All Episodes
Previous Next
July 2, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:42
July 2, 2014, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings and welcome back, my friends, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, still documented to be almost always right, 99.7% of the time.
And the telephone number, if you want to call, we're going to be getting the phone calls in this hour.
Promise 800-282-2882.
We also check the emails.
You can see, you can see the computer there if you're watching on the DittoCam.
That's where I go check the emails and our obscene profit break timeouts or times out.
So phone calls are coming up relatively soon.
There's still lots of stuff here in the stack.
And I want to add one more thing here about Ellis Island.
We previously mentioned that the total number of people that came through Ellis Island seeking citizenship, seeking entrance into the United States with 12 million people.
Ellis Island was in business for 62 years, 12 million people.
I don't know if that number surprises you.
It does me, but it'd be much, much higher.
And the reason I thought it'd be much higher is because all the things I've seen about Ellis Island, all the movies, and all the talk about we are a nation of immigrants.
And I've just been led to believe, or maybe I did it to myself, that it was very many more than 12 million people.
But I wanted to run some numbers on that.
So we had 62 years Ellis Island was in business.
12 million people came through.
That means 193,548 people on average.
I mean, if it was the same number of people every year, that's how many people entered America through Ellis Island on average.
193,548.
Do any of you know off the top of your heads how many immigrants are permitted into the country per year under current immigration law?
700,000.
That is three times the number of people who were coming through Ellis Island, which is right there next to the statue of immigration.
And I think the current number is actually as I can for the fun of it.
I can tweak them if I want.
The fact of the matter is that there are more than 700,000.
That's legal.
And even at the 700,000 legal number, that's three times the number of people who came through Ellis Island.
And the current number, I say, got to be much higher than 700,000, but that's the safest number to use because it's what's legally permitted.
But now we have, what, 12 million illegals in the country now, if we are to believe that number.
Some think it is much, much higher.
Speaking of the people who are living in the shadows.
Well, before I leave this and get on to Benghazi, Grab Soundbites 8 and 9.
I mean, just for the X 8, 9, and 10, just maybe just 8, 9, just for the fun of it.
Just to listen to how this whole thing ends up perverted, distorted, and corrupted.
Richard Trump was in Washington yesterday during a panel discussion marking the one-year anniversary of the passage of the Senate immigration bill.
He runs the AFL-CIO.
He used to be the United Mine Workers.
I think it was his dad was the mine workers union head honcho, and Trumka now is the AFL CIO.
And now you would think off the top of your head that unions wouldn't want any illegal immigrants here because it lowers the job base.
It lowers the wage scale.
Undocumented workers working in the shadows.
And by admission, they work much cheaper than Americans because Americans are greedy.
And Americans, I guess, too good for many kinds of work.
And so we need these illegal immigrants, low-skilled, low-education, low-wage.
You would think the unions would oppose that.
But they don't.
I'll tell you why in just a second.
Here's Trump at a panel discussion marking the one-year anniversary of the passage of the Senate immigration bill.
First of a couple bites here.
Today marks a bittersweet moment in the fight for justice for immigrants.
It's obviously bitter because after 18 months of work, the Senate immigration bill languishes, deportations continue, and our immigration system remains broken.
House Republicans have failed to, in their duty, to serve the national interest, and they've squandered a very historic opportunity to move our country forward.
Mr. Trump, you know, you and your buds keep saying the immigration system is broken.
I thought we fixed it back in 1986.
I thought that's what the Simpson-Mazzoli Act was all about.
And Senator Kennedy promised us if we just let these three million at the time, it's what it was, three million, just legalize them, make them citizens, give them amnesty, and we'll close the borders.
This is never, ever going to happen again.
Well, here we are, nearly 30 years later, and it's four to five times the number of people that Simpson-Mazzoli was dealing with.
But we were told that that was going to fix it.
And now you want to do the same thing over again under the guise of fixing it.
What broke it?
Who broke the immigration system?
Who's responsible for breaking it?
It isn't broken.
It just isn't being enforced.
There's plenty of immigration law out there.
But not all of those laws are being enforced.
If they were, it wouldn't be broken.
So when these clowns say that the immigration law, the immigration system is broken, it means they don't like some of these laws and they want to get rid of some of them or pretend they're not there so that they can bring in these because I guarantee you this is about Democrat voter registration and it's about, strangely enough, raising the minimum wage.
Okay, here's the way this works.
And it takes time for all this to play up.
You bring in these people that have no skills and they don't have any money and they're obviously not very much education.
So they're not qualified to do a whole lot.
So they take certain kind of jobs.
After a while, Democrats start talking about how inhumane it is to pay them so little.
It's just not fair.
You can't support a family of four on 90 cents an hour, whatever it is.
$7.
You can't say raise minimum wage.
When the minimum wage gets raised is when the unions come and say, okay, we are far more qualified than those minimum wage jerks.
We are far better.
We deserve far.
And they use that to up union country.
You would think at the influx of all kinds of low-skilled, low-wage people would harm the unions.
But remember, liberals are liberals first.
And then they run unions.
Or then they make movies.
Or then they teach school.
Or then they go into journalism.
Or then they do think tanks.
They are liberals first.
And everything else they do comes second.
The cause, the ideology is the religion.
They are not atheists.
They're not agnostics.
Their religion is simply their ideology.
And it trumps everything.
And if the current iteration of the ideology is the transformation of America, and if the way to do that is simply break it by importing people with no ability and no education and no money, then that's what we're going to do.
Now, I don't know what's in it for, well, I do know what's in it for them in the end, but it's nothing that's good for the vast majority of the people of the country.
So here's Trump.
Immigration is broken.
Who broke it?
Why didn't Simpson Mazzoli fix it?
Why don't we just enforce the laws on the books and then it wouldn't be broken?
Trump could have said this then next.
See, the war that we've been fighting is, of course, a moral one.
The devastation of families, the disruption of communities emotionally, I got to tell you, in my heart, it hurts.
It hurts every time I see a family split up.
Every time I see a life disrupted.
I don't believe that.
Every time I see somebody's plans sort of erased.
But the deportation crisis is not America as it's supposed to be, nor America as it can be.
I just don't believe that.
Now, it sounds good.
It sounds like his tugging hearts being, oh, he cares, man.
He really cares.
If all that were true, he's talking about immigrant families being devastated.
It's just not fair these kids arrive and they're separated.
You know what it's like?
The Menendez brothers kill their parents.
And in the trial out here, the jury acquits one of them because they feel so bad for him that he's not going to have his mother as he grows up.
He said, yeah, well, that's because he killed her.
I know, but it's so sad that he's not going to have his mother.
Well, he busted up his family.
I know.
I know.
But he's coming and living in a broken family that's so un-American.
Punishment enough.
Right.
So same thing here.
We're not busting up any families.
The people involved are leaving their families.
And then somehow this ends up our responsibility and our fault.
And something we have to do is we're causing this.
Being who we are is causing this.
Being a magnet for people who want to escape poverty or bondage or whatever.
That's our fault.
And it's our responsibility to do something.
If this man really cared about the devastation of families, he would not be a Democrat.
Because the Democrat Party has destroyed more families in this country than you can count.
They've destroyed the black family, and they've done it with the welfare system.
They have simply made it unnecessary for fathers to become husbands and stay home and provide.
The government's taking that responsibility, and so single-parent families are all over this country because the government's right in there playing daddy or mommy, whichever the case may be.
You don't have to look south of the border to find busted up families.
All you got to do is go to any American city you want where the Democrats have been running the show for years and years and years.
You'll find all of the devastated families you want.
You'll find disrupted communities.
You'll find communities where water's been turned off for tens of thousands of people.
So bad, the United Nations is coming in to try to do something about it.
Every time I see a life disruption, every time I see somebody's plans sort of erased, I just hurt in my heart.
Well, I don't know how you can still be a Democrat then.
Now, I know that's probably a tough thing to say because the Democrats have the reputation and image of caring about everybody and trying to help everybody and so forth.
But the circumstances that we all face in this country today didn't just happen.
I mean, this is the result of Democrat policy.
Last six years of Obama policy.
By the way, he's back out complaining about something else.
Oh, that's the highways.
Yes, they had just one crisis right after another.
Now it's the highways.
Six years.
I thought the stimulus bill was going to, in 2009, his first year, I thought that was going to fix the roads and bridges and schools.
But now we're back to the highways are in such a state of disrepair that, why, kids can't get to school, people can't get to work.
Wait a minute.
I thought you didn't want people driving cars anyway.
I thought you wanted them in lawnmowers and golf carts.
It's just tough to keep up with these people.
Do I want to play this?
Oh, yeah.
Here's the next Trump Assembly.
Here's why he thinks, here's what he thinks broke immigration.
In the 1990s, our immigration system broke under the pressure of NAFTA.
And employers came to realize that workers without legal papers could help sleazy businesses exploit all low wages everywhere.
Why?
Because employers grew to understand that immigrants without legal protections can't complain about working conditions.
And if you're a sleazy employer choosing between equally qualified workers and one has citizenship and the right to stand up for him or herself and the other can be intimidated, who do you choose?
Note that for this argument to work, you must have a sleazy employer.
That is the given.
And who is to blame?
And that's the sleazy employer, not the person that broke the law coming here.
No, no, that person is virtuous.
It's the sleazy employer that's the problem.
The sleazy employer is always going to choose the incapable, the weak, because the sleazy employer doesn't need anybody to do anything for him.
No, no, the sleazy employer doesn't care about his business running well.
The sleazy employer doesn't care if his products kill people.
The sleazy employer doesn't care if his service harms people.
The sleazy employer doesn't care.
All the sleazy employer wants to do is be mean to people.
So every employer who will not hire an illegal is sleazy.
And this is the worldview, the left's view of the United States of America.
Sleazy employers, sleazy corporations, sleazy this, sleazy that, while they are clean and pure as the wind-driven snow.
It's against the law to hire undocumented workers, but that's not being enforced either.
So if you're a sleazy employer choosing between equally qualified workers and one has citizenship and the one doesn't, what in the, what kind of convoluted choice is that?
That is rationale for granting citizenship to illegals?
We concoct that scenario to justify breaking the law?
Well, when the rule of law doesn't count for anything, you can say things like that.
And you can get credit for compassion and thoughtfulness and all of that.
But you're also endorsing breaking the law in order to get what you want.
And that's where they are.
You got to take a break.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
Sit tight.
I get this other thing here from Trump.
He says, now, employers came to realize that workers without legal papers could help sleazy businesses exploit low-wage workers everywhere.
Why?
Well, because employers grew to understand that immigrants without legal protection can't complain about working conditions.
If you're a sleazy employer choosing between equally qualified workers, one has citizenship and the right to stand up for himself, and the other can be intimidated.
Who do you choose?
So Trump has just said that the low-skilled, low-wage, uneducated, illegal arrival is just as qualified as his union worker.
Now, where do you get that?
How in the world do you make that assumption?
Now we're elevating them to as qualified as Trump's union members.
And of course, every union worker works for a sleazy boss by definition.
Otherwise, you wouldn't need a union.
Yeah.
Well, I better get to the phones here because if I don't, I won't.
It's Richard in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, where we're starting.
I hope that's right.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hi.
I'm here, Rush.
It is South Carolina, right?
When Sir Hillary was Secretary of State and had a world forum, why is it she never made one of the most important issues of the time in her little administration that she had as Secretary of State to go to Indonesia or India or China where their policy of birth control and contraceptives is if you have an extra child, they'll kill them, let alone the Middle East where they have Sharia law.
And if you were to have an abortion, I imagine you'd be stoned.
Why was that never at the forefront?
But she wants to pick on one little business here in the United States to launch her campaign about women being suppressed above contraceptives.
Well, you're asking me why Hillary didn't make a big deal about contraceptives as Secretary of State.
If it's so important, why didn't she make it a cause everywhere she went around the world?
Yes, absolutely.
I mean, she had the form.
Nobody else has ever had a form like that for women.
Maybe Madeline Aubrey, I guess.
But the point being, Condoleezza Rice, you know, it wasn't an issue.
But she didn't.
Is it an issue?
Wait, just a minute.
How do you know she didn't?
How do I know that Hillary didn't make it an issue?
That's right.
Because the reason I ask, I saw a poll.
I saw a poll.
Nobody can identify anything she did as Secretary of State.
Yeah, well, I agree with that.
We knew that.
But, I mean, this is something that's so important to her that she can come out and be, you know, nothing but bald-faced wise like everything she's ever done, including having the name Hillary.
Well, in truth, you know, contraception is a little bit of a contradiction.
Let me, what would Hillary choose?
Abortion or contraception?
What do you think is most important to her?
Abortion or contraception?
You might look at them as the same thing, but what would she choose?
What do you think is most important to her?
Are you asking me?
Yeah.
I'd say abortion.
Yeah.
And did she talk about that anywhere she went around the world?
Not dared.
They probably would have let her back into some of those countries.
Well, maybe so.
I don't know.
I just still harken back to the poll that I saw on Mrs. Clinton.
There's not one person, nobody, can identify one thing she did as Secretary of State.
Your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, tumult, chaos, lawlessness, out-of-control liberalism, and even the good times, I am your guiding light, Rush Limbaugh and the EIB network.
All right, the regime just released a criminal complaint against the alleged mastermind of the Benghazi terror attacks.
They just indicted the guy.
There's a criminal indictment against Ahmed Abu Khatala and associates.
Terrorist associates.
See, civilized people and associates.
The Justice Department's indictment spells out a calculated conspiracy by Ahmed Ahbu Ghatala and associates to attack the U.S. diplomatic mission and CIA annex in Benghazi, which killed four Americans.
There is no mention in the indictment that Ahmed Ahbou Ghatala and associates were enraged by a video.
Now in custody, Ahmed Akbu Chatala was a commander of Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi, a U.S. designated terrorist group, and is himself deemed a global terrorist by the State Department.
The unsealed June 26th indictment, coinciding with Chatalah's U.S. district court appearance in Washington, states that the grand jury does not know when the conspiracy began.
It says Chatalah did knowingly and intentionally conspire and agree with other associates, conspirators, known and unknown, to provide material support and resources to terrorists.
That is, personnel, including himself and others.
The indictment says that Chatalah intended the material support and resources to be used in preparation for and in carrying out the attacks that killed the ambassador, his aide, and two ex-Navy SEALs protecting a CIA base came under precision mortar attack.
Precision mortar attack.
There is not one mention of the video.
The entire reason for the attack, as given to the country by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, they even ran a commercial that ran in Pakistan.
They recorded a TV commercial that ran in Pakistan decrying this video.
You've heard it.
I don't know how many times you heard that the video led to a spontaneous protest in Benghazi.
And if it hadn't been for the video, nothing would have happened.
But now that the indictment has been unsealed, and now that we have read the indictment, there's no mention of the video.
And contrary to the assertion it was a video, the charges say it was a long planned conspiracy led by Ahmed Ahmouch Ghatala and associates to attack the U.S. diplomatic mission and CIA annex.
Now, Mr. Ghatala can prove the charges untrue.
Maybe.
What if his lawyers say, this indictment is full of it.
Mr. Ghatala and associates acted because of a video.
And the President of the United States and the Secretary of State have all said so.
This indictment is criminal.
This indictment impugns the honor of my client.
My client is an upstanding citizen who is sick and tired of an egregious, expanding imperial United States.
And the last straw was the video that the President of the United States himself blamed for this attack.
This indictment is worthless, and I demand the court to throw it out.
What if Ahmed Ahbu Chatala and associates take that tech?
What if they decide some sharp lawyer here is going to do this?
Wait a minute.
What is the DOJ trying to do here?
Didn't they hear what the president said?
Didn't they hear what the secretary states?
It wasn't any of this.
It was no long-laid conspiracy between Ahmed Abu Ghatala and his associates.
It was a video.
Don't be surprised if that happens.
Right now, everybody's going to see, see, there wasn't a video.
There was no video.
There was no video.
See, see, it was a conspiracy.
And then this guy, you think this guy's going to sit still for this?
They've got a built-in acquittal or at least a pretty good challenge.
The DOJ is impugning my client.
This is character assassination.
Typical of an imperialist United States led by George W. Bush.
Blah, blah, blah.
A newspaper has apologized for its 2008 Obama endorsement, the Billings, Montana Gazette apologized on Friday for its 2008 endorsement of Obama in an editorial entitled Gazette Opinion, Obama Earned the Low Ratings.
The Billings, Montana Gazette, in its editorial, said it missed George W. Bush and the good old days when we were at least winning battles in Iraq.
The Billings, Montana Gazette, in its editorial, apologizing for their 2008 endorsement of Obama, said that Obama had failed on energy policy, Keystone Pipeline, failed in Iraq.
They wrote that the Bo Bergdahl exchange made the Obama administration seem incompetent.
The VA system been mismanaged.
Obama has also broken his promise to become the most transparent administration in history.
Gazette said Obama's regime is so opaque, it's earned a reputation worse than that of Richard Nixon.
And then the Billings, Montana Gazette, apologizing for his 2008 endorsement of Barack Obama, closed its editorial by noting that these mistakes made by Obama demonstrate a disturbing trend of incompetence and failure.
These are all signs, says the editorial.
None of them definitive on their own necessarily.
However, when taken incompletely, these demonstrate a disturbing trend of incompetence and failure.
It's not just that Americans are in a sour mood about national politics.
That's probably part of it.
Instead, Obama has become another and a line of presidents long on rhetoric and hopelessly short on action.
Obama's hope and change have left liberals and conservatives alike hoping for real change, not just more lofty rhetoric.
Would I be justified in saying, see, I told you so?
It just, the suckers are born every minute.
These people fell for all of that rhetoric.
They fell for all.
They knew exactly.
My point is that everybody, well, that may be going a bit far.
I just think they knew.
I don't know how.
I don't know how engaged people could not have known who Obama is.
I just don't understand that.
How could people who are engaged or able to read are able to find out what somebody stands for, what they've said, what they believe in, have resources on the internet?
How could they not know?
Well, that's it.
They wanted to believe that what they knew wasn't true.
They wanted to believe the hope and change.
They wanted to believe utopia was possible.
They wanted to believe in all this stuff.
And of course, there's the racial component they're not even going to touch here, which has to have been a factor in a lot of this.
The historical aspect of the election and so forth.
So, big whoop.
Apologize six years after the fact.
I got to take, well, you take it, but just they could have written, they could have written this editorial before he assumed office and been right about everything they said in their editorial in France.
If they'd written everything they wrote on Friday before he was inaugurated, they would have been right.
They would have been proven right.
They would be seen as prescient.
Let's go back to the phones.
Find out what excitement lurks behind the blinking lights on the console.
This is Mike in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Greetings, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you, Rush.
It's a great honor to speak with you.
A quick question for you.
When are those on the right going to encourage people, citizens, non-citizens, mostly citizens, actions that do not, shall we say, coincide with current law?
So, for example, I am a soldier, and my opinions are my own, not any part of the DOD.
But I'm wondering when somebody is going to encourage soldiers who carry valid concealed carry permits to carry on post.
Why do you need somebody to encourage you?
Well, the policies of the DOD prohibit soldiers from carrying on posts who have valid concealed carry permits, civilian concealed carry permits.
MPs can carry, but soldiers cannot.
So in order to prevent instances like the Fort Hood shooting, whereas, of course, you may be aware that the laws were changed in the beginning of the 90s to not allow soldiers to carry their own personally owned weapons on posts.
Right.
So you want to know when somebody's going to write on the right's going to encourage soldiers to do that or engage in other lawlessness like the left does in order to fight what the left is doing?
Is that your point?
Exactly.
Right.
That's just one example of many things.
But we could go into tax law.
We can go into lots of different things where laws seem to be in conflict with the Constitution itself.
Well, look, this is kind of a tough question, although I get the overall point you're making.
You're basically asking, when is the right going to start fighting fire with fire?
Exactly.
But there are people that flout tax law every year, and some of them for political, constitutional, ideological reasons.
I mean, you know there are people out there who think the government doesn't have a right to collect taxes, and so they don't pay them, and they encourage other people not to.
And the IRS eventually finds them.
But I think what you're really asking is, it seems like every day we turn on television and some leftist group is out protesting something and causing a ruckus and causing people trouble.
And it always results in the targets caving and giving in because they don't want the hassle.
And you want to know, when are we going to start doing it?
When are we going to fight back?
When are we going to start pressuring them instead of always being the victims?
And this is a question that has come up in many ways, many forms during the history of this program.
And the answer has always been, we're too busy working and accepting the responsibilities of life.
And of course, we respect the law even when we don't agree with it.
And we obey it.
And we then want plaudits for it.
And we sit around and we wonder why the people who are not, purposely not doing the right thing, end up winning and being rewarded.
If I've heard it once, I can't tell you the number of times I've had parents complain to me about how they've tried to do everything right by their kids.
They've tried to work and provide for them.
They have tried to educate them, to keep them as best as they can on the straight and narrow.
It's a constant fight.
And they look around and they see other parents not caring and other kids just doing all, and they themselves end up being blamed as being rigid and unforgiving and intolerant, and they don't understand it.
They're following the law.
They're trying to be moral.
They are trying to maintain a cohesive community.
And the people that are opposed to all that seem to be getting all the plaudits and the credits.
And it's largely the media.
I mean, it's, I don't know.
You will find near the base of every one of these problems, the media.
The media is just a huge, huge obstacle to overcome.
But I just don't think it's in the nature of people that you're talking about, call them conservative or whatever.
It's not in their nature to break the law purposely.
It's not in their nature to cause civil disobedience.
It's not in their nature.
But the time may be coming.
There's a breaking point for everything.
A little microcosm in Murieta, California yesterday.
And a lot of social science experts think that it's really only a matter of time before that there is an eruption against the current status quo as defined by the American left and the Democrat Party.
And then furthermore, there are some people who think that that's exactly what the modern Democrat Party wants.
The more chaos, the better, because the more chaos, the more demands there'll be made on government to fix it.
And the way government fixes everything is to limit somebody's freedom.
Restrict somebody's freedom in the name of safety or in the name of peace, like limiting what people can say or in the name of security or what have you.
So it's that's why the battle in the past has always been for hearts and minds.
The battle's always been try to create a majority of educated, informed, thinking people to simply outnumber these at the ballot box and in communities and so forth.
And it's a tough battle because liberalism is a gutless choice.
It doesn't take anything to be a liberal.
It takes no application of anything.
You have to be smart.
You don't even have to agree to fix anything.
All you have to do is point to suffering and say, oh, isn't that horrible?
And you're a great person.
All you have to do.
It's the easiest thing in the world.
You never have to fix anything.
All you have to do is make people think you care about whatever is wrong.
I've got to take a quick timeout.
Friends, sit tight.
We'll be right back.
Don't go away.
I guess I want to make it clear that Billings-Montana Gazette didn't just arrive at this editorial fraud.
They endorsed Romney in 2012.
So they realized the error of their ways in Obama's first term.
It finally, I guess, hit a breaking point last Friday.
Also, I mentioned earlier, ladies and gentlemen, federal officials cannot resolve 85% of 2.9 million inconsistencies on applications for Obamacare, even after nine months of trying.
This is according to new data provided by the regime.
Most of the problems, are you ready?
Wait for it.
Most of the problems involve certifying citizenship.
It could be, it is estimated that 1 million or more illegal immigrants have signed up for Obamacare.
And that is an inconsistency that cannot be confirmed.
And they say, furthermore, is likely to never be straightened out.
Naturally.
▲
Export Selection