All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 20, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:55
November 20, 2014, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yeah, really, when you when you stop, and I'm sure most of you have.
When you stop and think about what's going to happen tonight and the way it's being promoted and the way it's playing out.
I don't know.
It's kind of surreal.
Everybody involved knows that what's going to happen tonight's unconstitutional.
Everybody knows it.
And there's nothing that can stop it.
And stop and think of that.
Everybody knows.
I don't care if they're in the drive-by media.
I don't care if they're in the White House.
I don't care if they're in the Senate.
I don't care where they are.
Everybody knows that what is going to happen tonight is unconstitutional.
It is like we're going to put the Constitution up on a wall and Obama is going to start shooting a BB gun at it.
And we're all going to tune in at 8 o'clock and watch it.
And then we're going to talk about what we saw later on tonight and tomorrow.
Meanwhile, tomorrow the Constitution is still going to have some BB holes in it.
This is amazing.
Everybody knows that what's about to happen.
We'll see and then do a countdown on this.
I don't see it yet, but it's a little seven hours and 53 minutes and 44 seconds from now.
The Constitution is going to cease to exist as we know it.
And everybody's going to be, oh, I'm sorry, folks.
Do you know that the major broadcast networks are not going to cover this tonight?
Did you know that?
The White House is not annoyed.
The White House did not formally request it.
They don't want English speaking audience tonight in mass numbers.
They did not formally request the networks carry the announcement tonight.
This is going to be on Telemundo on Univision.
It's going to be streamed in a number of places.
But the networks, it's not that the networks didn't grant permission.
They have not been formally the White House is out there wringing their hands and making it look like the networks are denying them.
Anybody really believe the networks would deny him?
Does anybody believe the networks would say no to this?
I mean, this is historic.
We are going to shoot the Constitution full of holes tonight.
And the networks aren't interested.
Come on, folks.
Cut me some slack.
I'm just, we all know what's going to happen tonight, and there's no stopping it.
It's like there's going to be a uh a severe injury to our country tonight, and and we all know it's going to happen, and everybody knows it's going to happen.
And yes, I don't.
I'm saying, I'm saying that he knows this is not popular.
Not saying he's suppressing the English language tune-in.
I'm saying he doesn't care if they don't watch.
It's not for the English language speaking people tonight.
This thing is not for them.
This announcement is not for this is for Hispanic, Spanish language audience tonight.
That's who it's what you can have any doubt about that.
But I mean, really, I can't, I can't move past this.
We're all, we're just hours away from watching the Constitution shot full of holes.
Everybody knows that's what's going to happen.
And yeah, it's going to happen.
And I'm I'm telling you, I don't care if it's Dick Durbin, I don't care if it's Dingy Harry or Josh Ernest, they all know.
Whatever the whatever the people on the on the Obama side are saying to justify this, they know they're not right.
They know the Constitution does not provide for this.
They know the president doesn't have the authority, but this is one of the reasons they're so excited.
This is one of their they this is historic.
Their president, their guy is going to in front of everybody.
This isn't stealth.
This isn't undercover of darkness.
This isn't behind closed doors.
This is right out in front of everybody.
We are going to go pssst on the Constitution.
This is like everybody witnessing Al Roker soil himself in the White House.
You know, Al Roker run around telling everybody that he excremented his pants at a White House Christmas party.
Well, we're going to see it tonight.
It's it's to me, this is just I don't know.
I it's surreal.
And I'm I'm not exaggerating, and I'm not trying to make a uh a broad point when I tell you that I think everybody on the Obama side knows what they're doing.
They know this is not permitted.
And I think that is part of the thrill form that they're gonna get away with this.
They're gonna get away with it, and there's nothing that's going to happen to them, and there's nothing that can stop them, and they're just excited as they can be over this.
And they're probably gonna be after tonight's over, they're gonna be, why did we wait so long?
Man, this is fun.
Let's do it again.
This is so much fun.
This will do it again.
Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell's up there warning uh there will be action, and they're quaking in their boots in the White House, I'm sure.
They are they're gonna get they are gonna get away with it in this from the standpoint that it's gonna happen.
It's like we're gonna watch a bank get robbed tonight.
Everybody knows it's gonna get robbed, and nobody's lifting a finger to stop the bank from getting robbed.
Pick your crime.
We're looking at it tonight.
We're watching it.
We're being led into it.
It's being hyped.
It it uh there's nobody can march.
That's the duct tape, but that's not the point.
Duct tape on his mouth stopping him from speaking.
That's not the point.
This is a big deal.
And it's turned into a carnival show.
This whole thing is turning into a carnival show.
It's another it's more showbiz.
It's it's it's stunning to me what is really happening.
And we got a carnival barker tonight that's gonna go up there, and he's gonna look at us in the eye and say, screw you.
This is what I think of this Constitution.
And bam-oh, then he's gonna do whatever he's gonna do.
Now, I have been hearing this morning from learned people, uh, some friends of mine in legal circles, that there actually is going to be, I don't know if he's gonna mention it, Obama, but that they have prepared a legal basis that they claim justifies this.
It is called prosecutorial discretion.
You've heard that being bandied about too.
Okay, prosecutorial discretion.
This is going to uh necessitate an explanation of this.
And I am uh uniquely qualified to do this, and I shall, as the program unfolds before your very eyes, because this is a time-honored, non-controversial legal concept that's been around for ages, and even it is being polluted by this guy.
Even the whole concept of uh prosecutorial discretion is now being corrupted.
The rule of law is already laying injured on the side of the road.
Prosecutorial discretion is gonna be corrupted here tonight, if that indeed is the quasi legal framework that they use to so-called justify this.
But it's just I'm sorry, I just i i it's like watching you know, everybody says, gee, I wish we could find out, you know, know in advance the crime's gonna happen.
Maybe we could stop.
Well, we know.
We know that an illegal act is going to take place in seven hours and forty-six minutes, and there isn't, doesn't appear to be, doesn't seem to be any way, or energy, or desire.
Well, not desire, there's plenty of that, to stop it.
It's like a comet.
Comet heading right for the planet.
We got five nukes.
We're gonna launch the nukes at the comet, except we're gonna miss it on purpose.
And we're just gonna sit here and wait for the comet to hit the planet and hope it hits Russia and not us.
I I mean, I could keep these analogies going all day long if I if I had to.
You know, here's I Snerdley is saying you're not the least bit energized looking at the political consequences fall out of this.
Now, uh let me exp that that's a good question.
And I submit that if you are energized by the political possibilities that ensue from this, that you need to get your head out of the 20th century, and you need to stop looking at things in the conventional way.
I hadn't intended to get into this now, but I'm going to mention it now, and I'll do it again later on in the broadcast when I had intended to.
There's a great column today in the Wall Street Journal.
And it's by one of our old favorite standbys, Daniel Henniger.
And in its own self-contained universe, it's a great column.
But it misses a huge point.
The column, and I don't have it on top of the stack because it's it's it's down there lower where I did intend to have it here now, and I'm not going to start shuffling papers to find it, so I'll just do it off the top of my head.
Get to the details later.
In essence, Henniger chronicles all of the trouble the Democrat Party is in.
How the mainstream Democrats and independents are abandoning them because the technocrats, meaning the elites, the self-proclaimed smartest in the room are in charge of the Democrat Party, and they are ruining the Democrat Party.
They just don't know it yet.
But they are ruining the Democrat Party.
They're creating so much trouble, so many problems for themselves, and it's only a matter of time.
And I've read it, and while I, as I say in its in its own silo, it is a brilliant piece.
But it is 20 or 30 years behind the times.
And let me take a timeout.
I will find it.
And I'll ex- I'll give you some details of what I'm talking about.
Because I'm, folks, the the idea that this is going to hurt the Democrats.
It may, but that's the wrong way to look at this.
Oh man, there's going to really be some blowback.
They don't know they're destroying themselves.
They're destroying the Democrat Party.
Well, don't forget now.
There's a whole wing of the Democrat Party that doesn't care about winning or losing elections as the primary way they corrupt the country.
They don't need to win elections to corrupt the country.
Losing elections, not that big a deal to them.
And that wing is running the Democrat Party right now.
And they don't care about any of that.
They got they got whipped in the 80s, didn't they?
Yeah, man, that Democrat Party Reagan, two landslide losses.
They fell apart.
Exactly right.
And they lost again in 88, man.
I mean, it was really three elections in a row, they got creamed.
And then they lost in 2000 and they lost in 2002 in the midterms of Democrats, didn't they were in disarray like you can't believe.
And they lost in 2004 and they lost in 2000, 2000, oh let's see, what 2010?
Oh man, did they get shellected in 2010?
And they just lost in 2014.
Really?
And the Democrat Party is falling apart?
Is that right?
And they're in big trouble?
Where are they in big trouble?
They're not in any trouble.
They're getting away with it, folks, is the bottom line.
But if you're going to look at this, the problem is that if you look at this the way Mr. Henniger is, and the way Mr. Snerdley's question indicates he might be, you think there's going to be fallout from this.
There's going to be blowback.
Well, there used to be.
Elections used to change the direction the country was taking.
But they don't anymore.
And that's the big difference.
And on that I'll take a break and I'll come back and elaborate.
I had not intended to get here yet.
By now I intended to be into prosecutorial discretion.
But Snerdley peppered me with this question.
So that's what I mean.
This program's improv.
But don't worry.
It's all going to happen.
We're going to get it all in there.
Just sit tight, hang in there, be tough, be right back.
Very simply put, the Democrat Party screwing up.
The Democrat Party losing support does not mean the Democrat Party fails to advance its agenda.
So here's Daniel Henniger's piece.
And I'm not going to read the whole thing.
I don't need to.
It's uh let's see, what's the titles on the second page?
Obama the hangover.
And here's a here's a and again, it's a great piece in its own self-contained silo, but I think it's it's it's in a time capsule.
And it's it's written from a uh political view that that that is long since ceased to exist.
The problem is not one MIT economist's arrogance.
The problem is that the technocracy itself, the Democrats guys in the world, the uh the technocracy, the the the elites, the guys running the show.
Self-appointed.
The problem is that technocracy itself has become a political problem for the Democratic Party.
No, it hasn't.
But let me continue.
For some 80 years, that technocracy has been the life force of the Democrat Party.
Now it's a kind of noxious green sludge consuming the party.
Calling itself the administrative state, a technocratic army of social scientists, lawyers, and bureaucrats, has kept the Democrat Party supplied for decades with the policy details behind its promises to the electorate.
Obamacare was going to be one more victory march into the end zone of federal entitlements with a playbook designed by John Gruber and the other grandchildren of the original administrative elites.
And it goes on to detail how all of these things are falling apart, how they're all disasters, and how this is going to have dire consequences for the Democrat Party.
And with all due respect, what I what I find missing in pieces like this is despite cataloging the disaster that is befalling the Democrat Party, they are achieving lasting damage on this country.
Which to me makes the trouble they get into after an election here or an election there somewhat irrelevant.
This is a this is a uh a way of looking at politics that's stuck back somewhere in the 20th century when voter reaction to events actually change the direction of the country.
Voter reaction is a term for elections.
Now you might disagree with me, but my perception is that elections are not changing the direction of the country much.
Not Democrats losing elections.
Let me address just that specifically.
Democrats losing elections is not changing the country.
They may lose an election here or there.
And they may get in trouble here and there, but their agenda is marching on.
The Democrats are losing support, eh?
Yeah, right.
They lost support in the 80s, big time.
I mean, they lost two landslides and then they lost in 88.
And they lost support in 2000.
And they lost support in 2002 in a surprise upset loss in the midterm elections.
And they lost again in 2004.
And they lost again in 2010, and they were in a mess after each one of these losses, remember?
We got stories.
Man, the Democrat Party is falling apart.
Look how out of touch they are.
The Democrat Party is in such dire straits.
The old lions, the old liberal war horses are killing the whatever.
We've read this piece before.
I've read this piece for 30 years.
And every morning when I get up, the Democrat agenda is a little further down the road.
So the Democrat Party's losing support, eh?
Well, show me how that's manifesting itself.
Now, folks, do not go fatalistic on me.
I'm not saying this to be fatalistic or even pessimistic.
What I'm saying is That we've everybody's got to change their perspective on what's happening here.
It's why I opened the program with I can't believe what we're about to see here.
We're actually going to watch a crime take place, and we're eagerly counting down the time, and we're going to watch, we're all going to watch as the Constitution, BB guns aimed, holes are going to be fired right through it, and that's it.
And then we're going to talk about, yeah, this is really bad for the Democrats.
I can't believe how Obama's now.
You realize how ticked off people are going to be.
Doesn't matter.
The Constitution is still going to have holes in it tomorrow.
Because nobody is stopping them.
It used to be that elections stopped out-of-control parties and out-of-control politicians.
They got the message.
The Democrat Party doesn't care.
Obama on down.
They don't care what the electorate thinks.
They don't care what the electorate does, as evidenced by what is going to happen tonight.
They don't care.
And until such time as somebody decides a way to stop them, this is going to keep on happening.
I remember, well, I don't remember exactly when, but it was after the Democrats won an election.
It might have been a Clinton presidential election, or it might have been the Democrats winning a midterm, I forget which.
For some reason, I think it was back in the 90s.
It was fairly long ago.
And I remember talking to some elected official, uh, some elected Republican who was trying to keep things in perspective after this massive defeat.
And he said to me, doesn't matter who it is, I don't remember who it is, but he said to me, Don't worry, Rush, don't worry.
The Democrats are going to overreach.
They always do.
They're going to misinterpret the mandate that they think they've got, they're going to overreach, and they're going to really tick off the American people.
And that is exactly the kind of antiquated, no longer applicable thinking I'm talking about.
You can't overreach any more than Barack Obama has.
But it doesn't apply anymore.
Democrats overreach them when the Republicans rely on that.
Republicans relying on the voters to get mad and throw the Democrats out.
That's not enough.
They've got to be stopped.
They are in Hollywood, they're on every television show.
They're in every song that's written practically.
But if there's not a coordinated effort to stop the advance of liberalism, it's going to keep marching forward.
And writing of the temporary disarray that the Democrat Party is in, as though that's some kind of victory is, I think it's no different than when McConnell, remember last week when I was rendered one of the first times in 25 years speechless, I was reduced to a stuttering mass of incoherence here.
For two minutes.
We played an audio soundbite of Mitch McConnell after Obama had announced some outrageous plan of his.
And McConnell's statement was, well, I guess the president is not going to move to the center as we thought he would.
That's what used to happen 30 years ago.
The losing party would move in the direction that they lost.
But that doesn't happen anymore.
It isn't necessary.
And the Democrat Party has been governing against the will of the people for I don't know how long anyway.
They want to win elections, obviously.
That solidifies their power.
But losing elections doesn't stop them.
Being in party disarray doesn't stop them.
Barack Obama tonight is going to go out there and tell everybody he's addressing a problem.
And he's not addressing a problem.
He's magnifying one.
On purpose.
Not only is he going to put millions of illegal aliens on a path to amnesty, he's inviting millions more to come to the border and cross it.
Because eventually it'll happen again.
There'll be more amnesty.
Now, I'm going to go back to the Constitution here for just a second.
Before my detailed, and it won't take long, my detailed explanation of prosecutorial discretion, which is the, if everybody is right, this is the legal, so-called legal understanding, underpinning for Obama's executive action tonight.
But but let's start with the oath of office the President of the United States takes.
In that oath, the president swears, he promises, that to the best of his ability, he will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
That oath will be violated tonight.
In plain view of however, many millions of people all over the world watch it.
That oath tonight will be rendered meaningless.
A promise, a sworn promise, laughed at, cast aside as meaningless as a piece of confetti at a parade.
Also in the Constitution of the United States, I believe it's Article II.
The Constitution requires, instructs, demands, says the President of the United States shall faithfully execute, or see to it that the laws of the country are faithfully executed.
That will be rendered meaningless tonight.
Thank you.
Executive amnesty.
What the president is actually going to instruct tonight, the actual result of his executive order or amnesty tonight is an order or an instruction to law enforcement officials to ignore the law.
The law has not been changed.
Congress has written no law that provides the president the power to enforce this aspect of it.
He is simply going to tell everybody involved in law enforcement to ignore their duty.
He is going to tell them to ignore crime when they come across it.
He's going to tell them to not bother to prosecute violators of this particular law.
That's what his, therefore, he's not only flouting the law, he's flouting the enforcement of the law.
And if some of the things that I've seen so far happen to be true, the president is going to demand that these violators of our law now will be fully ignored by law enforcement.
They will also be given work documents.
Under existing law, they are not allowed to hold work documents because they are here illegally.
So the president is not enforcing a law.
He's not changing regularly, what he's he's creating a new law to thin air here.
He is writing his own law.
And there is no statutory foundation for what he's doing.
And they're running around, and this was all over cable news last night, too.
My my comments yesterday about how these clowns claim that Reagan did it.
Reagan did not do this.
The Congress passed Simpson Mazzoli in 1986 and Reagan signed it.
And after that, you've got a statute as a law.
You got a foundation, and Reagan then took some executive actions based on that statute that the statute permitted.
He didn't make it up out of thin air.
He didn't write it on Hallcloth like Obama is doing.
Obama, though, however, is actually instructing law enforcement to not enforce the law.
That gets us to prosecutorial discretion.
More on that, I promise.
And he does not have the constitutional authority to do this.
The president does not have the authority.
Now, the executive branch does have the authority to prosecute to determine which violators of the law are going to be prosecuted.
But here's the nub of it.
And this really cuts to what prosecutorial discretion is and what Obama is doing.
Prosecutorial discretion is exactly what it says.
It's based on the fact that there's just too much law breaking going on out there to enforce it all.
There's just too much crime.
We don't have the resources.
We don't have the personnel.
We don't have enough courts.
We cannot enforce all of it.
And so prosecutors determine which laws or crimes are going to be prosecuted based on severity, damage, any number of things.
But what makes most sense to enforce?
But just because prosecutors choose not to enforce a law doesn't mean the law becomes legal.
Let's use robbing a bank, for example.
Not robbing a bank.
Somebody called here and was complaining about how the treasury investigates deposits of $10,000.
Okay.
Just because a prosecutor somewhere might ignore you.
If you deposit $10,000 in cash, it doesn't mean it's legal to do it now.
Just because a prosecutor chooses to ignore a particular act, just because a prosecutor decides not to go after a certain criminal, doesn't make that criminal act legal all of a sudden.
What Obama is claiming here is since there's too many illegals and they're all over the place, and we can't find them.
It doesn't make them legal, which is what he is doing.
If prosecutors, and he's the chief prosecutor, if he decides he's not going to prosecute these crimes, it doesn't make the crimes legal.
They are still illegal.
And Obama is going to essentially say that any crime he doesn't choose to prosecute is legal now.
He doesn't have that authority.
He doesn't have that power.
The Constitution doesn't grant it.
And that is not what prosecutorial discretion means.
Nor is it the way it was intended.
I will still have more detail on this because there's much more to this as it relates to how Obama is going to use it tonight if the advance reports are true.
Now you probably know this.
As a listener of this program, I assume that most everybody here is up to speed on the Constitution.
Article 1 clearly says the Congress shall have the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof.
Only Congress is vested with the power to make new laws or amend or repeal existing laws.
No president has that authority.
Thank you.
And no president has the authority to tell law enforcement to simply ignore the enforcement of a law because he's violating that part of the Constitution that he swears to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed.
He simply doesn't have, he is not even close to having the power that he is going to use tonight.
And he's going to do it while the Democrat Party's in all this disarray, right?
They just got creamed, they just lost an embarrassing landslide election.
They're in disarray.
They got people leaving the party left and right.
Oh my God, they're in such a mess.
that the Constitution is going to be shot full of holes nevertheless.
Let's say, let's use marijuana.
As you know, prosecutors less and less pursue marijuana crimes.
But it doesn't mean that marijuana is thus legal.
Just because a prosecutor decides I got better things to do than go after it doesn't mean that the law has suddenly been changed and marijuana is legal.
Well, by the same token, just because Obama decided, you know what, I'm not going to enforce the law here.
I'm not I'm I'm not going to enforce the law on illegal immigrants.
It doesn't make immigration as it's happened legal all of a sudden.
It does not make these people legal.
And Obama is going to try to tell you that his action tonight is making them legal.
He doesn't have the power to do that.
Only Congress can do that.
And he wants to confuse you and have you believe that because he's choosing not to enforce the law on four and a half, five million people, that that automatically confers legalism or legality on them.
And it doesn't.
He doesn't have the power.
And everybody involved in this knows it.
Everybody on the left, they know it just as well as I know it.
The difference is they are thrilled at the Constitution being violated.
Because to them it's an obstacle.
I have to take a break.
Sit tight.
We'll be back and continue in just a second.
Don't go away.
Welcome back, El Rushbaugh, making more sense in five minutes, and most people make in a week.
Great to have you here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
So let me just sum up this pretty pretty simply here, ladies and gentlemen.
There is no way in hell that giving people who are here illegally work permits fits under the rubric of prosecutorial discretion.
It has nothing to do with it.
And he cannot do it.
But he's going to.
So what the president is going to do tonight, if it ends up being as it is thought to be, because they're giving signals of the direction they're going to go here.
And they're going to try to fool every particular low information crowd.
It's not illegal or illegal.
Right here, it's in the Constitution.
Prosecutorial discretion.
And what Obama is going to claim is that he's got the power to declare which criminal acts he's going to pursue and which he's going to ignore.
And he is going to say that illegal aliens now have a right to be here because he has chosen not to prosecute them.
So what he's going to say is, yes, they are illegal aliens, but I'm going to turn them legal by not prosecuting them.
And he doesn't have that power.
Just because you choose not to prosecute somebody doesn't mean what they did to get in trouble in the first place is all of a sudden illegal.
Somebody robs a bank and for some reason you choose not to prosecute them, doesn't mean that robbing banks has become legal.
Prosecutorial discretion is standard operating procedure.
It's been used for, I don't know, for centuries Because it's simply not efficient, affordable in a number of categories to go after all crime.
But just because a particular crime is pardoned, let's say, doesn't mean that that criminal activity all of a sudden becomes legal.
And yet that's what Obama is going to claim tonight.
Hey, you know what?
I'm ordering Border Patrol and every stand down.
There will not be prosecutions of these people here illegally.
Therefore, they are illegal.
No, they are not.
They're still illegal.
And just because you choose not to prosecute them doesn't make them legal.
And what he's doing is unconstitutional.
He hasn't the power to do it.
Much more still to go on the exciting excursion into broadcast excellence today here, folks.
So I know your expectations are way up, and they should be.
▲
Export Selection