All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 6, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:32
August 6, 2014, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, my friends, welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-28282.
And the email address, L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
Okay, so there is impeachment.
You deal with a lawless president, a lawless executive.
But there is another way.
And it is right in the Constitution.
It's right there in Article V of the Constitution.
And Mark Levin has written a book about it called Liberty Amendments.
And essentially, you should read the book.
The book explains the entire constitutional process and also contains some new amendments to the Constitution, which the purpose of which is to simply affirm the Constitution as it was.
It's a shame that we're at this point, but the Liberty Amendments are simply amendments to restate the original purpose of the Constitution and just pound it into everybody's head what the Constitution is.
Article V allows for the states to establish a constitutional convention for the purposes of dealing with circumstances such as we are experiencing today.
If the Congress will not impeach the founder, yes, right in Article V. The states have the power if they want to do it.
It takes forget on top of my head, two-thirds or three-fourths.
It's it's a it's a big task.
But the states have the power.
Well, no, no, no, no.
This is not this is not Al Sharpton calling a constitutional convention and rewriting it.
That's not what this is.
That was an original fear, by the way.
Even Levin admits that he had when looking into this.
But an Article V Convention, which is state-sponsored for specific purposes controlled by the states by virtue of the number of states required to put this ball in motion, gives them control over the process.
And it's it's uh, you know, I've it's i I cannot possibly explain a full book to you here in a in a small monologue.
The point is there is another way of going about this.
Uh it's not it's not as uh direct as impeachment would be, but the Republicans have taken that off the table.
Which is crazy.
It's three-fourths of the states that that would be required to establish a state uh constitutional amendment set up and run by the states for the express purpose of amending the Constitution or enforcing it or dealing with circumstances such as that we're faced with today.
If Congress won't do it, the point is the founders established that if see that the founders I don't want to get to esoteric here.
The people that founded this country, by virtue of what they were doing, believed that corruption of people in powerful places was going to happen.
They wrote of the importance of character and honor in powerful executives and elected officials, but they knew what human nature was.
They knew the seductiveness of power and how easily powerful people could be corrupted.
So they set various things up to counter this process.
One of them was the three branches and the separation of powers, uh, commonly called checks and balances in Civics 101 in the sixth grade.
Well, the checks and balances have gone by the wayside right now.
The Supreme Court doesn't check anything, the Congress isn't checking anything.
The Congress has given up its power to Obama.
The Democrats in Congress particularly for the for the moment couldn't care less.
Because Obama's advancing their agenda.
Their agenda matters more than the Constitution, so whatever Obama's doing and however he's doing it, fine and dandy.
That leaves it to the Republicans.
The Republicans aren't doing it for the whole host of reasons that we've been through over and over and over again.
So if Washington will not reform itself, if Washington will not employ the techniques built into the Constitution to preserve the Constitution, Article V provides a mechanism for the states to do it.
And it's it is a I'm getting confused on two-thirds and three-fourths because I got people shouting in my ear here over what it is.
I think it's three-fourths to ratify changes, two-thirds to get it going.
Whatever that for the purpose of the discussion, that's incidental.
The fact of the matter is it's still tough to do.
You have to get two-thirds of the states, I believe, on board for one of these conventions.
And then whatever they come up with, it requires three-fourths to ratify.
But the point is there is a mechanism.
The founders anticipated this kind, they expected it.
Human nature being what it is.
That's why this note that my brother got, I found so profound.
This woman saying, okay, two, she didn't say this, here's what she means.
230 years, how have we lucked out?
Or have we lucked out?
What is it that has kept us from becoming Venezuela?
What is it that has prevented Edia Aminda or Hugo Chavez, as she cites, becoming president here?
Is it the honor system?
Is it that people have respected the Constitution and voluntarily obeyed it?
Voluntarily stayed within its limits?
Or have there been enforcement mechanisms?
Are there consequences?
She doesn't know.
She hasn't been alive for the whole time the country has been, so she wants to know how has this happened?
How have we stayed the way we are?
And that's the eternal question.
It's where American exceptionalism comes into play in terms of explaining what it is.
It is this is look, folks.
This means so much to me.
This is why I have endeavored to write children's books to try to explain on a foundational level at their level of understanding, the miracle of this country.
Because it really is the history of human life on this planet is bondage and tyranny.
There wasn't rampant abundant freedom.
There wasn't rampant abundance of standards of living for the masses.
That was all reserved for the despots and the tyrants and the leaders of either populations or countries.
This country was the first ever to enshrine in its founding documents that the people are who make it happen.
The people are for whom the country was founded, rooted in individual liberty and freedom, and that all of that freedom and all that liberty did not come and does not come from other people.
It does not come from presidents or congresses, it's not granted, it's not legislation.
We're created that way.
And all of this is just a smidgen of many of the reasons why we were able to become and remain a superpower in fewer years than European nations have existed.
It is really profound, the history of this country and how this country came to be.
But more importantly, how did it sustain?
We were founded in a certain way.
There were people who opposed the founding from the get-go.
But always the people who opposed it were attempting to undermine it.
They were always defeated.
They had little victories here and there.
But in the end, America remained America.
But it was always under attack.
It always has been under assault.
under assault by people who don't believe in the founding and believe the founding is unjust and immoral.
That isn't anything new.
What's new is that the people of this country elected someone who believes that for the first time ever.
Well, maybe you got to throw Woodrow Wilson in there.
But even at that, we survived Woodrow Wilson.
And we survived FDR.
Although some people would argue that no, we haven't.
We're where we are because of FDR's profound success.
And a case could certainly be made for that.
But the point is the country has always been under assault.
From within, from people who do not believe in it, who do not think that this country is fair, for example, or just not everybody has a house on the beach.
Not everybody has a second home in the Hamptons.
Not everybody, and for a host of other reasons, too.
When I stop to think about it, I I'm I'm dismayed, actually, that this country has survived as it was founded for as long as it has, because there is this honor system, essentially.
We have pretty much throughout our history, had people who were deferential to the Constitution or were deferential to the rule of law.
Look at Nixon.
Now people talk about Richard Nixon, and they seethe when they talk about Nixon.
They speak of Nixon with vile disgust and hatred.
Richard Nixon didn't have to resign.
Richard Nixon could have hung in and he could have caused hell and problems.
He could have put the country through all kinds of trouble.
If they ever had gotten to impeachment of Richard Nixon, I mean, folks back then who had just come out of the Vietnam War.
The Democrats were fit to be nothing they were doing was working.
They had landslide losses, and they were Democrats back then like the Democrats today.
Who knows what would have happened during impeachment?
It could have been forever changing.
Who knows what they would have done?
Nixon, the point I'm making is that Nixon, for the betterment of the country, threw himself on the sword.
He could now, I know a lot of you people in this audience are going to say, what do you mean he quit because he knew he didn't have a chance?
He quit because he was gonna be, he was gonna guilty and he was gonna be living in excess.
Maybe, but Richard Nixon, nevertheless, is an example of somebody who deferred ultimately to the Constitution rather than put the country through the kind of chaos that would have ensued.
It's a small example, but it's it's one of the first that comes to mind.
Uh well, you could argue that it was to say, you could argue he did it again by stepping aside 1960, because in 1960, the case could have made at the time that that election was fraudulent in both West Virginia and Chicago Cook County.
And Nixon could have fought it and probably could have won it.
He decided to defer to the election process in order to not put the country through something like that.
That we don't have people like that.
The people right now in charge want to put the country through that crap.
They delight in doing it.
They delight in all this chaos because where they think it's gonna end up.
That's why I think there's a I'm sorry to overdo the phrase, maybe I should come up with a new word, but futility pretty much explains it.
Exasperation, hopelessness, whatever.
So many people instinctively know that what's going on is not how this is, is this country's always been.
It's not how things happen.
This is not what's supposed to happen.
This is not how a bad economy, for example, is dealt with.
This is Not how immigration is dealt with.
This is not how superpower status foreign policy is dealt with.
They instinctively know this is not right.
And they're beginning to ask themselves like this woman, how in the world have we stayed America all these years when there have been all of these efforts, powerful forces to undermine this country, and there have been.
Is it really the honor system?
Is it really human beings in the past totally deferential or afraid of consequences or whatever that?
And then you could argue that there were a lot of people who were not deferential, and they took it as far as they could attempting to undermine.
There's a constant, it's a constant fight.
I'll tell you that I keep coming back to one thing.
And that is because even though what's happening today may be an extreme example, these kinds of things have been going on since the founding.
It's just we've never elected one of those people, but this time we did twice.
What's missing is the pushback.
What's missing is political opposition to it at the highest level.
And that feeds into the futility.
We're really a Republican Party afraid to stand up for itself and do the right thing because they think the American people are going to hold it against them.
I mean, when I hear this, well we can't impeach Obama.
Look what happened after Lewin did it to Clinton.
What a sorry ass excuse.
What a sorry ass excuse that in the first place, it wasn't that bad for the Republican Party after the Clinton impeachment.
It was not audit what Bush won the White House for crying out loud.
We won the House and the Senate afterwards.
This is asinine, that impeachment doomed the Republican Party after Clinton.
It's as silly as this stupid notion that the only way the Republicans can ever win the White House now and ever again is to is to support amnesty.
It's silly.
I gotta take a timeout, my friends.
We'll do that and be back after this.
Don't go away.
Okay, to the phones we go.
I've had more than my share of time on this.
This is Brian in we're still in Ohio.
This Columbus, Ohio, this time.
Hi, Brian.
Hi, thanks for taking my call, Russ.
Uh thank you, sir.
You know, we have freedom in the press because the media is supposed to hold politicians accountable.
Um, they like to call themselves a force of state.
You know, they're one of the branches of the government.
But that's assuming that they're impartial.
You know, we know they're not.
They've chosen sides.
No, it's not.
Wait, wait, wait.
It's never been impartial.
The founders didn't come up.
The founders assumed that the media was going to hold powerful people accountable.
And the media has done that.
The media lives on a premise, or it used to, that the powerful are corrupt.
It's just the way it's always that that that was taught in journalism school.
The powerful have done something illegal to become powerful, and you are there to find out what it is.
What's happened now?
There's there's never been impartiality.
What's happened now is, and you're right, the media has thrown in with one side and has now become part of the corruption of power.
And so that they they they are no longer what's the phrase that John Kerry uses, speaking truth to power.
That's gone.
They've they've chosen sides and they've made it abundantly clear, and so there is no fourth estate.
There is no journalist.
If I may, I've got a, either way to put it for me anyways, they don't decide which stories to cover.
They decide which stories to cover up.
That's about the quickest way I can get around it.
That's it.
That's exactly right.
And in the process, they are covering up for The people in power.
When the Republicans are in power, the media reassumes its traditional position.
And that is assuming that corrupt or powerful people are corrupt.
And then it does everything it can to undermine them when they're Republicans.
When they're Democrats, they cover it up.
Like today.
This poll, a media poll, the NBC news poll shows Obama at an all-time low, and they're not reporting that.
In fact, not only not reporting it, they're reporting it as people angry at Republicans, angry at Washington, angry at Republicans for impeachment, angry at Washington in general.
Grab sound by three, Eamon Javers on CNBC's squawk box this morning.
President Barack Obama, he hits a new all-time low in the new NBC News Wall Street Journal poll that just came out last night.
Take a look at some of the highlights or the lowlights here.
If you're the Obama administration, the Obama approval hits the new low of 40 percent.
Congress's approval, uh much worse, however, 14 percent.
Obama's approval on the economy, uh, just 42 percent and his approval on foreign policy, a meager 36 percent.
Now there's a second bite from this guy, I don't have time to get to a will after the break, but that's the only time they reported those numbers in every CNBC report thereafter, focused as this one also did.
But Congress is approval much, much lower.
Congress is in much worse shape.
And in the next bite, as you'll hear when we get back, the guy wonders why did he why do the American people still think we're in a recession?
Don't they know we're in a recovery?
You'll hear it when we come back.
It's just an example of that which we are discussing at present.
You know, the uh the NBC News Washington keeps it's Wall Street Journal, NBC News Wall Street Journal poll.
None of the other drive-bys are talking about that.
Whenever when Bush was in office, uh, say the CNN poll came out, they all talked about the CNN poll.
Every other network, when the ABC poll came out, it was bad for Bush.
They all mentioned it.
But here you've got the NBC News Wall Street Journal poll out a record low for Obama, and they aren't even talking about it.
As well as no other network talking about it.
And furthermore, they're making it up.
They're claiming that the disapproval for Obama really reflects anger at Washington and the Republicans.
I mean, it is the Limbaugh theorem in full force.
Bright lights on full display.
Now, here is the second half of the Amon Javers report on CNBC, at which he talks about people's disgust and unhappiness with the economy and so forth, but kind of doesn't understand it, since the stock market's doing so well.
Take a look at some of the bad economic numbers here that talk about Americans' economic pain.
Uh, someone in their household has lost a job in the past five years.
Forty percent say that.
$5,000 in student loan debt for themselves or their children, 27% say that.
20% have more than $2,000 in credit card debt, they're unable to pay off month to month, and 17% say they have a parent or a child over 21 living with them for financial or health reasons, and that all may be part of the reason why 49% of the people surveyed here said they think that the United States is still in a recession, even though the recession technically ended a number of years ago, guys.
Americans are still feeling all that economic pain.
Yeah, but even though the recession ended, these guys are stunned.
They cannot believe that people are still thinking this way because the recession ended.
Look at the stock market.
So look, what we can go blind here, folks, talking about the role of the media in all this.
Everybody knows it uh that that they're abandoned or watchdog status.
Everybody knows the media is a prime culprit in all of this.
It goes without saying.
Just because I don't mention it, don't think I haven't thought of it.
Uh it's not it's not that at all.
And we have even more news.
Uh, this is uh basically, well, CNBC's written version, Americans cranky, unhappy about Government is the way they headline the NBC News Wall Street Journal poll.
And they uh they go on here to recount it, but they don't they they're clearly in a state of disbelief.
It's what's amazing in this, they don't understand why people are this pessimistic and negative about things.
There really is a disconnect, uh especially among media people living and working in Washington and New York, the uh Northeastern Corridor, there's an Erasmus and reports survey that shows, get this, only 27% of likely voters now think Obama's doing good job or excellent job when it comes to immigration.
Now on this one I'm drawn back to yesterday, raised the question actually two days ago.
Why didn't Obama, when he owned the Congress, when the Democrats had the House and the Senate, Obama was in the White House his first two years, why didn't he do amnesty then?
And in those two years he was running around and Hispanics were asking him, why don't you do immigration?
You promised you were going to do immigration reform.
I can't do it alone.
Um I'm just the president.
You know, I can't do it.
I can't do it without Congress help me along here.
We have a nation of laws.
And I can't, you know, you know, all that tripe.
Now, when the Democrats don't control the Congress, when it is perceived that the Republicans do, even though all they have is the House.
Now all of a sudden Obama's hellbent.
He's gonna just raise the number of people granted amnesty with a stroke of a pen, five or six million he's threatening to do.
Why didn't he do this when he had no opposition to it?
Why is he doing it now?
And the and the answer is very simple.
Nobody is ever going to get any credit for doing this.
The American people do not want this.
That's why he didn't do it.
He didn't he couldn't blame it on the Republicans his first two years, because the Republicans didn't show up.
They weren't, they didn't have the votes to stop anything.
But since the Republicans now have the House, Obama can blame all this on the Republicans.
And it's all about blame.
It's the limbaugh theorem explains all of this.
It's all about making sure Obama is not perceived as having anything to do with any of this, be it the economy, be it immigration, be it the storming of the border, be it foreign policy, it's all somebody else's fault.
Powerful forces outside the White House, uh Congress, you name it.
Obama's a victim of all this, and he's working as hard as he can to fix it, knowing that you want it fixed.
That's the limbaugh theorem.
He's never if if if only 27% of the American people think he's doing a good job on immigration, that means only 27% support immigration reform amnesty.
There's no way he's gonna do that unless he can guarantee the Republicans are going to take the hit for it.
And look how close they've come.
I mean, if you listen to Republicans, they they think the only way they're gonna win again is to stunning.
The only they think the only way they're gonna win again is to do amnesty.
Obama didn't do it when he had the Congress, if it was such a great thing.
If it guaranteed winning the White House forever, why didn't Obama do it when he could?
And if it's the only thing the Republicans now can do to win the White House, then why didn't Obama do it when he could and eliminate the Republicans forever?
If if that's it, if the only way the Republicans can ever win is to make the Hispanics love them again, and the only way to do that is granting amnesty.
Then doesn't it follow that Obama could wipe the Republicans off the map by granting amnesty and leaving the Republicans out of it?
And yet he doesn't do that, does he?
He's not gonna do this unless the Republicans help him along.
So when the people of this country get outraged over it, the Republicans take the hit.
And it is stunning to me how eagerly the Republicans are walking straight into a pit of quicksand.
They see it, they're walking towards it, they're running, in fact, to get to this pit of quicksand, thinking it's the promised land.
Some things.
Anyway, we're back to the original premise.
And that is what happens now.
All of this is going on.
What is the recourse that people have when the media is gone, when they're not fulfilling their role, the media's chosen sides, when you have people in power who openly express their either disgust or disagreement with the Constitution and the country and think that it needs to be transformed.
Oh well, you know the drill.
There's just a tremendous and growing amount of frustration.
And then amidst all this, I'm reminded that what was it two weeks ago and Obama said, you know what?
Decided to make the economy his legacy.
So he's running around talking about this great economic recovery.
He's got his buddies at CNBC talking it up, and they can't believe people don't see it.
Why do they still think that we're living in a recession?
You know, Jimmy Carter's legacy was the economy, too.
He thought the exact same thing.
Try this headline.
U.S. civil rights commissioner says college students are not developed enough for free speech.
A U.S. civil rights commissioner thinks that college students are not sufficiently developed intellectually to enjoy their free speech rights.
Oh, not only is he a Democrat, he was a senior advisor to Pelosi.
This guy's name is Michael Yackee, Y A K I, previously senior advisor to Nancy Pelosi.
He explained why he believes campus speech codes should be tightened during a U.S. Commission on civil rights briefing on sexual harassment, sexual harassment law in education.
He said, and this is this according to a transcript from the uh law professor Eugene Volock, who publishes the blog The Voloch Conspiracy at the Washington Post, certain factors, this is this is uh Michael Yackie, certain factors in how the juvenile or adolescent or young adult brain processes information is vastly different from the way that we adults do.
So when we sit back and talk about what's right or wrong in terms of First Amendment jurisprudence from a reasonable person's standpoint, we are really not looking into the same universe because young people simply do not have the intellectual experience and are thus not developed enough for free speech.
Because of the unique nature of a university campus setting, I think there are very good and compelling reasons why broader policies and prohibitions on conduct in activities and in some instances speech are acceptable on a college campus level that might not be acceptable,
say, in an adult work environment or an adult situation, Yakie said.
These students Do not process in the same way that we do when we're in our late 20s and 30s.
Now the Democrats own this age group.
The Democrats own college students.
Theoretically, this is what we're told.
So I was, hey, Republicans, do you maybe think you might see an opportunity here?
You know, if if a Republican said this, if a Republican said college students are not developed enough for free speech, do you know what the social media outcry would be?
Twitter and Facebook would have melted by now.
If a Republican said this.
I got to take a timeout, my friends, because we're long in this busy broadcast segment.
Sit tight, we'll be back.
Okay.
All right, so here we go.
Now we've got this uh this member, U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner, a former senior advisor to Nancy Pelosi, Michael Yacke says college students are not developed enough for free speech.
We need speech codes.
We need speech codes and sexual harassment and speech codes on speech.
Uh because uh just these kids uh they're not old enough to know then this now clearly they're old enough to vote Democrat.
That's fine.
Absolutely cool that they can vote.
But we cannot grant them full access to the First Amendment.
Because their brains are just not developed.
They don't know what they're saying half the time.
They don't know what they're doing.
They don't know when they're hurting people's feelings, they don't know when they're violating political correctness, they don't know when they're being mean, and until they're in their late 20s and 30s, like we are now, they really shouldn't have on campus access, full access to the First Amendment.
And the guy says that the Civil Rights Commission should be the one to enforce and set the boundaries.
And I just tell you, if a Republican president had said, or a Republican anywhere had said that, Facebook, Twitter, everything of the social media would be on fire right now.
But that's not all.
Because ew papa has weighed in.
Pope Francis tells young people that chatting on the internet or with smartphones and watching TV soap operas is futile and a huge waste of time.
Pope Francis has urged 50,000 German altar servers not to waste time on the internet on their smartphones or television.
Rather, they should spend their time on more productive activities.
Okay, if the Pope is going to say this, fine, he can say it, and then some of you parents might agree with it.
Could we get an explanation or definition of productive activities?
Because I frankly am very productive on the internet and my smartphone.
It is frankly how I do this program every day.
So I think we need some explanations or definitions.
The Pope said in a short speech to the altar servers, maybe many young people waste too many hours on feudal things.
Our life is made up of time.
And time is a gift from God.
So it's important that it be used in good and fruitful actions.
Activities that were cited with a Pope as futile were chatting on the internet or with smartphones, watching TV soap operas, and using the products of technological progress, uh, which should simplify and improve the quality of life, but rather distract attention away from what's really important.
The Pope then said the internet is a gift from God.
But he cautioned that the uh the high-speed world of digital social media needed calm reflection and tenderness.
If it was to be a network not of wires, but of people.
Digital social media needs calm reflection and tenderness if it's to be a network not of wires, but of people.
So now some might think that that's good advice, not just for the young ditz out there, but for everybody.
But here you've got the Civil Rights Commission guy saying, you kids, you know what?
You're such a bunch of doddering fools.
You don't have the ability yet to be trusted with the responsibility of free speech while you're on campus.
So we are gonna police that.
Then here comes the Pope saying, you ought not be there anyway.
You're wasting your time on social media.
You're not being productive, you're not being useful, and you're wasting your God-given whatevers.
Anyway, how many parents are raising their hand going, yeah, yeah, you tell them.
Okay, let's see.
Uh if I get this.
Twenty-year-olds are not responsible enough for free speech, but seven-year-olds are completely responsible for traveling from El Salvador to California.
Twenty-year-olds are not responsible enough for free speech, but twelve-year-olds are clearly mature enough to get abortions without telling mom and dad or the pope.
▲
Export Selection