attempt?
There's if I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, what I would say is this.
He recognizes Barack Obama will never be trustworthy.
Therefore, this is a rhetorical dodge, a way of avoiding the continued uh posturing of the Democrats that they need to get this done, Republicans are in the way.
Maybe he's trying to flip it so that it's Barack Obama that's the problem.
Okay.
Maybe that's the way this is going, and I can see that.
But if this is about principle, if this is about the reality of comprehensive immigration reform, Boehner really is hell bent on getting this done.
He's not just saying that.
I love that they use head feints sometimes on the Republican side.
Use more.
The Democrats do it all the time.
They pretend to like guns, they pretend to like God, whatever they got to do to get in office.
And we're always like, oh no, gotta be honest.
I gotta go to a break, unfortunately.
800, 282-2882.
We'll take some calls, talk some more.
Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh back in a minute.
Buck Sexton filling in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm on loan today from the Blaze.com, very happy to be here.
Uh I just want to make a point about something that came up earlier this week before we got to go to a break.
That there's this selfie that was taken of President Obama and Joe Biden.
And it made me think about something.
And they took it, of course.
That's why it's a selfie.
You got the two the president, the vice president smiling together.
I don't mean to be a stick in the mud.
But I think the people who talk about this president as the celebrity president are missing something.
He is in fact the selfie president.
And that's true literally, and it's true figuratively, because the narcissism of this White House, as ex as exemplified by President Barack Obama, is astounding.
And that this is the president that has been in charge during the time of the selfie, and even takes selfies and takes them at the Mundella's funeral, for example.
He's the selfie president, not the celebrity president.
Keep that in mind.
Well, he's both, but I like selfie better.
All right, a lot more coming for you.
Eight uh eight hundred two eight two two eight eight two.
Buck Sexton, fill in for Rush.
▲
Export Selection