All Episodes
Previous Next
July 14, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:50
July 14, 2014, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's the 14th of July.
I cannot believe we are this much into the summer.
Man, I don't know.
Some days just seem to drag on, but then time seems zipping by at the same time.
Anyway, greetings and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882 and the email address El Rushbo at EIBnet.com.
Our last caller asked about a piece in the New York Times, and it's this one I remember, David Leonard, or Leon Hart, I think is how he pronounces it.
And it was titled, Why Teenagers Today May Grow Up Conservative.
And this was the crux of the piece that I was explaining to the caller asking about this piece.
To Americans in their 20s and early 30s, the so-called millennials, many of these problems have their roots in George W. Bush's presidency.
But think about people who were born in 1998, the youngest eligible voters in the next presidential election.
They are too young to remember much about the Bush years or the excitement surrounding the first Obama presidential campaign.
They instead are coming of age with a Democrat president who often seems unable to fix the world's problems.
And it's getting to the point where he seems not interested in fixing any problems.
Now, there is a counter to this, and I'm not trying to be negative.
I'm just trying to infuse a little realism.
Yes, these teenagers who will be eligible to vote for the first time in 2016 are indeed growing up and coming of age with an inept and seemingly incompetent, disorganized, and unattached Democrat president unable to fix anything or deal with anything.
However, while all of that is true, don't forget they have been in public screwal classrooms where they have been told how wonderful Obama is and how the Republicans hate him and the racists hate him and the reason he's having trouble is because nobody will work with him.
Don't forget what they're being taught and how they measure or balance that against what they see.
And you know as well as I do, the Obama apologists are everywhere and they're trying to claim that the Republicans have never supported, the Republicans are always in Obama's way and Obama.
By the way, there's another story today.
It's either a soundbite or a story.
Yet another drive-by journalist essentially steals the concept of the Limbaugh theorem as his or her own to explain what Obama is doing.
But they're not happy about it.
One of the questions in the story is, is all he ever going to do is campaign?
And of course, that is the nub of the Limbaugh theorem.
Obama always seems to be campaigning against his own policies.
He's campaigning against whatever's happening at the moment.
And by doing that, he's attempting to escape any tie to it or any accountability for it.
And it works with certain low-information voters.
But then there is the other side of that coin.
And the other side of that coin is Just how bored with Obama are people now?
Well, in a sense, because the bloom is off the rose and it has been for a long time.
I mean, you compare Obama today to the Obama of 2008 during the campaign, the messianic days, and the first year of the Obama regime where everybody was so excited and this new guy had shown up and we never had anybody like this before.
Remember, quite heady days.
Filled with optimism, although nobody knew quite why.
It was just this guy was different and he was historic and all of that.
Yet, it hasn't panned out.
Nothing, not one person's expectations have been met.
When you stop and think about it, everybody who voted for Obama is unhappy for one reason or another, vast majority, maybe not everybody.
Now, the story I'm talking about is Julie Pace, Associated Press.
And the headline of the slug of her piece is, His agenda in Gridlock, Obama Relishes Road Show.
Welcome to Barack Obama's split-screen presidency on one side, a confident Obama making campaign-style stomps around the country and ridiculing his political opponents to the delight of cheering supporters on the other side.
An increasingly unpopular president hobbled by gridlock on Capitol Hill in a steady stream of vexing foreign policy crises.
See, right there it is.
Obama is hobbled by a Congress and foreign policy crises, none of which is his doing.
He's the perpetual victim of circumstances beyond his control.
It's so unfortunate, so sad, such wonderful promise for the Obama regime back in 2009.
And now all of these vexing problems and being hobbled by Congress.
So he's out on the campaign trail and he's constantly complaining about this and that.
And the very things he's complaining about are the direct result of Obama's policies.
Here's the story in full right here.
And I'm telling you, it is the AP describing the Limbaugh theorem without even admitting it.
So Obama is hobbled by Congress, foreign policy crises, none of which is his doing.
He's the perpetual victim of circumstances beyond his control.
But you know what?
I think there are a lot of people whose capacity for sympathy for Obama is vanishing.
Wouldn't you agree?
Look at folks, we're almost six years into this.
We are almost halfway through the second term.
And for them to try to get away with the things first-term presidents do in their first two years is quite telling.
Because after a while, all the excuses get old.
After a while, all of the whining and moaning and blaming other people gets old because this is the most powerful office in the world.
If the most powerful office in the world can end up being hamstrung like this, then what good is it?
Obama has long sought refuge outside of Washington when his frustrations with the nation's capital reach a boiling point.
See?
More limbaugh theorem.
Oh, yeah.
Frustrations with Washington and what happens there.
He's the center of it.
But his ability to rally public support in a way that results in progress for his agenda has perhaps never been weaker than it is as he nears the midpoint of his second term.
Why would that be?
Why is his ability to rally public support that results in progress for his agenda never been weaker?
Why is that?
It's because he's president.
He's been president for five and a half years.
And after a while, people say, wait a minute, what are you complaining about, bud?
You hold the cards.
In other words, asking for sympathy because you're a victim doesn't last long, does it?
When your kids try it, how long do you let them get away with it?
When one of your in-laws tries it, when one of your friends tries it, when your spouse tries it, how much tolerance and patience for it do you have?
It's really unseemly for an adult, a powerful, the president of the United States, the most powerful nation in the world at one time was, to run around acting like the victim.
Give you a bit of evidence, by the way, and here's the truth be told of this.
This is from thehill.com.
This is no conservative publication.
Immigration reform fizzles as campaign issue for Democrats.
Now, isn't it amazing, folks, how quickly things change?
Just a couple of months ago, just back in May, remember?
The news media was telling us that Republicans didn't stand a chance unless they rebranded themselves and reached out to the Hispanic community by embracing immigration reform and amnesty.
And if they didn't do that, they may as well not field a candidate in 2016.
That's how bad it was.
If the Republicans didn't sign on to amnesty right now, if they didn't get this done before the November elections, it was Sayonara.
It was Fini.
He was told La Completa Fini.
It was over, done.
They may as well quit.
And yet here we are, theHill.com, now telling us, quote, Latino voters who are the most energized about overhauling the nation's immigration laws will have little impact on the battle for control of the Senate, with the possible exception of Senator Mark Udall's seat in Colorado, his race in Colorado.
Now, what's happened here?
In two months, Latino voters will have little impact on the battle for control of the Senate.
This is, by the way, the result of polling data.
This is not the writer here is Alexander Bolton.
This is not his assertion.
This is the result of polling data.
That's my point about how quickly things change in politics.
Just two months ago, the Republicans were dead unless they signed on to amnesty.
And now in July, we've got data which says that Latino voters are not even going to be a factor in Senate races coming up.
Is that not stunning?
How does that happen?
In two months?
Well, we all know how it happened.
It's called open borders for unaccompanied children from Central America.
It's called being inundated with 300,000 illegals since April alone.
The Democrats overplayed their hand here.
At this point in time, now things could change again between now and November.
You never want to count anything as done and in the can, obviously, like this.
But Immigration reform fizzles as a campaign issue for Democrats.
Immigration reform is fizzled for the Democrats who are barely talking about it now on the campaign trail, despite making the issue their top priority in 2013 and 2014.
What issues haven't fizzled?
That's a real question.
What issues have not fizzled for the Democrats?
Is the economy going great guns for them?
No.
Foreign policy going great guns for them?
No.
Obamacare?
There's some brand new horror stories today about Obamacare that I will have for you as the program unfolds.
We are learning that all of these people who think that they are going to be subsidized probably will not be in Obamacare.
Yeah, hold that thought because I will get to it as the program unfolds.
There's a big story out of Missouri about that, but Obamacare is a mess.
It hasn't rolled out in anywhere close, anyway close to the way it was promised.
There are no good vibes about it.
That's all you need to know.
You don't even need to get into the nuts and bolts.
There just aren't any good vibes.
There's no good buzz.
There's no good PR about Obamacare.
It's a mess.
So what issues have not fizzled?
Immigration's not the only thing that's blown up in their face.
And then here's this money paragraph again: the Latino voters who are the most energized about overhauling the nation's immigration laws will have little impact on the battle for control of the Senate, with the possible exception of Senator Mark Udall's race in Colorado.
Mark Udall, just to remind you, is the guy who refused to even appear with Obama when Obama was doing a fundraiser for him.
Udall didn't even show up for it.
And he was the beneficiary.
Because a lot of Democrats running for the Senate do not want Obama anywhere near their states.
The media, it wasn't just that a couple of months ago, the media was telling us that the Republicans didn't stand a prayer unless they rebranded and reached out to Hispanics by embracing amnesty.
The media was also telling the Republicans to do this even as the current tsunami of illegal aliens was already underway.
This current tsunami started back in December, and it explains why the drive-bys ignored this invasion until only a few weeks ago, and why even now the drive-bys are really giving it scant coverage because they know it is hurting the cause of Amnesty.
So if it's not going to be Latino voters who play the most important role in the midterm elections, who's going to be?
Well, it says here that white working class voters will play a more important role in the midterm election compared to the 2012 presidential election.
And they are not energized by immigration reform.
Instead, they are concerned about downward pressure on wages, which is linked to higher immigration laws.
Now, let me take you back.
Thomas B. Edsel, 2011, New York Times, November, writes a piece about the strategy, the Obama presidential campaign in 2012, which was to write off white working class voters.
Why?
Because they had lost them.
They had already lost white working class voters.
So Thomas B. Etzler writes a piece explaining this.
He's very happy.
He thinks it's a brilliant strategy.
And instead, the White House is going to focus more and more on minorities and the poor for their base turnout.
Well, there is a practical result of that reality.
And it is now white working class voters are the most important voters coming up in the midterms, according to all of these polls.
Got to take a break, sit tight.
We'll be back after this.
Don't go away.
Greetings and welcome back.
And I just want to share with you one more little short paragraph from this Hill.com story.
Democrat strategerists admit their party's record on immigration reform will do little to help candidates this year, although they predict it could be a potent weapon in the 2016 presidential election.
Now, stop and wait just a damn minute here.
For the last how many years have we been hearing that the only issue that will save the Republican Party is amnesty?
We have been inundated with this.
We have been beat upside the head with this.
We have been told day in and day out that we're racists and bigots if we oppose it.
We've been told that we are not being honest, that it isn't amnesty.
It's comprehensive immigration reform, and it's the only thing that can save the Republican Party.
Republican consultants have been repeating this.
Republican so-called conservative media types have been spreading this, have been repeating.
It's been everywhere, drive-by media everywhere.
And now here we are a few short months from the 2014 midterms.
Immigration reform fizzles as a campaign issue for Democrats.
Folks, it never was.
This is such, this is more, I don't know, fraud, trickery, manipulation, what have you.
They have attempted, the pro-amnesty forces have attempted with the sycophantic assistance of the drive-by media to portray the majority of people in this country as pro-amnesty.
That never has been the case.
The majority of the country is not open borders.
The majority of the country is not for erasing the border.
How in the world can you go from years and years of promises that the Republican Party is dead unless it signs on to amnesty?
And then two months from the election, get a story about how immigration reform fizzles as a campaign issue for Democrats.
You want to say, well, Rush, this thing at the border going on now, it kind of blew up in their face.
No, why?
This is exactly what they're talking about.
What's going on at the border is us as a humane country.
It's opening our borders.
It's letting people in to improve their lives.
Comprehensive immigration reform?
You're looking at it.
This is what most people instinctively know.
It's why they oppose comprehensive immigration reform because we are seeing what it will lead to.
It has never been a majority issue.
It has never been the issue that's going to save the Republican Party.
It's never been the issue that the Republican Party needs to adopt in order to win.
It can't have been.
If the media is now saying that the Democrats are not even going to be helped by it, another bit of trickery and tomfoolery.
No, I'm just saying I don't think it's ever been true.
And I think that people putting it and promoting it know it hasn't been true.
This idea that the only issue that can save the Republican Party is amnesty.
I thought that's BS from the get-go.
It defies common sense.
An issue that's going to strengthen the Democrat Party is the only salvation for the Republican Party.
It's never made any sense.
We know these are Democrats in waiting.
We know the Democrats look at this as a voter registration program.
What in the world was anybody really thinking that this is the future of the Republican Party?
I got Chuck Schumer and all these other Democrats supposedly worrying that the Republicans are never going to ever win the White House again unless they sign on to amnesty.
When has Chuck Schumer ever cared about the Republicans winning the White House?
Never.
He doesn't now.
He didn't last week, and he never has.
It's been a lie from the get-go.
It's been fraudulent reporting from the get-go.
And everybody in the Beltway in the establishment has been in on it.
The only question is, for me, how many Republicans know all of this is BS and are saying it anyway versus how many of them have actually been fooled by it, who actually believe that their only salvation is immigration reform, i.e. amnesty, versus how many are just saying it for campaign donations.
But this is all, it's never made any sense.
It has never passed the smell test.
I'm still amazed by this story.
Immigration reform fizzles as campaign issue for Democrats.
And I know some of you are going to say, Rush, don't fist a trick.
It's a media trick.
It's designed to get you to lay down your gun.
No, no, no, no, it's not because it isn't.
What in the world about what is happening with unaccompanied children flooding America is a positive?
What about it is a positive for anybody?
I mean, it's a positive for the Democrats down the road, but how is this helping America?
I mean, what about this has got people standing up and cheering and wanting more of it is the point.
And the answer is none of it.
It's got people standing up and saying, stop, no more.
It does not have people standing up, applauding and saying, let them all in.
Bring even more in.
So tell me, how in the world is this a positive?
This is what has exposed, in my view, the truth of comprehensive immigration reform.
And I think it's something that's backfired on the Democrats.
I think this is something that is designed.
There's no way anybody, common sense, smell test, there is no way anybody can convince me that if you trace it back to last December,
if you trace it to January when we had the memo posted by the government seeking transportation companies for these kids, don't forget that there was a memo, jobs listing memo posted by the regime seeking logistics and transportation companies To be able to transport this influx of kids when it began to all parts of the country and went up in January.
The numbers since April, according to New York Times, is between 240 and 300,000.
They're coming not from Mexico, but from El Salvador and Ecuador and Guatemala.
It takes 45 days to get here.
This is a coincidence.
It just happened because of corruption and poverty and what have you in their own countries, which has been the case for a while.
There's nothing new about that.
You go back to 2012, the DREAM Act, where Obama just with the stroke of his pen said that anybody here under 16 illegally is now legal and you can stay sends a message to others.
A piece of the Weekly Standard here by Scott W. Johnson.
A couple of paragraphs.
Many Americans deeply disturb the situation.
They resent the expenditure of resources.
Hello, Bernadette Lancelin, the black woman in Houston who's fed up money being spent on these kids when there are American kids in need.
Now, let's not open the can.
I mean, I know she's probably just really upset that Obama's spending money on the kids and not that Obama's stash is going, but still, she ticked off about it.
Instinctively, she gets it.
They appropriation money for these facilities is being $4 billion.
What do we need $4 billion for?
Didn't we just commandeer $7 billion from a bank because of the way they behaved during the subprime mortgage crisis?
We just find some bank $7 billion.
Just take that money.
Why do we need $4 billion new dollars for this?
People instinctively understand that.
$4 billion for what?
They're not being medically screened.
They're not being housed permanently.
They're already being shipped out to all parts of the country.
What's the money for?
And as I, by the way, as I read the news accounts of the fate of Obama's legislative request for $4 billion, what I hear is the amount is the least contentious aspect.
Yep, the amount of money is the least contentious aspect of it, meaning he's going to get it.
Once they dot the I's and cross the T's of the details of this, he's going to get the money.
Because the Republicans don't want to be seen as racist and so forth, even though there's none of that involved here anymore.
That never was the case.
That was manufactured, too.
That's every bit as fraudulent as the idea the Republicans will never win the White House again unless they embrace amnesty.
The Republicans are seen as racists and bigots and whatever else because they oppose.
How can that be if this is not a big issue for the Democrats anymore?
Many Americans fear the public health consequences of their dispersion, meaning the kids, with reports reliably indicated, despite attempts to suppress the information, the presence of tuberculosis and other unwelcome conditions among the new arrivals.
They also suspect, the American people do, that the president supports the situation.
Of course he does.
It is his plan.
It is his program.
The reason he doesn't want to go to the border is because he cannot be seen welcoming the kids to their new home.
And he's not going to go down there and tell them to go back.
That's not the point.
And then there's this, ladies and gentlemen, conditions have not suddenly changed in the children's home countries.
So far as we can tell, the cartels and their customers have a very sophisticated understanding of American immigration law, which means that it at the moment prohibits the immediate deportation of minors other than make, non-contiguous aspect.
They have very sophisticated understanding of the law and how the White House enforces it, i.e. DREAM Act.
They don't enforce it.
The president signs a piece of paper and they get to stay.
The cartels have figured out where the hole is.
This is all part of a grand strategy.
It's not massive refugees from a war-torn Bosnia or a war-torn whatever.
It is a planned strategy with many people being involved that has political objectives in this country.
And I think a lot of people instinctively know that this that's happening right now is exactly what comprehensive immigration reform would mean, which is why it does not have majority support, which is why it never has had majority support.
How in the world can we be told that a political party's only hope to ever win the White House is to sign on to legislation that does not even have majority American support?
Okay, I have to take a timeout.
I intended to already be into the phone call portion of the program, but I got on a roll and I didn't want to stop.
And I'm sure, I'm confident you're glad I didn't.
But I will now.
We'll take a break.
We'll come back and get to the phones on the other side of this obscene profit timeout.
Okay, here we go to the phones to Chuck in South Bend, Indiana.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you here.
Hello.
Good afternoon, Rush.
Hi, Chuck.
Gwentup-Collar Dittos.
Good to talk to you again.
Thank you, sir.
That would be fifth time for those of you in Riolinda.
I was calling about the justices, but you've gotten on to so many other subjects.
You said time is flying here.
Can you just remind us all of your anniversary that's coming up real quick and what that anniversary means?
Did you just leave Sacramento on Friday, won one station?
You know, I wasn't even thinking about it.
On Monday?
The anniversary, I assume you mean the anniversary of the program.
Correct.
Yeah, August 1st would be 26 years.
And I had somebody ask me, we did our 25th anniversary, didn't do a big deal of it.
We did a big deal on the 20th.
Did not repeat a whole big wadapaloozo on the 25th.
But somebody said, sent me a note last year.
Rush, are you into your 26th year?
I thought I had to stop and say, yeah.
I don't know.
It all seems like yesterday to me.
And when I think back to things that have happened in the program in the past, like 92, 93, that's ancient, but it seems like yesterday to me.
But it's just going to be another day this year.
There's nothing noteworthy about the 26th anniversary other than making it there.
But when you say you went national, was it one station went to 300?
No, we went from one station to 56.
Okay.
And then we built from the 56.
Would AM960B in South Bend be one of those?
I forget our original station in South Bend.
Was owned by a man and wife who hosted me on a trip out there.
They said, you're going to introduce you to Lou Holtz.
So they took me to Lou Holtz often.
He wasn't there.
So I shook hands with the desk.
But a real nice couple, but they have since sold the station.
And I think that's so long ago.
Look, I don't want to get in any.
I just want to remind, I think my partner told me on Wednesday, and I listened to you Thursday, so I've been listening since day four.
Okay.
Well, that's close enough.
I mean, for 26 years, you can say you were there from the beginning and be accurate.
Yeah, because most people call in and tell you the year, and I wanted to tell you the day.
Well, most people can tell us what they were doing at the precise moment they first heard this program.
I was on the 11th story of the LaSalle building across from the Burger King in my building.
See?
People remember.
No question about it.
Okay, so the justices.
The justice.
As Tina Faye playing Sarah Palin says, I can see where Justice Roberts went to high school from my backyard.
He went to school at Malamir, and a lot of people in South Bend know him and were proud that he became justice and Chief Justice.
And we're just scratching our heads going, in my mind, it almost seems like he dug and dug to find an excuse to make it.
Let me tell you a short story, and I've got to do this with no names.
Privacy is paramount.
When people tell me things, if it's off the record, it's off the record.
This was not off the record, but I'm not going to mention any names.
But this goes back to the confirmation hearings of Justice Roberts.
And I was taken aside by a noted court authority who said, you know, you guys are all worried about Kennedy and being bought and paid for by the Washington Post with style page articles and say Kennedy's not the guy you got to look out for.
Roberts is.
I said, what are you talking about?
Just keep a sharp eye.
Roberts is the guy who's going to care what the media says.
That was during the confirmation hearings.
And then, lo and behold, and it wasn't just care about what the media says.
You know, Roberts is a legacy guy.
Roberts is a.
And it was, it was, by the way, this was not a criticism of Rob.
Nope, this was not somebody telling me, be careful, don't support this guy.
It was not that at all.
It was just somebody telling me and making a prediction himself.
If you think you're getting a rock-solid, rigid, inflexible for the good conservative, that's not who he is, Rush.
Just want you to know.
And I can't tell you who told me.
I'm not going to do that.
But it was this noted court.
What does the media say?
Close source to what person, person not authorized to speak, talking to me, the pledge of anonymity or whatever they say is what this is.
It was not the same person who told me that the justices do not collaborate and do not try to persuade each other.
Two different people.
I know a lot of people, folks.
I know it's thought that I'm a hermit, but I know a lot of people because they seek me out.
I don't bother anybody.
Who's next?
Kenny, Indianapolis.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Thanks.
My quick question for you, Rush, is would a conservative, I guess the Republican Party or the conservative establishment, have better luck at winning more seats if they were more of an activist.
His connections flowing.
What he's asking me is if the if conservative Republicans would be more attractive if they were more activist, like the Democrats.
And especially at academic circles, you know, at the college campuses and things.
Well, give me, there are plenty of them there.
What do you mean by activist?
I think I know what you mean, but you may have to.
Sure.
A specific example, remember when Chick-fil-A got the spotlight in the library media because the owners expressed their opinion of how they feel about Mike Tucker declared a Chick-fil-A Day?
Yes.
Voter has that same day at Chick-fil-A.
Something like that.
Same day, Chick-fil-A action day did you see?
Your cell phone's cutting out.
Oh, I'm sorry, sir.
It's how you.
The party would do it.
What if they did a voter registration drive at Chick-fil-A when Mike Tuckeby declared it a Chick-fil-A Day?
I think this is sort of an offshoot of the question, why don't Republicans get out there and protest things like Democrats do?
Well, they get public displays and whatever.
And the answer's always been Republicans are too busy working.
Protesting is a job for the left.
You've heard of the old Reda mob.
It's not going to happen.
So I don't.
Because it's not who conservatives are.
Tea Party's gotten as close to it as anything has.
But I have to take a brief time out.
I may delve further into trying to answer this so we come back.
Well, any future analysis is going to have to wait for just a few more short moments, ladies and gentlemen.
And we'll get right to it.
As soon as we get back, another obscene profit timeout.
Notice how I'm not teasing you with things here that are coming because I don't have to.
I know you're here just because I am.
▲
Export Selection