All Episodes
Previous Next
April 23, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:34
April 23, 2014, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Buck is back with you now, and I thank you for staying with me through the break.
A little bit of breaking news, in fact, during the break.
Uh this is from Sky News, a Royal Air Force jet, a a British uh fighter jet has chased Russian planes away from UK.
Two Russian fighter bombers, which flew close to U.S. airspace earlier today have been chased away by an RAF jet fighter.
The aircraft, believed to be Tupolev ninety-fives, were spotted off the coast of Northeast Scotland.
They were turned away from Britain when an RAF Typhoon was scrambled from a nearby air base at Dundee, uh cruise station there on standby were on standby to intercept unidified unidentified aircraft at a moment's notice.
Now, of course, this is with the heightened tenson attentions around Ukraine and all of that happening.
By the way, this comes after, as I'm sure many of you heard, that the Pentagon uh admitted that a Russian jet uh just uh on April 14th, a Russian jet made a dozen low-level flights near a U.S. Navy warship in the Black Sea, which of course the Pentagon called provocative.
Now this is sort of the equivalent of Russia doing donuts in our daisy patch.
They're smacking us around a little bit, just trying to show us who's boss.
All the little things we're doing here and there, the diplomacy, sending John Curry, who's going to have a a very strong discussion with the Russians.
That's not actually going to push back Putin.
That's not actually going to do anything constructive from the U.S. perspective.
And Russia is essentially flying around here and uh they're just taking our beer out of our hands, taking a swig of it and handing it back to us and saying, What are you going to do about it?
Hmm.
Okay.
That's what we get under this commander in chief from this Obama regime.
But I did say I would take calls, and I am a man of my word.
800 two eight two two eight eight two is the number, and we've got uh Dick from Washington on the line.
Dick, uh, this is the Rush Limbaugh show, and you of course are speaking to Buck Sexton.
What's on your mind?
Hi, Buck.
This is a real pleasure in talking to you.
You're a real patriot.
And uh one of the things I I love about Rush and his program and you guys is the sense of humor you have.
I've been waiting to get on here for quite a while, and I'm just sitting here laughing at all the the humor that you guys throw out.
And a very, very uh terrible.
I'll be here all week, tip your waitress.
Thank you very much.
Right.
Well, the point I'm making is I actually won't be here all week, by the way, but anyway, go ahead.
Go ahead.
I don't want him to get confused.
Go ahead.
The question I have, I guess, for you is you think we're more vulnerable than we were, say, in the fifties, when we had mutually assured destruction, we had the atom bomb and nobody else did.
And uh Eisenhower rested on that.
Well, nobody's gonna bother us until guerrilla warfare became pretty apparent.
We had it in Vietnam and we we got murdered in Vietnam because we weren't really prepared for guerrilla warfare.
The point I'm making is that that was a time when we used to get under the desks uh in a bomb drill uh when I was in grade school.
And uh because the the atom bombs we wanted to be sure that if you were going to be vaporized, we'd be under the desk instead of out in the play field.
And um, you know, uh my I I guess the real concern on him is I think peace through strength is the only security we ever will ever have.
I mean Reagan gave us peace through strength.
This man is confusing us and the rest of the world so much that we could get ourselves into a pickle.
And I don't want to go to war with this idiot.
A lot of uh I I hear you.
Look, this this commander in chief would not be somebody that I would what I would be enthusiastic about his strategic vision if we got involved in a major war of any kind, land war, naval naval surface warfare.
Absolutely.
But let me say this, Dick.
Um, the prospects of the U.S. getting involved in a major land war in the near future seem to be, and that you can no one can predict the future.
I always come from that premise.
Uh this was true of my time when I was a CIA analyst.
You know, nobody anyone who says they know what's going they know what's going to happen is uh needs a a lesson in history and needs to look in the mirror a little longer.
No one knows the future.
But it's unlikely right now that we're gonna get in engaged in a major land war.
However, what you see with Russia, with China, and by the way, if Iran goes nuclear, and I do believe that under this president there's a very substantial chance they will achieve Breakout nuclear capability, and then you will see the projection of Persian influence around that region.
The mullahs will extend their hands deeper and deeper into uh of you know Iraq and and other countries in the region, they will become a regional power.
What you see is that they recognize what are uh essentially where we're willing to really draw the line, where we have a U.S. national security interest that will be backed with some threat of force that is credible.
Now we can threaten all day long, and President Obama, as he just did today, can tell the Japanese, oh yeah, those those islands, uh, we're gonna protect them.
We're gonna defend them, and we're with you folks of Japan.
Uh he can say that's the consequences if we don't, if we uh if if you take the these islands, there'll be gonna be consequences.
Well, we we can say that, but I don't think that the the other the people on the other side of the uh of the chessboard can uh w will believe us, and that's essential because in national security, in uh international diplomacy, expectations are essential.
What do your allies think is going to happen?
What do your enemies are going to think will happen?
Do they know the difference between each other and do they actually have faith in your words?
These are essential.
These are the sort of preconditions for any real national security strategy.
And they've just made a hash of this whole thing.
They've completely and utterly um created a situation in which it's not really possible for anyone to know what the direction of the Obama administration is with this stuff because the Obama administration doesn't know what their direction is with this situation.
I mean, the Russians getting all antsy here.
This for them, for domestic political consumption, they are having a go at America essentially, but really specifically, they're trying to mock and and sort of pile on to this president's difficulties right now abroad.
A guy with no foreign policy experience whatsoever before he became president, and thought that the solution to that deficit of experience was crazy Joe Biden.
Who believes that was a good idea?
Let's get uh Eric from Wilmington, Delaware on the line.
Eric, Rush Limbaugh Show, Buck Sexton Talking.
What's going on?
Yeah, hi, Buck.
How are you doing?
Um my question or my statement will be um that the um youth, they um put Obama into office, and they're gonna be the ones that are gonna be inheriting the um failure of their um the national the um international diplomacy because one day they might be in the battlefields of Europe paying for the weakness that America is exhibiting right now.
And that's my one concern for the um young people now.
And there's no one out there telling them that this weakness is gonna be um detrimental to them in the future.
Republican parties or uh or anybody like that.
Right.
The the Progressive Democrats are running essentially a dual track policy here.
And the sort of peace dividend of the second or or the post-Soviet era, they are uh frittering away, they're letting it wither away, and they view a multipolar, UN driven global community as the best possible outcome.
Not one in which the U.S. is the benevolent hegemon, we have allies, we push for our ideals, we leave people alone when we can or when we should, but anyone messes with us, they know they're gonna get clocked and knocked out.
They don't believe in any of that, right?
On the other side of it also here domestically, they are engaged in what really is a massive campaign of generational theft.
Democrats at the federal level at the uh uh in DC inside the beltway are doing something across the country that we've seen play out in municipalities and cities, and that is that you promise benefits today that you won't have to pay for until not just tomorrow, but years down the road, and you then just demagogue your way through every election, maintaining power, promising that at some point there'll be the necessary reforms, but in the meantime, hey man, they're Santa Claus, they're hooking everybody up.
And what happens is that the people right now who aren't as politically motivated, who aren't as engaged, i.e.
millennials, which I think technically I still count as one by the way, uh we're gonna get stuck with a very big bill on the home front for all of these entitlement programs, the generational theft that the Democrats have uh essentially propagated over time, and then we're gonna be stuck with a weaker America abroad, a smaller military, and uh a lack of the sorts of strategic alliances that let others sometimes handle problems in a way that is uh amenable to the United States interests.
So that's what I think that's what I is happening in slow motion day after day, and we just don't get enough time, I think, to dive into the issue.
Okay, well, thank you very much.
You like that, Eric.
All right, rock and roll.
Uh I was just hoping I answered that.
High five.
Thank you for calling in.
Let's get uh James from New York from Albany, who wants to talk about Putin.
Puty poot Putin.
What's going on?
Yes, Buck, how are you doing?
Fine, thank you, sir.
How are you?
Oh, hanging in somehow.
But uh I I I hate to say it, but I think uh Vladimir Putin is setting us up for a Sunday punch.
And I think a lot of our people are distracted and they're not really paying attention to what the really serious problem is in this, you know, to this country's national security.
And by the way, about those Russian aircraft, I would have had them shot down, not fooled with, shot down.
Because they did it to us throughout the Cold War, and it didn't cause World War III.
And I don't think a few shot down Russian air crew would be uh, you know, uh a pr provocation for it.
So I think we've got to stop having them bully us and shoot them down when they get too close.
Well, I can say this the incremental approach that Putin has been taking, not just in Ukraine, but uh across the board with regard to Russian interests against American interests, vis-a-vis things that we're trying to do.
You know, they've pushed out at one point they were they were of course they were banning U.S. adoptions of Russian babies, and then on top of that, they've kicked out um pro-democracy organizations inside of Russia, which of course they view as subversive, because if you're pro-transparency and democracy, you're anti-Putin, because that guy's, you know, handing out gold chains and mink coats and diamonds and whatever he has to do as many of his cronies as he has to in order to keep power, while he also suppresses the domestic will of uh of a lot of people in Russia by guys with truncheons and billy clubs.
So you know, th this is essentially a position we're in now where the Obama administration's lack of direction is coming in to direct contact with Putin's very clear and forceful direction, and that means that we're gonna lose nine times out of ten because we're not gonna put troops in harm's way over this stuff.
We're just gonna try to use the chess pieces on the board in front of us in such a way that we get what we want without taking that much in the way of risks.
It's not happening right now.
That's state craft.
Obama doesn't know state craft, Obama knows statism, and that only applies at home, not abroad.
But James, thank you very much for calling in.
Uh I think it's time maybe that we just switch things up a little bit.
Maybe we'll get to immigration, more specifically, deportation.
And uh that rhymed unintentionally.
But in a minute, I'll tell you why we're gonna talk about that.
800-282-2882, Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh.
A lot more coming your way.
Buck Sexton back for Rush Limbaugh, ready to rock the mic here with you.
Thank you for staying through the break.
Um they call President Obama sometimes the deporter in chief.
I don't mean mean, nasty Republicans, evildoers.
No, I actually mean people that are ideologically aligned with the Democrats.
I mean activist groups, immigration activist groups, for example.
This was on Fox News Latino.
I'm just seeing this now.
Frustrated immigration activists feel, quote, betrayed by President Obama on deportations.
I want to break apart for you the truth of these deportation figures.
But first I want to put in place what the overall concept is, the overall strategy.
Because remember, Obama, foreign strategy, zero.
Domestic strategy, total federal government control, one party state, no more Republicans, conservatism is gone, limited government is uh a cute phrase that people use to refer to a bygone past.
So he's got a strategy at home.
Fundamental transformation of America.
The transformation of the American electorate, in fact, along the way to that process.
So what they tried to do here with the deportation numbers and why we've had so much back and forth.
I'm actually going to read you a little bit of what that back and forth has been.
But they wanted to bait Republicans to essentially beat about the ears the Republican Party to smack them around, force them into a comprehensive, of course, comprehensive.
Immigration reform.
Now, many of you probably already know, and in your head there's a little bell going off, which is well, the one the sine qua non, the one thing without which there is nothing of this entire deal would be amnesty, right?
A pathway um to citizenship for people who are here illegally.
Now, as you know, and second you start to look at what that pathway would be, what the different stages on it would be, you understand it's actually not a pathway, it's a conveyor belt, as I have said before on this show.
It means that there will be, in almost all cases, citizenship at the end of this.
But let's just put aside that component of the discussion for a second, because they tried to push Republicans into a deal in part by pretending, and it's almost amazing that they were as successful at this as they were, the Democrats pretended to be border hawks, if you will.
They pretended to be border security advocates who not only were doubling down and reinforcing the border to try to take control of it, but this is by their own numbers, by their own admission, the Democratic Party, which as we know, is frothy mouthed at the prospect of amnesty that would dramatically tilt the electorate in their favor.
The Democratic Party has been pretending for years to be deporting more people than any president that came before.
That's what they've been saying.
That's why you get these activist groups, and I understand their confusion.
They're like President Obama, come on.
You're the most left wing senator in the Senate before you became the most left wing president since Woodrow Wilson.
Can't you get this done for us?
You promised us executive action, as you know last week, no, no, no executive action.
This week, meh, executive action.
A lot's happened in a week.
So they're going to change what the criteria is for deportations, but the whole time this has been going on, they've been saying that they're deporting a lot of people when in reality, how could that be?
They're so pro-illegal immigrant, not pro-legal immigration.
This administration is very pro illegal immigrant.
But it's come it's come full circle now because their own allies in this fight are saying, Wait a second, you guys are you're not doing what you said you do here.
You're selling us out.
You're actually deporting more people than ever before.
We've seen your numbers.
Well, see, this is the problem.
It was all a lie.
They have been, as they do with so many other things, as they will with the census now and Obamacare and coverage, as they do with any number of statistics on employment and everything else, they are cooking the books.
Cooking the books in a way that is uh right at home for smarmy leftist liberals, although I don't like to call them liberals because they're anti-liberty.
And that is by changing the very definitions of what deportation means, different kinds of deportation, doing whatever they have to do to make it appear to the public as though they're actually strong on the border, strong on security, and therefore it's just an animus that the Republicans have towards people who are not American, who are not American citizens that prevents them from going forward.
It's not that we can't trust President Obama.
He's so trustworthy.
He's so trustworthy, and he's really cool, too.
It's not that, it's that Republicans just somehow don't like him.
Don't like illegal immigrants, don't want to work with the administration to get it done because Obama's been locking down that border.
Unfortunately, that's not true.
Let me bring you into exactly what I mean here.
This is from the Washington Post.
This is not by any stretch of the imagination, a paper that is favorable to conservative interests.
And this is I'm trying to this is Anna O'Law has put this together, and it gives you sort of a smattering, uh, a sampling, if you will, of the reality of the deportation debate.
For example, the economist in February 2014 says America is expelling illegal immigrants at nine times the rate of twenty years ago, nearly two million so far under Barack Obama, easily outpacing any s any previous president.
However, the Los Angeles Times, also not a right wing rag, writes in April that a closer examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data.
In fact, uh since uh the the number has fallen steadily since his first year in office and are down more than forty percent since 2009.
And then, of course, there's a New York Times report, which just came out a week ago that says that in fiscal year 2013, the immigration courts saw a twenty six percent drop in the number of people who have been deported.
There is a huge drop, a precipitous and continuous drop in deportations under this president, while he simultaneously claims to be so tough and be deporting too many people, and he just wants to be loving towards illegal immigrants.
It's not his fault.
There's a lot of politics behind this.
If you stay with me, I will break down exactly what those politics are and where this is heading in the midterms if Republicans don't wise up on this whole thing.
Back in a minute.
The Obama administration has gotten so good at lying.
The Obama propaganda machine is so adept and skillful that they have somehow managed to fool their own political allies.
They've somehow managed to create a perception among those who should be marching in lockstep with them towards amnesty, or whatever we want to call it, towards legalization of millions of people who are here in violation of immigration law, that they've he's fooled that side of the equation, actually.
They are saying, wait a minute, you're deporting all these people, and Obama wants to go, shh no.
It's okay.
We're trying to fool the dummies on the other side.
We want to convince them that we're deporting all these people, but we're not.
Shh, don't ruin it.
That's essentially the political reality of the immigration debate right now.
And I can cite countless sources for my analysis here.
For example, the New York Times, the gray lady, can never do enough for this administration, but in this context, it seems they have to at least call it like it is on deportations, because this is now fallen apart.
The lie is coming to pieces.
Court deportations dropped 43% in the past five years.
The New York Times.
Need new deportation cases brought by the Obama administration and the nation's immigration courts have been declining steadily since 2009, and judges have increasingly ruled against deportations, leading to a 43% drop in the number of deportations through the courts in the last five years.
Drop by almost half.
This is Justice Department statistics that were just released.
I guess they can't fudge those numbers.
But it's even worse than that, because it's not just the numbers which they've been covering up and misrepresenting.
It's the very wording that we would use to have this discussion.
And that's why they're so good.
They're so good at fooling people, because they actually change what words means.
It's sort of like, what is the definition of is Obama style.
On their side of the ledger, and this is from the LA Times, the number of people deported at or near the border has gone up, primarily as a result of changing who gets counted in the U.S. immigration and customs enforcement agencies deportation statistics.
The vast majority of those border crossers would not have been treated as formal deportations under most previous administrations.
If all removals were tallied, the total sent back to Mexico each year would have been far higher under these previous administrations than it is now.
This all makes sense, doesn't it?
Now it all comes together.
Oh, I see the Obama administration, just as Democrats will pretend to be pro-second amendment in blue dog Democrat states in order to get elected, the Obama administration was savvy and cynical enough to try to present this narrative of being very tough on border enforcement,
so that then, oh, we're just reaching across the aisle to the Republicans, want to work with them because it is to quote quote Jeb Bush, an act of love to illegally enter the United States multiple times in many cases.
You see, until recently, and this is back from this LA Times article, people caught illegally crossing the border, the southern border were simply bust back into Mexico in what were called, quote, voluntary returns.
But critics derisively have termed this catch and release.
That's because if you were a voluntary return, you weren't banned from legal re-entry for anywhere from five To twenty years.
So it was in your interest if you were caught to just go back and guess what?
Try again.
That's what had been happening.
They have falsified the numbers in order to skew the debate to force Republicans to commit political suicide by giving up on border enforcement and legalizing millions of newly minted Democrat voters.
This is you gotta give them credit.
This is a big play.
This is a big game.
They're playing the long game here, too.
Trying to fundamentally transform America by fundamentally transforming the American electorate to something more of their liking.
More people who are by the percentages likely to be dependent on government assistance, people who are ideologically, based upon all the polling, new immigrants across the board, really, are ideological ideologically predisposed to wanting more government in their life.
More government assistance, more government help.
Well, generally speaking, a lot of immigrants who are here illegally tend to not be rolling in in a Rolls-Royce and buying a new house in cash.
So yeah, the government's probably gonna be giving them a a little help here and there, if not a lot of help.
This is the reality of this debate we're having, but isn't it fascinating that finally they ran out of time here?
The Obama administration kept pounding this issue, kept trying to present it at something it was not, and now the numbers have been released, and now we see that oh no, they're deporting way fewer people.
They totally they want as many illegal immigrants here as they can possibly get.
But they want to demagogue the issue and force Republicans into making a Faustian bargain in order to try to get their numbers up for the midterm elections because they don't want this issue hanging over their heads.
They sprung a trap.
And in this case, it seems like allies of the administration, these activists, pro-illegal immigrant activist groups, have stepped into the trap because they're saying, Wait a minute, deporter in chief, what are you doing?
And the commander in chief, and their uh by their verbiage, the deporter in chief, is saying, guys, do you really think I'm deporting more than George Bush or the presidents that came before him?
Do you really believe that?
What about me?
What about President Obama would suggest that that's true?
Yet another very useful broad spectrum lie from an administration that has made not just a habit of it, but has actually turned falsification into something of an art form.
They're really good at that.
They're really good at m mishandling the truth, misrepresenting the facts, and trying to trick the other side through coercion and of course through, as Rush says, the drive-by media, trying to make people feel like they've got no choice here.
Well, you know what?
There is a choice.
Let's at least look at how secure the border is first before we take the Democrats and Obama at their word on this issue.
Because as I think we all see now, their word is not worth very much if it's worth anything at all.
800-282-2882.
I see a lot of you want to talk about this issue right after the break.
I'll take your calls.
Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh.
We are talking deportation reality as opposed to the nonsense peddled by the administration.
And I see that the call screen has lit up.
You guys want to weigh in, so let me bring you in.
We have Claire from Wilmington, Delaware.
Claire, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Show.
This is Buck.
Hey, Buck.
I enjoy your show on Wednesdays first of all.
Thank you.
Uh regarding this one immigration, I want to bring a point that this is really, as everyone knew, de facto immig uh amnesty.
No one th the twelve million that they count as being here illegally is so ridiculous.
But let's even say that is a true number.
The children that they are having here illegally is the bigger problem than the ones that are here termed illegally.
It is treason, in my opinion, that no president, and both parties are guilty of it, will enforce the laws that are there to protect the sanctity of this country, its customs, how much money we give of taxpayer American money to people that do not belong here.
It's got nothing to do with being against anybody.
That's just common sense.
How much money we spend in free and reduced lunch, uh education, have to put manuals in Spanish because some parents don't read English, teaching children, hiring teachers to teach in Spanish because the children don't understand it.
Hey, that's for this country, for our children, Not a penny of an American that is struggling today should be going towards paying for people that do not pay here.
One of one of the problems that this creates, uh or rather one of the problems we have to understand we'll face with this issue is that you'll immediately be uh attacked with the the stick of racism.
The same thing you start to point the I I'm just saying this is and and it's uh it's the favorite tool.
It's the favorite tool of the progressive left.
Uh, whenever, especially they can't win an argument on the merits, the race card rears its uh its head and and that's becoming something that I think now more Americans are becoming immune to it or at least becoming tired of it than I think ever before because of its overuse by the Democrats specifically on issues like immigration.
What's fascinating also, of course, is that lower skilled workers and those that are at the lower end of the wage scale are the ones most directly and negatively impacted by the current uh regime of, well, you know, illegal, but I'm not gonna do anything about it.
In fact, what's come out now, um, Claire, is that there's almost a zero chance if you get beyond the border and you're here illegally, unless you commit a serious crime, there's almost a zero chance of deportation at this point in time.
So that's that's the reality of what's actually happening, and the Democrats are just uh arguing in this sort of fantasy land about what's happening and how they'll treat the issue and everything else.
But this is a uh an existential issue for the Republican Party and it is an existential issue for limited government because we can't afford the welfare state we already have.
If you're going to bring in immigrants who are disproportionately reliant upon welfare benefits in this country, I don't understand how people want to tout this as being some sort of an economic miracle.
Bring in low or no skilled workers to compete with the low skilled workers who already have a very tough time in this country.
The middle class in America, according to this recent study that just came out, is not the wealthiest middle class in the world in this country.
And we think that this is the answer.
Of course it's not the answer.
Well, this is what we're facing, Claire.
Uh let's take Rick from Florida.
Rick, this is the Rush Limbaugh Show.
You're speaking to Buck Sexton.
Hey, Buck, great show today.
Hey, I'm glad to hear Russ is doing well.
Thank you, sir.
And yes, he'll be uh rushing back soon.
Rushbow will be back in action.
What's up?
It needs just a little tweak, if I may.
What needs a tweak?
The immigration change is like a conveyor belt.
Yes, sir.
Uh a conveyor belt has an off on switch.
What what they're proposing is a griefed slide.
And once you're on a grease slide, there's no getting off.
Fair enough.
I think you see the analogy is is similar in intent, but I suppose uh it's a conveyor belt with only an on switch.
How about that?
Or a greased slide.
Either one.
But uh yes, I agree that there's there's no way if you're not going to enforce the law as it is now, there's absolutely no way that there will be enforcement of these phases of these steps um later on down the line.
And so you have de facto amnesty.
If you're here, you can stay here.
And by the way, the notion of being able to stay here in a legal status having been illegal, and that somehow is at the back of the line, as the Democrats like to say.
Staying here is most staying here is more than half the battle.
Staying here's the whole point.
If you can stay with no worry about your status, if you can stay and receive, I don't know, benefits, Obamacare benefits, other benefits.
Well, w okay, maybe you gotta wait a little while before you can vote.
The Democrats are gonna try to make that as short a period of time as possible, but this is the reality of what we're dealing with, not the fantasy that the Democrats try to uh use to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people.
Let's take Tom from Queens.
Tom, this is the Rush Limbaugh show.
You're speaking to Buck Sexton.
Hey, Buck, uh I'm just calling about a different issue.
Uh I'd like to make a comment about the my belief that Hillary will uh not be uh elected president.
By all means.
The reas uh the reason for that is that I believe that um the the Clintons stepped on just way too many toes when they were in Washington.
The Democrats don't really talk about it, but it has to be an underlining factor because she had uh basically presidential uh nomination in her hand and some unknown Senator came out of nowhere to take uh take it away from her.
That means that the Democrats aren't really happy uh as her being their candidate.
So it's just a matter of uh then her age will which will uh become a big factor.
All right, Tom, I I hear I hear you in all that.
I mean, I think that there's uh I think that it's pretty clear that Hillary is the best that the the best the Democrats are going to put out in the next election cycle.
I don't think she's unbeatable at all.
I think that uh Benghazi Hillary is gonna have her hands full defending her most recent time in government.
Never mind the sort of back and forth that a lot of conservatives have had over whether her past with uh in the nineties and Bill and Monica and all that, whether that should factor in the discussion or not.
I think that she was a completely ineffectual and self-indulgent Secretary of State is probably of much greater importance to the discussion right now than the fact that she was, oh, I won't go into the nineties.
I was just a youth then anyway, so uh I can refer with much greater uh gravitas and precision to what she's done in the last five years just because of my age.
But I'll say that uh Hillary is not unbeatable in the general, and I think that as long as uh we keep pushing forward the failures of her time as Secretary of State, as well as just the constant changing in her ideology in order to avoid being pinned down for what she is, which she used to say she was a progressive, a modern American progressive, and now I'm sure she'd say she's liberal.
And I'm sure if you pushed her even further, she would say that she was from uh, you know, some planet somewhere else in the galaxy.
It doesn't matter.
She'll say whatever she has to say to get elected.
That's sort of the Democrat mantra on a lot of these issues.
Just one side note, I see this in the New York Post on the issue of deportations.
Um, this is from the Post, this is from Tara Palmery.
Tech meltdown cripples deportation cases.
A computer meltdown is crippling the nation's immigration courts, creating an overwhelming backlog of deportation cases, the Post has learned.
The problem began April twelfth when five servers that helped power a nationwide computer network failed and shut down the entire system, says an uh insider of the Department of Homeland Security, uh immigrations and customs enforcement.
The computers are going down.
Ah, well, isn't that interesting?
Timing, of course, with all of this.
Now we've got an even bigger backlog for the deportations that are already slowing down to a relative trickle compared to what they used to be.
You have been lied to continuously about this issue.
Hold your Republican representatives to account on this.
Don't let them weasel around and pretend that somehow Obama's a trustworthy partner, or that the talking points of the of the progressive left on this are not meant to cloud and distort the issue to the advantage of the statists in the Democratic Party.
All right, 800-282-2882.
Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh.
I only have a few more minutes with you guys.
But I'll be back in a minute.
Buck Sexton in for rush today, just so you know, the word on Rush is that he's doing well.
It is likely he'll be in tomorrow.
The plan is right now for him to be back tomorrow, so L. Rushbow will be back in action doing his thing here, and he's definitely doing well.
And like I said, likely he'll be back in the chair tomorrow at the Golden Mike.
Uh just a quick note, I have to thank everybody here at EIB, Rush, and his whole staff for making me feel very much at home, being very kind to me.
Uh my second time here on the Rush Limbaugh show.
You if you want, you can check out my stuff at the Blaze.com slash Buck Sexton, as you know, I'm national security editor for the Blaze.com and the Buck Sexton show is available there as well.
On Twitter, I'm at Buck Sexton.
Please do follow and uh send me tweets.
Tell me what you like about the show, what you don't like about the show.
I'm open to everything.
I'm a free speech kind of guy.
Or on Facebook, the Buck Sexton, because somebody else took Buck Sexton, so I don't like to use the article.
I know, right?
There's another Buck Sexton running around somewhere.
Who knew?
Who knew that was possible?
So uh the Buck Sexton on Facebook, send me messages, thoughts, and please do follow uh as I continue.
And maybe they'll even have me back here.
I don't know.
I haven't I haven't set anything on fire.
I I haven't uh tripped and uh and broken anything of of value.
I yeah, I I've I've managed to find my way back and forth.
Thank you all very much for listening.
▲
Export Selection