All Episodes
Previous Next
July 2, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:40
July 2, 2014, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings and welcome back, my friends, Rush Limbaugh in the Excellence and Broadcasting Network, still documented to be almost always right.
99.7% of the time.
And the uh the telephone number if you want to call, we're going to be getting to phone calls in this hour.
Promise 800-282-2882.
We also checked the emails.
Uh you can see, you can see the computer there if you're watching on the ditto cam.
That's where I go check the emails or in our obscene profit break timeouts.
Or times out.
So phone calls are coming up uh relatively soon.
There's still lots of stuff here in the stack.
And I want to 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, uh seeking uh 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 I uh the reason I thought it'd be much higher is because of all the things I've seen about Ellis Island, all the movies, and all the talk about we are a nation of immigrants.
Uh and it it it 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 he 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 that's 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 that came through Ellis Island.
And the current number, as 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 sound bites eight and nine.
I mean, just for the uh actually eight, nine and ten, just maybe just eight, nine, just for the fun of it.
Just just to listen to how this whole thing ends up perverted, distorted, and corrupted.
Richard Trumpka 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.
Uh, he used to be the United Mine Workers.
I think it was his dad was the mine workers union head honcho, and Trump can now's uh AFL CIO.
And you would think off 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, uh, and by admission, they they work much cheaper than Americans because America is a greedy, and Americans are just too good for many kinds of work.
And so we need these illegal immigrants who are 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, I you you and your buds keep saying the immigration system is broken.
I thought we fixed it back in 1986.
I I thought that's what the Simpson Mazzoli Act was all about.
And then Senator Kennedy promised us if we just let these three million at the time, it's what it was, three million, it'll just legalize them, make them citizens, get them, give them amnesty, and we'll and 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.
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.
You can't just say raise the 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 contract.
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.
But 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 it's nothing that's good for the vast majority of the people in the country.
So here's Trumpka.
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?
Trumpka 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'm going 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 it.
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 it's tugging heart swing.
Oh, he cares, man.
He really cares.
If all that were true, he's talking about immigrant families being uh devastated.
It's not fair, these kids arrive and they're separated.
You know what it's like?
The Menendez brothers kill their parents, and in a 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.
You say, 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 live in a broken family that's so unamerican.
Punishment enough.
Right.
So the 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 it's something we have to do is that 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 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, and 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 where 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 disrupted, everybody 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.
Well, by the way, he's he's back on it complaining about something else.
Oh, that's the highways.
It's I mentioned yesterday, just one crisis right after another.
Now it's the highways.
Six years.
I thought the stimulus bill was gonna in 1999, in 2009, his first year.
I thought that was gonna 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, wait a minute.
I thought you didn't want people driving cars anyway.
But you wanted them in lawnmowers and golf carts.
It's just tough to keep up with these people.
Do I want to play this?
Um, 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.
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, well, 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 what 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 gotta take a break.
We'll be back.
Don't go away, said I get this other thing here from Trump, because 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 the union.
Well, a little bit.
I better get to the phones here, because if I don't, I won't.
It's Richard and 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 form, 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 to 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.
Uh, maybe Madeline Aubright, I guess, but that's the point being, kind of Lisa Rice, uh, you know, it wasn't an issue.
But she's 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 I saw a poll.
I saw poll.
Nobody can identify anything she did as Secretary State.
Well, 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 uh, you know, nothing but bald face wise like everything she's ever done, including having the name Hillary.
Well, in truth, you know, contraception is a is uh is a little bit of a contradiction.
Um 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 what would she choose?
What do you think is most important to her?
Are you asking me?
Yeah.
Uh I'd say abortion.
Yeah.
And did she talk about that anywhere she went around the world?
Who not dead.
They probably wouldn't let her back into some of those countries.
Well, maybe so.
I don't know.
I just still hearken 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, and 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 the criminal complaint against the alleged mastermind of the Benghazi terror attacks.
He just indicted the guy.
There's a criminal indictment against uh Ahmed Abu Khatala and associates.
Terrorist associates.
See, civilized people, associates.
The Justice Department's indictment spells out a calculated conspiracy by Ahmed Akbu Khatala 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 Akbu Khatala and associates were enraged by a video.
Now in custody, Ahmed Akbu Khatala, 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 Khatala's U.S. district court appearance in Washington states that the grand jury does not know when the conspiracy began.
It says Khatala 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 Khatala intended the material support and resources to be used in preparation for and in carrying out the attacks that killed the ambassador, his aid, 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 uh Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
They even ran a commercial that ran in Pakistan and recorded a TV commercial that ran in Pakistan decrying this video.
You've heard it, you've, 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 Achbu Khatalah and associates to attack the U.S. diplomatic mission and CIA annex.
Now, Mr. Katala can prove the charge is untrue.
Maybe.
What if his lawyers say this indictment is full of it?
Mr. Khatala 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.
This indictment is criminal.
This indictment impugns the honor of my client.
My client is an upstanding citizen who was 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 be thrown to the court to throw it out.
What if Ahmed Achbu Khatalah and associates take that tech?
What if they decide then some some some sharp lawyer here is going to do this?
Wait a minute.
What is a DOJ trying to do here?
Didn't they hear what the president said?
Didn't they hear what the Secretary of State said?
It wasn't any of this.
It was no long-laid conspiracy between Ahmed Abu Khatala and his associates.
It was a video.
Don't be surprised.
If that happens right now, everybody's going to see there wasn't a video.
There was no video.
There was no video.
C 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 in completely, 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 in 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 and saying, see, I told you so?
Just it just the suckers are born every minute.
These people fell for all of that rhetoric.
They fell for all.
They knew exactly.
My my point is that everybody Well, that may be going a bit far.
I just think they knew.
I I 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 all 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 is which has to have been a um a factor um in a lot of this.
The historical aspect of the election and so forth.
So big whoop.
Apologize six years after the fact.
I gotta take well, you take it, but they could have written my could have written this editorial before he assumed office and been right about everything they said in their editorial in front.
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, uh sir.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you, Russ.
It's a great honor to speak with you.
Um a quick question for you.
Uh, when are those on the right going to encourage people, uh citizens, non-citizens, uh, but mostly citizens, uh, actions that do not, shall we say, coincide with current law.
So for example, um, I am a soldier, um, and my opinions are my own, not any part of the DOD.
But I'm wondering when uh somebody's gonna encourage soldiers to who carry uh valid concealed carry permits to carry on post.
Uh why do you need somebody to encourage you?
Well, uh the policies uh of the DOD prohibit uh 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 uh instances like the Fort Hood shooting, uh where it's of course you may be aware that uh the laws were changed uh um in the beginning of the 90s to not allow soldiers to carry their own personally owned weapons on posts.
Right.
You want to know when somebody's gonna write on the right's going to encourage uh 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 a that's just one example of many things.
But you know, we could go into tax law, we can go into lots of different things that uh where laws uh seem to uh be in conflict with the Constitution itself.
Well, then I look at this this is kind of a tough question, although I I I get the overall point you're making.
You know what you're basically asking when is the right going to start fighting fire with fire?
Exactly.
Um but there there are people that flout tax law every year.
Uh and 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 uh the targets caving and giving in, because they don't want the hassle.
And you want to know when are we gonna start doing it?
When are we gonna fight back?
When are we gonna start pressuring them instead of always being the victims?
And this is a question that has come up in many ways in 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, 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 have tried to work and provide for them, they have tried to educate them, to keep them uh as best as they can on the straight and narrow.
It's a constant fight.
Uh and and they look around and they see other parents not caring and other kids just doing all and they and 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.
Uh 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 at at the at near the base of every one of these problems, the media.
The media is just a huge, huge obstacle to uh to overcome.
But I just don't think in it's in the nature of people that 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.
And a little microcosm in Murietta, California yesterday.
And a lot of uh social science experts think that it's it's really only a matter of time before that there is an eruption against the current status quo as defined by the uh American left in 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, uh, like limiting what people can say, or uh in in 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 have to, 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 a 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 time out.
Friends, sit tight.
We'll be right back.
Don't go away.
I guess I do want to make it clear that Billings Montana Gazette didn't just arrive at this editorial fright.
They endorsed Romney in 2012.
So they realized the error of their ways in Obama's first term.
Not it just it finally, I guess, uh hit a breaking point last Friday.
Um I mentioned earlier, uh, ladies and gentlemen, federal officials cannot resolve eighty five percent 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 one 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.
▲
Export Selection