All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 19, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
November 19, 2014, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
You know, I've always been of the impression, ladies and gentlemen, that the Democrat Party and the Drive By Media and the American left really didn't like Ronald Reagan very much.
I've always been under the impression that they thought Reagan was stupid.
Maybe on a good day, they'd call him an amiable dunce.
But I've always been under the impression had no respect for him.
Reagan was dangerous.
Reagan was going to blow up the world.
If it weren't for Gorbachev, who knows if there would even be a planet Earth today.
And yet, it seems like whenever the Democrat Party needs to validate something that it plans to do, they always cite Ronald Reagan.
They cite Ronald Reagan sometimes when they're going to do something on economics.
They cite Ronald Reagan.
But you know as well as I do that they frequently go back and cite Ronald Reagan.
Now it may not be that they're doing so out of respect for Reagan.
Uh, but it certainly is true to say that they are citing Reagan to validate what they're doing.
And particularly when it comes to Obama's upcoming amnesty that looks like it's going to be announced on Friday from Las Vegas.
Greetings, my friends, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, happy to have you here.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program is 800 282-2882.
And we check the email.
So if you want to send an email, it's uh Ilrushbo at EIBNet.com.
It's just, it's uncanny to me how often the Democrat Party, when they get in a jam, and when they need when when they know they're doing something that is untoward, when they know they're doing something that's not above board, like this clearly is not above board.
They go back and they cite Reagan.
Well, Reagan did it.
It's not just to persuade conservatives, that's not why they're doing it.
They know that Reagan actually has credibility with people.
That's the dirty little secret.
They know that the Ronald Reagan was beloved and adored, and they know that despite their best efforts, the American people have profound respect for Ronald Reagan.
Notice they don't cite Bill Clinton.
They don't go back and they don't cite FDR.
They don't go back and cite Truman very often.
They always cite, they always go back to Ronaldo's Magnus.
And they're doing that to justify what Obama's going to do here with his executive order that will grant amnesty to five million illegal aliens.
And they're out there claiming Reagan did this?
Reagan never did this.
And of course, the AP and the drive-by media are falling right in line, writing stories.
The White House is dictating, claiming, well, this is no big deal.
Reagan did it.
Bush did it.
What are you crying about?
Well, if Reagan did it, how come we're only hearing about it on the eve of Obama doing it?
If Reagan did this, then why did Obama once say he didn't have the power to do this?
Remember that sound bite to some Spanish language TV network where he said he was not an emperor or not a dictator?
We are a nation of laws.
We have our law.
And I personally I just can't do it with stroke of my pen.
Remember that?
Well, why didn't he say, wait a minute?
Yes, I can.
I can't be a dictator, because Ronald Reagan was.
Everybody knows.
Why didn't he cite Reagan back then?
Why didn't he cite Reagan last week, last year?
Why let this controversy gin up?
If Reagan did it, why not say it at the outset and then shut up?
Everybody.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
You'll see what I'm talking about here.
Last night and this morning, we have a little montage of how the left all of a sudden is once again in love with Ronaldus Magnus.
Ronald Reagan did exactly the same thing.
Presidents Reagan and Bush issued executive orders on immigration.
Every president.
39 different times.
Reagan, Bush.
Reagan allowed legalization for three million immigrants.
President Reagan also took executive action, allowing some illegals to say in his country, a very eerie way.
When President Reagan was the president, he then took the executive order pointing to actions by two former Republican presidents, Presidents Reagan and President George H.W. Bush.
Okay, so you want to know who was in there?
You want to hear the voices?
You want to hear the names?
Well, I think you should.
The first up was Bob Beckle, and then the forehead Paul Bagala, and then Dinji Harry, and then Michelle Kaczynski, whoever that is.
And then O'Reilly.
O'Reilly's in O'Reilly said President Reagan also took executive action, following or allowing some illegals to say that he did not.
Reagan never took executive action.
This is a bull faced flat-out lie.
Not that it's going to matter to anybody, but you know us here we're concerned with the truth.
Henry Quayar, David Catanese or Catanese.
Those are the people in the soundbite that you just heard.
So if you're well, Rush, you're being so bold about this.
Well, there are a lot of uh uh people that are still alive who were in the Reagan administration back then.
One of them is a man by the name of Jeff Lord.
And Jeffrey writes for the American Spectator.
He writes for conservative review, and he also occasionally puts together some pieces for our buddies at newsbusters, Brent Bozell.
And he has a piece posted at Conservative Review entitled Ronald Reagan and Immigration, the AP Distortion.
Jeffrey worked in the Reagan administration.
Now, his piece prints out the four pages, but I don't need that.
What is the difference between Reagan and Obama?
Reagan.
In fact, folks, the the the I'm almost speechless here.
As I prepare to explain to you just how big the left is distorting this.
Ronald Reagan signed a piece of legislation.
It was the Simpson Mazzoli Act.
It was 1986.
Congress debated and passed a law to grant amnesty to three million illegal immigrants, and Reagan signed it.
They are saying that's exactly what Obama's gonna do.
They are claiming that Obama or Reagan signing legislation, thereby making it legal, is the same thing as an Obama executive order.
Reagan had a statute behind him.
The statute was called Simpson Mazzoli.
The very law that Reagan had signed was signed after it was passed by Congress.
What Obama is about to do is write a law.
Or rewrite a statute all by himself.
And it is, it is is breathtaking here.
The the you th you think that Gruber was exaggerated.
They do think you're stupid.
They really do believe that you are stupid.
They really believe that they can make you think that Reagan signing a piece of legislation is identical to Obama writing and signing an executive order.
Well, Reagan did it.
What there's technically, well, Reagan granted amnesty.
What do you completed?
Reagan granted amnesty.
And George H. W. Bush, he granted amnesty.
So Obama's not doing anything different.
Well, yeah, it's totally different.
Because there is no legislation.
The president cannot write law.
The president can't make it up.
Whether Congress is a bulwark or not, whether Congress is in his way.
The Constitution does not say, in case the Congress refuses to cooperate with the president, the president may in that case create his own law.
It doesn't say that.
And Obama knows it doesn't say that because he'd been out there on TV in previous years telling angry Hispanics that he's not a dictator, that he's not an emperor, and he can't do it.
And that's been his excuse all along.
He doesn't have the power to do it.
Now all of a sudden he does.
And along comes the dictate from the White House to inform the media.
Hey, it's no different than what Reagan did.
So there are two things here.
The blatant lie in equating an executive order with signing legislation.
And then having to cite Reagan to validate something, a Marxist uh a Democrat president is doing.
It's just fascinating to watch all this.
When he's when he suspends deportations and when he imposes his own conditions on those suspensions, he's rewriting the law.
And that's what Obama is doing.
And that violates his oath to enforce and uphold the law as it's written.
The American people of Congress and the courts need to know that we have a president who will enforce the law.
And when he says I will not enforce the law because I don't like it or because I'm impatient, that doesn't wash under the Constitution.
Now there's some other Judge Napolitano is cited in this uh story by Jeff Lord in this fashion.
A judge goes on to say quite pointedly and specifically what is the Reagan Obama difference.
Every president since Eisenhower has suspended some deportations.
President Reagan did it to 100,000 families.
He did it on the basis of the 1986 statute enacted by the Congress.
President George H.W. Bush did it for one and a half million people.
Only about 350,000 took advantage of it, and it was based on his interpretation of the statute.
President Obama does not reinterpret a statute here.
He takes a statute and says, I'm going to disregard it.
I don't like it.
It doesn't do what I want it to do, so I'm going to give you a better one.
I'm going to set down a set of standards that I would have written had I been the lawmaker.
But he's not the lawmaker, he's a law enforcer.
So Reagan and previous presidents, when they suspended some deportations, did so under the guidelines of a statute that was in existence.
They were not creating law.
They were not adding to it.
They were not subtracting from it.
They were using it.
Obama is doing none of the sort.
And it's just, I don't know, it's fascinating here to watch the effort and its pedal to the middle underway here to try to equate Obama with Ronald Reagan.
And I don't know.
I'm a little side issue or aspect of this.
It really offends me greatly to see them tarnish Reagan this way.
Because that's what this is.
Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan in his dreams.
And the idea that he is Ronald Reagan and is doing nothing different than Reagan did is offensive as it can be to me.
Because it's distorting Reagan, it is impugning Reagan, and of course, Obama doesn't have the respect and admiration from enough people to be able to get by with this on his own.
If Obama were respected, if he had a decent amount of respect, if it was thought that he had integrity, if if if Obama was a indeed the charismatic messianic figure people thought they would elect him, they wouldn't care why it was.
They would trust him.
They would accept what he's saying because they believed him.
Because he has integrity and honesty.
He's the president doing the best in the world for the country.
People would think that, but he doesn't own that because people do not think that of him.
They don't think he's out for the best for the country.
They don't think he's got honesty.
They don't think his approval number is down 37% now, by the way.
Have you seen that?
Of course you have it.
Why am I asking?
Of course you have it.
It's just out today.
The Obama approval down 37%.
So he cannot do this on his own.
He doesn't have the weight.
He doesn't have the gravitas.
He does not have the character to pull this off on his own.
He doesn't have the ability to say, I'm going to do this.
It's legal.
I'm President Obama.
We need to do this.
It's good for the country and have everybody support it because they believe him, because they don't support him and they don't believe him.
And so he has to cite for his own gravitas and credibility, Ronald Reagan, and in the process distort, impugn, and malign Reagan in order to stand on the same stage with him.
Here is talking about brilliance.
The light reflecting the brilliance of this person is so blinding.
You need to shield your eyes when you are in her presence.
Yesterday afternoon on the floor of the House from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee.
This is not amnesty.
This is prioritization.
This is saving money.
This is keeping families together.
This is allowing children to not come home to places where their parents have been thrown from their places of work and taken away from them.
I'm excited about the courage of this president.
I look forward to America finally understanding the gifts that you are given.
Let us not be a selfish nation.
Let us be a generous nation.
Okay, Sheila Jackson Lee, and by the way, she is she's saying something there that really does define the way modern liberals look at this country.
When she talks about let us not be a selfish nation, let us be a generous nation.
What that means is if anybody wants to come here, they ought to be able to.
It's not right.
It's not fair that this is the only place on earth where people can be free or whatever it is that this place offers to people that is not available anywhere else.
It's just not fair.
It's not right.
And we are selfish by having borders.
We are selfish keeping people out.
That makes us mean spirited.
That makes us racists.
That makes us people that break up families.
We are responsible for all of the sickness and the evils and the and and the broken families all over the world.
If we would just let people come here, but we're so selfish.
We want it all for ourselves.
We don't want to share it.
And amnesty and what Obama is going to do is us effectively say, come on in.
Take whatever you want because it isn't ours.
We want to share it with you because we don't deserve it ourselves.
And do not doubt me.
Now there's also the look, she's a leftist and as such thinks the country needs to be cut down to size.
I'm not saying it's not a factor here either.
But do not doubt when she says, let us not be selfish, let us be generous.
What she's really saying is, it isn't fair that we are so rich.
It isn't fair that we are so abundant, it isn't fair that we are so advanced, and it isn't fair that we keep people out.
makes us selfish and we don't share.
And on that basis alone, we should not turn anyone away, don't you see?
This country doesn't deserve the status that it has.
In fact, we wouldn't be as rich as we are if we hadn't stolen it from these people in the first place long ago.
This is simply us giving back that which wasn't ours in the first place.
And this is how they think.
And do not doubt me.
Here is Obama, February 14th, 2013.
Fireside hangout.
This is on Google Plus.
He's talking with a bunch of different citizens, including offers, engineers, bloggers, and an LGBT, immigration activist, Jackie Guerrero, wanted to know why Obama just doesn't do amnesty.
Just why you're deporting people.
What do you mean?
Why don't you let people of color in this country?
Why don't you shape up?
What I'd like to know is why, what you're gonna do now until immigration reform is passed to ensure that more people not being deported and families aren't being broken apart.
This is something that I've struggled with throughout my presidency.
The problem is that, you know, I'm the president of the United States, I'm not uh uh the Emperor of the United States.
My job is to execute laws that are passed.
And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system.
So he was telling people a year ago, hey, chill.
I'm not an emperor.
I can't do it.
What he didn't say was, I don't care about any of that.
The only thing stopping me is there's an election coming up.
And when the election's over, that's when I'll do it.
But I'm not going to do it before that, because that'll hurt my party and maybe me.
He should have just told her to be patient and wait till after the election, because he doesn't believe he's not an emperor.
He is an emperor, and he's going to prove it whenever he does this.
Ladies and gentlemen, I know there are all kinds of examples of Obama telling audiences that he's not an emperor, that he's not a dictator, that he can't just universally implement or write a law.
There's all kinds of we've played them on the uh on the program.
He's he said that to a Spanish language television network.
Uh he did it was just buying time.
Uh and and for for those of us, well, for those of you who think, hey, this is a gotcha.
You know, we we can show Obama lied.
Get that audio where Obama said he's not a dictator, and now he's doing it.
He lied, and it doesn't gonna change anything.
Obama knows everything he's doing.
He knows who he lies to, he knows why he lies, and he knows he's going to get away with it.
He knows he's not gonna be called on it.
He's already won the wire of the year award and he got a Nobel Peace Prize for lying about doing some things with people.
You're not gonna stop Obama by pointing out his uh uh uh what the word uh hypocrisy.
And you're not gonna change people's minds about it's fun to do, but I I I don't misunderstand.
I'm you all already know.
The point is much larger than Obama is a hypocrite.
He is exactly what he claims that he is not.
And he knows the American people are not ready for a dictator or an authoritarian or a statist.
He knows the American people wouldn't support that.
And that's why he's got a lie.
That's why he's got to claim, oh, Reagan did it.
As though that clears the decks.
That gives him permission to do anything he wants to do, because Reagan was beloved.
Reagan was respected.
Reagan did have integrity.
Reagan was universally loved and respected.
And that's why Obama and the Democrats cite him whenever they need credibility on something.
And even his supporters, they know what he's got to do.
They know he's got a lie, and when he's got a lie.
But as I say, there are countless examples of Obama.
So see, he knows what he's doing.
He knows he's violating the Constitution, and he's happy to do it, by the way.
Back to the audio sound bites.
This is Luis Gutieris.
He's a uh Democrat Chicago.
He was on the uh Oh, Baxter factor last night.
And the question, it's interesting.
The uh people who have children who are American citizens who've been here between five and ten years, they submit a fingerprint, do a background check on them.
And if they're clean, they can stay and get working papers, and they get on the books, and then citizenship is right down the road.
There is no citizenship.
The president has no authority, only to an act of Congress can they ever be granted citizenship.
Think of it this way.
Here's how I look at it.
It's like he's going to set them aside and say, I'm not going to prosecute these people.
Right.
So here's how this works.
So Baxter there says, and eventually the Whis are gonna they're gonna get citizens.
Oh no, no, no, no, no.
No, no, no, you misunderstand.
There is no citizenship.
The president has no authority.
Only through an act of Congress can he.
Luis, do you understand what you're saying here?
He has no authority to do what he's gonna do either.
He has no authority to grant this pardon unless they call it that.
That would be interesting if they call this a pardon.
If the president wants to pardon five million illegals, but they're not calling it that.
They're calling they're saying we're gonna suspending deportation.
Everybody knows what's going on here.
They are being granted amnesty.
And for good the edicts to say, no, no, the president has no authority.
You know how this works?
Here's exactly what's gonna happen.
A short period of time after this action is taken.
And by a short period of time, it isn't going to be very long.
It'll happen next year.
But let's say all this happens on Friday, Obama, by the by the way, what do you think is going to come first?
The grand jury decision in Ferguson or Obama announcing amnesty on Friday.
What do you think is going to happen first?
Or do you think they're going to happen at the same time?
We're going to get, we're going to get the grand jury decision, and then we're going to have a rebirth of the 60s anti-right or civil rights era.
In fact, they're out there selling it that way.
You got John Lewis, all these guys, it's going to be Selma all over again.
They're so excited about it.
They're excited about the grand jury coming down to Ferguson with a no-true bill, meaning no indictment.
They're excited about.
They're promoting this thing.
They want there to be no indictment of the cop.
They want to be able to riot in the streets.
They want to be able to reenact Selma.
They want to reenact the civil rights battles of the 60s.
It's amazing.
They all want to go back to the good old days.
They all want to go back to the nostalgic good old days where they made their bones and relive it and do it all over again.
And I got audio sound bites to prove this.
And so here's Obama going to Vegas, going to announce amnesty, whatever on Friday, and you it in St. Louis.
The civil rights groups have put out this list of targets that they want the protesters to hit.
And they are businesses and industries have nothing to do with what happened in Ferguson.
Like Anheuser Bush, like Emerson Electric, that's a big power company there.
I mean, it's a it's a long list.
I mean, it is, it's a riot list.
These are the targets.
Here's the place to go.
Set this on fire, blow up this place, whatever.
It's right out in the open, right on front of it.
So the question is, do we get split screen on this on Friday?
Slow news day.
And then maybe will Ray Rice's suspension be lifted?
And he'd be announced he can play in the NFL, whether anybody pick him up or not's another thing.
Okay, what time will Obama announce amnesty on Friday?
Okay, so he's gonna be in Vegas, so that puts him on Pacific time.
So he's not going to do it before the program ends.
So 3 p.m.
Eastern is noon there.
He's just getting to work.
On a normal day.
So I would say I'd say he's gonna time this to ruin as many Friday nights as he can.
And maybe earlier in the day, the grand jury in Ferguson will reveal whatever they're going to reveal.
Oh man, the left is so excited, folks.
I mean, they've got they've got a twofer coming up here.
I mean, it is the good old days.
They're gonna actually bring the 60s back to life and reenact and redo everything.
And the same old people that were doing it back in the 60s are gonna find themselves in Ferguson in St. Louis.
Anyway, what's gonna happen here?
Obama does this whenever he does it on Friday, and Luis Gutierrez here says, no, no, there is no citizenship.
Only through an act of Congress can they ever be granted citizenship?
Which just makes me laugh.
Only through an act of Congress, can they through an act of Congress can Obama do what he's gonna do, but he's gonna do it anyway, without one.
So what's gonna happen sometime soon next year?
It won't be long, Chuck Schumer, or some other prominent Democrat Will miraculously appear before microphones and cameras, and he'll have a look of pained suffering on his face.
And he'll say that he's very conflicted, but he's still joyous and celebratory and happy over the fact that we, via President Obama's executive action, have opened the doors of our country to five million of the greatest people in the world.
But what were we thinking when we did not grant them citizenship?
What good is allowing them to stay here legally if they can't vote?
What kind of country are we?
What has happened to us?
How, on the one hand, could we grant them permanent permission to stay in our country and at the same time deny them the most valuable right, the most precious right that our citizens have, and that is the right to vote.
How in the world could we have denied that?
What were we thinking?
And so the effort will be launched to grant them citizenship.
And if the Republicans oppose, which they won't, then Obama will come back and do another executive action, claiming, well, Reagan did it, and Bush did it.
This is all about six months from now.
And New York Times has a story here today.
It's the same thing.
Obama's executive order on immigrants.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Oh, did the New York Times not get the memo?
This is not an executive order because Reagan didn't do an executive order.
Reagan didn't do any executive action.
What do you mean?
Executive order.
That's not what this.
That's well, it is, you know, but the AP, the drive-bys are trying to tell us this is not what Reagan did.
Anyway, the headline of the New York Times piece, Obama's executive order on immigration is unlikely to include health benefits.
Now, I see I I you can't convince me Jonathan Gruber's not somewhere in this story.
How stupid do they think we are?
We're going to grant amnesty, but it doesn't contain citizenship, and it doesn't contain health care benefits.
You're right.
How stupid do they think we are?
No health benefits, no health insurance, no citizenship.
We're just gonna grant them temporary amnesty against deportation.
Right.
So there's gonna be the same drill.
After this happens, a short time later, Chuck Schumer will be back at the microphones after crying over the fact that we forgot to make them citizens.
He'll do it again.
And he'll say, What kind of country are we?
What were we thinking?
This shows, this shows just how much farther we have to go to be a good people, to be a good country.
What were we thinking?
Five million people who have worked and struggled and been separated from their families and they've paid taxes and they've made this country what it is, and we are denying them health care benefits.
Who in the hell do we think we are?
How did this travesty happen?
And the move will be on to grant them health care benefits and citizenship within six months of Obama's executive action.
You know it and I know it.
Yeah, there are some uh news organizations saying that Obama's gonna do the amnesty thing tomorrow.
Uh New York Times is saying it might be tomorrow.
CNN is uh saying it's gonna be speaking of CNN, have you did you hear what happened with Don Lemon?
You saw it?
Yeah, and it is, and I'm I'm I'm wondering, uh, you know, we but we've got who is saying yes to me?
Sturdley.
Don Lemon on CNN, this is the guy who asked a transportation expert if a black hole could have swallowed the missing Malaysian Airlines jet.
A Boeing 777 is back today.
And he was discussing one of the women who uh was raped by Bill Cosby.
Allegedly assaulted by Bill Cosby.
By the way, is anybody asking what is behind this out of why now all of a sudden here comes out of the woodwork, woman after woman after woman, claiming Cosby did this or did that.
I mean, why now?
What?
What's the explanation?
Anyway, it has happened.
So Don Lemon is asking.
See, we've got children listening to this program.
We've got young readers of the Rush Revere Time Travel Adventures with American series.
America.
I know it is it but the children cannot hear this.
I do not want to put parents into the position of having their kids say, Mommy, mommy, what they got about.
Of course, it might be that the kids might know more than their moms.
Uh given but he's he's he gets, I mean, you talk about intimate details and questions.
He's he's asking this woman who was engaged in uh a Lewinsky with Cosby.
Why didn't you well?
Why didn't you attack?
Now stop.
Why didn't you attack?
Why didn't you attack Lewinsky?
You all know what was going, you know what a Lewinsky is.
Mommy, why can the Winsky?
She's a young woman who used to work for President Clinton, and you've answered it.
Okay, so Lewinsky is going on, and Don Lemon wants to know why this woman did not attack Cosby during the Lewinsky.
And she doesn't know what he means at first.
So he has to describe what he means, and he did.
Quite quite well.
And in so doing, uh, Don Lemon actually portrayed his own level of expertise in this particular mode of uh love making.
And the uh the guest was clearly shocked, so forth.
So I did not know it had happened, and I get an email from Cookie with a transcript of it.
Do you want this?
I mean, Rush, this is really beneath the standards and dignity of the EIB network.
And I said, come on, what do you mean?
It's Don Lemon.
It's our buddy Don Lemon.
We cannot ignore this.
But then I got to thinking we have all the every day we get calls from children who are reading the books.
And the last thing I want is for them to hear that and start asking mommy or daddy what that was about.
That that would not be cool.
That does not happen here on the EIB network.
So it might require an even longer countdown.
Normally we give you five seconds to turn down the volume.
But this might require a 10-second countdown if I decide to do it.
But anyway, the point is CNN is saying that Obama could do his uh amnesty announcement tomorrow instead of Friday.
Other people saying it's going to be Friday in Las Vegas.
Uh but in in either case, be it CNN or the Drudge Report or the New York Times, everybody's making it sound like a fate accomplished.
It's imminent.
It's it's no longer a matter of if.
It's now only a matter of when.
Do you believe that?
So you don't think there's still any indecision on this?
Okay.
Okay.
All right.
Well, we got to take a break here.
Sit tight, my friends, L. Rushbow, serving humanity and maintaining the standards and dignity you have come to know, respect, and expect on this program.
And even if they don't get health care benefits immediately after having been granted amnesty, that doesn't mean they can't get treated in the emergency room.
Federal law requires it.
That's where they'll go.
Emergency rooms will be flooded until we grant them access to the welfare state in later legislation.
Stuff is already planned out.
I have no doubt.
▲
Export Selection