All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 16, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:39
January 16, 2015, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, uh, greetings and welcome back, my friends El Rushbo, your guiding light.
They're times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, and absurdity.
It is Friday, so let's hit it.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Open line Friday.
I didn't explain what it is.
And for those of you new to the program, Monday through Thursday, callers have to want to talk about things I care about.
If they don't, they're politely told to call back on Friday.
On Friday, we let anybody call about whatever it is they want to talk about.
We really, really relax the tight screening protocols and procedures.
I don't have to care about it.
It can be something that totally bores me.
It won't matter.
If you want to talk about it, you can.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882 in the email address L Rushboard EIB net.com.
I want to play you a couple sound bites from um.
Rines Priebus, who's the chairman of the Republican National Committee.
He was on Bloodberg last night, Bloomberg TV with all due respect.
That show that uh is co-hosted by Mark Halpern and uh John John Hillab uh.
Whatever.
I it doesn't matter.
Anyway, I want you to hear these two sound bites because it just got through explaining here the joke.
Hillary Clinton, the most abused, taken for granted, cheated on woman in the world.
How uh by her husband alone, how many times?
How many times does Democrat Party promised her and cast her aside?
She's the most used, the most taken for granted.
And every four years she's held up is her turn, and it's presented to us as though she's earned this.
It's her turn, it's her time.
And every time somebody ends up somehow pulling the rug out from under her.
It's either a new affair with an intern that her husband's engaged in, or this sex pedophile thing, or some new young looking black guy comes out of nowhere named Barack Obama, but no matter what, everybody that tells Hillary they love her casts her aside.
And so we're back again.
We're this repeating cycle.
And and the same, I I swear.
I can remember having people at my house at the annual spring fling ten years ago.
In fear, such thing.
There's a 75% chance Hillary Clinton's next president.
No!
Yeah, I'm telling you it's gonna happen.
No!
Oh no!
And I'm sitting there, not understanding the fear, not understanding the oh my god, we can't beat her.
Oh, geez, we're finished attitude.
I've never understood it, never understood it.
And it's repeating.
The Republican Party once again, oh my god, oh no.
It fate accompli.
Yet intelligence guided by experience says somebody on the Democrat Party is gonna do something to snatch it all away from her.
So anyway, Rines Priebus was on Bloomberg last night, this all due respect show.
And Mark Halpron said, You uh you said you thought in context of running against Hillary that bringing up the Lewinsky impeachment issue is kind of an old issue now.
I think so.
What about things like Hillary Clinton's cattle future trades or her record at the Rose Law Firm?
Is that so also?
I mean, I think if there's new revelations, there's new things that come up and new evidence and new questions.
Sure, I think it's all fair game.
We're writing a Hillary Clinton book now.
I mean, we've got a research team that is in Little Rock.
I mean, so we're not gonna be shy about how many people you have in Little Rock.
I don't know.
I think we're sending two or three.
We're gonna get whatever we have to in order to share with the American people the truth about Hillary and Bill Clinton.
Oh, gosh, I just don't believe this.
Forgive me.
Forgive me.
We just went on TV and spelled out our operational plan to the opposing general.
We just went on TV.
How many people you're gonna send to our two or three?
I don't know.
Maybe it's just everything striking me funny today because I overslept and we know everything we need to know about the Rose Law Firm and the cannon futures.
None of that's gonna matter.
It's called Benghazi.
It's called the last four years.
It's called Bill Clinton getting near the place again.
It's called these people are undeserving.
They are a pair of frauds.
They are a pair of jokes.
What's Rose Law?
And yet here's Halprin.
He's just doing the job that the drive-by media would do.
He's literally he's making fun of Ron's Prebus, and Prebus, I don't think knows it.
So you guys uh trying to make a big deal of Rose Law firm records again?
Ha ha.
So you guys are gonna run down there looking at Whitewater again?
Ha ha ha ha.
So you guys are gonna take a look at the cattle futures?
Oh yeah.
Halpern's mocking the guy.
Basically saying, do you people you we think you are idiots?
Trying to stop the Clintons on all that stuff way back then and you failed.
I'm surprised that Halpern didn't say, hey, are you gonna make Ken Starr part of the opposition research team?
Ha ha ha.
Oh, we're gonna do everything we can.
We're gonna go down there and two or three people.
We're writing a Clinton book now.
Anyway, uh Halpern then said, well, when you say new stuff about Bill Clinton, because he did say that Privus or Privus did say we're gonna get whatever we have to in it in order to share with the American people that the truth about Hillary and uh Bill Clinton.
He referenced that they're gonna try to find some new stuff and Halpern, that's the only thing he did sniff out.
What do you mean, new stuff?
When you say new stuff about Bill Clinton, new stuff, what do you mean?
What are you talking about?
New stuff.
What is this new stuff that you're talking about rents on Bill Clinton?
Anything.
I mean business dealings and uh travels, whatever it might be that would be important for the American people to know about Bill and Hillary Clinton that isn't clearly, you know, old and stale stuff that we already know and have taken notice of, I think is fair game.
What about personal?
What about things from their personalized?
Are those fair game?
It depends what it is.
See, so Halpern wants, okay, what are you gonna do?
What's this new stuff?
What do you mean?
What new stuff?
Well, you know, business dealings, travels, it's called Epstein.
But I don't even think they're gonna do it.
I don't think they're gonna do any of this.
That's the point.
I think they're afraid to do any of this.
I think they're afraid to go back to Oppo research on the Clintons.
They're clearly afraid to do Apple research on Obama.
Well, it's how?
How's it different?
Obama Obama's African American makes it tougher to do Apple research on him, but Hillary's a known.
That's my point.
Hillary is a known punching bag.
I mean, and she's a she is a beat-up punching bag.
And Clinton himself, you know, kind of has a face that looks like it now, too.
And then I don't know.
I just I'm looking at him, Halpern's question.
So what are you guys gonna do?
You're going to try to go whitewater.
I can't.
He's making fun of Prebus, and Preebus doesn't know it.
And if he's not making fun of him, if he's not mocking him, he's he's kind of he's belittling, obviously, what uh Priebus might be looking at as disqualifiers where the uh where the Clintons are concerned.
Okay, now before I get back into the other the stack of absurd things that I led off with.
And before we go to the break, let's focus on the uh on the Republicans and this whole immigration thing and the Republican retreat.
And then short review.
On Monday we had an AP story that was really pummeling Boehner because he was speaking in terms of red meat for conservatives.
He was hammering Obama on violating the Constitution and violating immigration law, executive actions, all these kinds of things.
AP was mad.
They were criticizing Boehner for doing it.
Boehner hung in nevertheless.
They were trying to shame Boehner and talking out of it.
And they were kind of giving him a little business for not reacting more strongly and defiantly in dealing with these traitors who had voted against him in the speaker's vote.
Anyway, we came to Wednesday and Boehner did a stem winder of a, well, for the Republicans, it was a stem winder of a speech on the floor of the House in which he just took it to Obama on all of his constitutional violations.
And he quoted Obama claiming how he couldn't violate the Constitution and then gave examples of how him doing just that.
And there were conservative media that got kind of excited about it.
Said, wow, okay, maybe, maybe, you know, we hold we hold out hope.
Uh maybe they see the light.
And I found a post at Conservative Review, which said that they had already uncovered news that all of this was just for show.
All of this stridancy, all this beating up on Obama, and all this Republican fist pounding saying they weren't going to put up with his executive actions on amnesty and blah, blah, blah.
That what was really going on was a behind-the-scenes plan to make executive amnesty, executive orders legal and make them all happen after either Obama vetoes the House bill or the Senate fails to pass it.
Well, now we arrive to Friday.
And I have, let's see, let me just give you two stories to kick this off.
One from the Hill.com, one from the AP.
The Hill headline is McConnell to House GOP, do not expect miracle on immigration.
Senate GOP leaders are using their joint retreat with the House to warn conservatives they are not going to be able to reverse President Obama's executive orders on immigration.
Now, the Hill.com, thus wants all of us to know that Obama that uh McConnell is giving up already.
Which, you know, what a surprise.
But it's okay.
The Republican leadership.
It says that they need to save their ammo for the next fight.
They can't stop him on.
They got to save their ammo.
This is always what we are told.
Yeah, we don't have the ammo on this one.
But we're gonna save our ammo and we're gonna build up our stock.
And then next time, boy, we're gonna take it.
How many times do we hear that during every continuing resolution debate, every spending debate?
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told House lawmakers he needs at least six Democrats to pass legislation approved by the House that funds the Homeland Security Department and repeals Obama's actions that protect millions of illegal immigrants.
The House bill would defund the small areas of Homeland Security Obama needs to pay for his amnesty.
The House bill take the money away to do it.
McConnell's basically saying, no, no, no, no.
We don't have the votes here.
We control the Senate, but we don't have the votes, so don't expect any miracles.
Since it would take 60 Senate votes to send a bill to Obama's desk, and McConnell only has 54 Republican votes.
I'd understand this.
It would take 60 votes for a veto-proof bill, but they don't need 60 votes to pass a bill.
See, this is up.
They need cloture on this?
Okay, so they would need 60 votes for cloture.
For some reason I thought, All right.
So he's saying he can't even get cloture.
He can't even get to a final vote.
I'm anyway.
Now the AP story on this.
Not exactly brimming with confidence.
Majority leader Mitch McConnell says he's going to try to push a House past bill to overturn Obama's immigration policies through the Senate, but neither McConnell nor other members of his leadership, not even senior House Republicans, predict success for the plan that undoes Obama's moves and exposes hundreds of thousands of younger immigrants to deportation.
Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said, good question when asked about the bill's prospects in the Senate.
Cathy McMorris Rogers, Republican Washington, House of Representatives, said, well, it's a process.
And she was equally non-committal on the subject as Republicans held a joint retreat.
McConnell said, we're going to try to pass it.
That'll be our first choice.
But if we're unable to do that, we'll let you know what comes next.
Susan Collins, Republican in name only in Maine, said it's very difficult to craft language in a way that takes aim at the overreach overreach by the president with his executive authority and yet doesn't impede Homeland Security's enforcement of the law.
So what they're saying is, hey, look, you know, we would love to do this, but we need the Department of Homeland Security function.
We can't, we can't veto funding for the Department of Homeland Security for Christmas, especially not now, but militant Islam is terrorists all over the place.
But the legislation doesn't defund Homeland Security.
It defunds just a small part of it necessary for Obama to implement amnesty.
It does not defund Homeland Security.
So what we are left with here, they're trying.
Oh my gosh, are they trying so hard?
They just can't get their damage, no matter.
You keep winning elections, they just can't get their, they can't get 60 votes, they can't shut down debate in the Senate, they can't move on to a final vote.
And then from Breitbart News, oops, break time.
There's one more.
There's a member of the House, Jeff Denham, who doesn't want any part of this.
He just wants to go ahead and make this amnesty permanent permanent, get it done, and have the Republicans stand behind it.
And he says, by the way, that the party is quietly crafting a broad immigration bill behind the scenes anyway.
And he said, Have you seen Obama's numbers on this?
Are you saying we have to go along?
The only way we can survive is to support amnesty.
Have you seen Obama's numbers on this?
I have details coming up.
Don't go away.
You know, I guess uh I, and probably a lot of you just come from an old school.
Okay, here's McConnelly's in the Senate.
We got something serious.
We have a president violating the Constitution is going to grant amnesty outside the Constitution to 5,011 million illegal immigrants.
The Republicans just won the Senate.
They have 54 members, 54 votes.
They're six votes shy of what they need.
You mean to tell me that McConnell can't go on TV and shame six Democrats into joining them?
All we're talking about here is defending the Constitution for crying out loud.
Are there not six Democrats that could not be appealed to on the basis of defending and protecting the Constitution, the oath they take?
Why don't you at least make the effort?
Are they afraid they might convince six?
They're afraid they might win.
Is it in the bag the Republicans want?
Amnesty anyway, and all this is just for show?
I guess you need 60 votes.
Change the rules like Harry Deed, Harry Reed did.
Eliminate cloture on this one.
Just say, oh, we need 54 or 53 votes to pass it.
Play the game like Harry Reid did.
He changed the rules whenever he needed the rules to be changed or to get what he wanted.
If you don't want to change the rules, if they don't want to monkey with it like that, what's wrong with going on TV and making an appeal?
Six Democrats.
Are there not six Democrats?
Who want to vote and defend the Constitution of the United States?
Can we not find that would be a great message.
Not one Democrat in the U.S. Senate willing to defend the Constitution.
What a great message for a future campaign.
And then on this stupid business of the defunding of Homeland Security.
This bill does not defund homeland security.
It defunds three small parts of it.
That Obama needs to pay money to have these illegals amnestified.
Whatever you want to call it.
If there were to be a veto of the bill, it would be Obama who would be defunding Homeland Security.
Not the Republicans.
The Republicans are not defunding at all.
Not even willing to fight for that.
Make Obama veto it.
Put the onus on him.
It tells me that all this is for show.
And as we've always suspected, the Republicans are all in on amnesty anyway.
I better get some phone calls here.
It's uh halfway through the program.
We haven't been there, so it's time to go.
And uh we're going to start in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
Gary, I appreciate your waiting and welcome.
Great to have you here.
Great to talk to you, Rush.
Uh yeah, I have a quick question.
Are you there?
Yeah.
Uh I have a theory that the reason we open communications with Cuba, and so and he's he's getting rid of all the terrorists from Gitmo is he wants to close that base down and give it back to Cuba and accuse you say that we took it from him, and he he makes everybody happy on the left.
You think that's all there is to this is just giving Cuba Gitmo back?
Uh hey, there's more to it than that, but that that's my theory.
That's how he operates.
He can close down Gitmo, be the big hero, and give it to Cuba, and everybody's happy on the left.
Um think about it.
You so you think you think I just want to make sure and understand here before I comment, the main reason he wants to normalize relations with Cuba is to ultimately close Gitmo.
That that's the fastest best way he can close Gitmo is to normalize relations with Cuba and then give them the prison, the area, the territory back and receive accolades on the left for finally closing it down.
That's what I say, yes.
That's my theory.
Okay.
Well, so I think he could close Gitmo without reopening channels to Cuba.
I think he could he could shut it down if he wanted to.
He could have shut it down any time he wanted.
He may now, he's run into real-world circumstances which make it hard to do, but the people in there are not Dick and Jane.
The people in there are hardened SOBs.
And the people in their home countries often don't want them back.
There's nowhere to put them.
Nobody wants them.
If you're gonna close them, if you're gonna let them out of jail, if you're gonna release them.
Uh you release them to Allied nations, and if they don't want them, then there's not much you can do other than give them back to Al-Qaeda.
Well, that would that would pose all kinds of PR problems, which are major problems to Democrats, public relations and image is a much more important thing to them than substance is.
So I I think he uh he wanted to close git mode day one and found out the problems involved.
But I think normalizing relations with uh Cuba, normalizing relationships with a dictatorship is is about much more than just Guantanamo Bay.
Uh he could close it down.
He could he could use the base closure procedure, he could use any number of things.
I mean, if the Constitution doesn't matter, and if none of the other behavioral or policy protocols matter, there's nothing to stop him from just closing it.
Whether we normalize relationships with uh with Cuba or not.
I I think the normalization of relationship with Cuba fits perfectly in the theme that Obama believes much of American history is flawed and mistaken and unwarranted, and I think he believes the Cuban embargo was something that never should have happened.
Uh it it it I think he's part of the crowd that believes it is one of the primary reasons that Cuban people are suffering.
The people Obama sidles up to around the world are authoritarians.
The people who are not talking about the world are authoritarians.
Uh you're surprised that none of the Democrats are a little bit upset at this.
You mean a normalization because this is sort of mocking JFK's um.
Well, I don't know how much of a hero JFK is to these people anymore.
I mean, in reality, he's a he's an election time hero.
Good hero for pictures and speeches and stories at a convention, but in terms of JFK policy and what he did, Obama's not going to cite JFK as a role model.
JFK, if he were intellectually honest and still alive today, but he wouldn't have a home in today's Democrat Party.
Uh but I think the normalization of relations with Cuba is about much more than Guantanamo anyway.
But clearly, I don't doubt that Obama would love to get rid of Guantanamo Bay as a U.S. installation.
I don't doubt that at all.
I just don't think he has to normalize relationship with Cuba to do it.
Brandon and Ackworth, Georgia, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Russ.
Great to be on your show.
Uh been listening to you for a long time.
This is my first time actually getting through.
Well, I'm glad you made it.
Thank you.
All right.
Well, the point I wanted to make is this.
Uh, we've seen all the people like Jimmy Carter, Howard Dean talking about these terrorists and how they're not really Islamic.
You know, Howard Dean went so far as to call them cultists, not even Islamic cultists, but just cultists.
So my question is, why is the U.S. government giving these people that we detain Qurans, prayer rugs, halal meals, and all the meals that conform to Islam?
Hey, hey, you're not supposed to ask that.
You're not supposed you're not supposed to bring that up.
You're not inquisit inquisitive minds want to know.
Well, it it seems to me that the left want it both ways.
If they're not Islamists, why are they demanding Qurans, right?
Right.
And if they're not Islamists, why do they need prayer rugs?
So when these guys commit their acts of terrorism, they're not Islamic and in no way represent Islam, but when they're detained, they are Islamic and absolutely must be afforded everything their religion requires.
Absolutely right.
Which to me asks another question.
Why is it these names you mentioned, Howard Dean and whoever else, but he's not alone.
You can pick any Democrat.
Why?
Honestly now.
Why are these Democrats who are saying this so insistent that these terrorists not be thought of as Islamic?
when they clearly are.
Your question is great illustration of that.
They demand prayer rugs.
They They demand the Quran and then all the prayers at the right times of day.
Uh and they're granted all of it.
Dietary conditions, they are those requests are met.
Yet they're not Islamists.
Clearly they are.
So why is why is it so important for Howard Dean and whoever, why is it so important that we not believe this?
Why do they not want to believe it?
That's what intrigues me.
And we can all provide answers.
We can all come up with possibilities.
They're either afraid to intimidate them.
Uh, or alternatively, and don't discount this, Islamic in front of terrorism discredits it.
There's nobody tolerant of Islamic terrorism.
But if they're just a bunch of cultists, I I think you you can say that I think in the modern day Democrat Party, and I'm I really I've thought about this, and I've referenced it in roundabout ways during uh campaign years.
But I think in the Democrat Party, you know and I know that in their world, the United States is and has been the destabilizing force in the world, be it our superpower status,
be it our large economy, be it our racism, be it our bigotry, be it our exclusionary policies, whatever, there's a large segment of the Democrat Party and its voting base that considers the United States the problem in the world.
We don't liberate, we conquer.
We force ourselves on people, and we steal resources from these countries that we supposedly are liberating and defending.
We take them their oil, we take their minerals, we take everything.
We steal it, and people get rich, and the Democrat Party is just infested with people who do not believe the United States is good for the world.
Well, if a bunch of people over here in Yemen think the same thing, well, there's a bond.
I've always, and I've made mention of this before, I have always, and I'm I'm I'm not just trying to be funny with this or be jocular make a joke about it.
I think it is it's always stunned me when I listen to somebody like Mahmoud Ahmadini Zad criticize the United States, and then listen to a Democrat presidential candidate criticize the U.S., and it's almost identical.
And if there's a Republican president involved, I know that you know when Mahmoud Ahmedizad rips into George W. Bush, or when Hugo Chavez did it, they sounded like Democrats criticizing Bush.
They sound like Democrats criticizing America.
I always said to myself, my gosh, if I were Democrat, I'd be embarrassed.
These reprobates sound just like me, or I sound just like them, but it clearly didn't bother them, didn't stop.
And you know, politics makes strange bedfellows.
And if you are of a mindset that your country is the problem in the world, no matter how illegitimate or legitimate your view, no matter how insane, stupid, whatever you are, if you believe that, if you really believe your country is the problem of the world, and then some group of malcontents come along, like Al Qaeda or like militant Islam, and think the same thing.
Well, there's a little bond of agreement there.
And maybe you don't want to upset that bond.
So when Howard Dean and these guys don't call them Islamists, there's a parentheses.
You know, they may be right about some things.
We don't want to discredit these people.
They're just, you know, Islamists are not the problem, these cultists are.
Do you see, do you see or hear from Democrats routinely?
Do you hear, do you see words, speeches, TV appearances, detailing how we need to wipe these people out.
All you really don't, do you?
We what we hear is criticism of how we're trying to.
But we don't hear stemwinders, barn burners, we don't see fist pounding from Democrats about how this threat's got to be dealt with.
We must take care of this.
There's no Churchills out there.
And of course, Churchill was alone too.
You know, Churchill identifying the Nazis for the Brits, 1938, 39, 40, they all thought he was the kook.
The Chamberlain was the brilliant.
Churchill, perhaps the greatest statesman in 200 years, before the peak of his Renaissance, was considered an absolute lunatic for thinking what he thought about Hitler, for thinking what he thought about Islamists.
He properly identified them way back in the 1800s.
I mean, doing a lot of reading on Churchill lately.
But he was way ahead, he was way ahead of the class on virtually everything, but especially on Hitler, and nobody wanted to believe it, and so they didn't.
So Churchill ends up being castigated as a kook, uh warmonger, I mean, you you name it.
Well, today, The evidence clear who the warmongers are and who the terrorists are.
And we've got, I mean, the voices that stand up and say, no, no, you can't say that about they're all Democrats.
It was right about communists too.
Famous Iron Curtain speech at Fulton, Missouri.
That's where he gave the Iron Curtain speech.
State of Missouri, Fulton, Missouri, Full University.
Not Full University, it was in Fulton, Missouri.
And two days before that he was in Miami, made a speech, the predecessor for it.
Oh, he had the communists nailed.
He had them nailed way, way back in the 30s as well.
But the point is that it's not just today that people who correctly identify things are considered oddballs kooks.
Churchill was, too.
And he's perhaps just the greatest living Brit there's ever been, in many people's view.
But I just, it just strikes me that here we are in the middle of Islamist, militant, violent Islamist death bombings, attacks, and there are people standing up almost immediately saying, don't criticize them.
And they're almost all Democrats doing it.
So I, naturally curious, say, why?
What is something has to explain it?
What is it?
I don't know.
Got to take a timeout.
I just saw the clock.
Sit tight, we'll be right back.
I guess got an email.
Hey Rush, I got a couple friends of mine listening to your show today, and they heard you say that John Kerry had James Taylor over there in France singing, you've got a friend as part of an official government press gun.
They don't believe it happened, Rush.
They think you're just joking.
Okay, I can understand you not believing it because it is absurd.
It's literally embarrassing, but trust me, it did happen, and I have the audio soundbite evidence of it.
And I'm going to treat you to it at the top of the next hour.
I got Kerry speaking French, and in introducing James Taylor in French, I've got James Taylor welcoming everybody in his version of French, and then I got some bars of the song he sang.
It happened.
So we'll do that first thing in the in the top of the hour.
Now, what what the question that I just raised what is this reluctance on the part of leftists to properly identify militant Islamic terrorism.
And one theory is that they're scared.
Don't discount this.
One reason is these people are scared and they are trying to mollify.
That they believe the best way to mollify and calm these people down is to be nice to them and not demonize them.
Before you poo-poo that, try to remember what you know about conflict resolution 101, as it has been taught to our young kids now for decades.
And remember everything you've heard over the last 20 years about liberals and bad guys.
Let's not criticize them.
Let's not demean them.
We must remember Mrs. Clinton.
We must empathize with our enemy.
We must understand what their grievances are.
This is called smart power, and this is what we have brought to the State Department.
They believe that saying anything which is critical or demonizes them is not going to bring peace.
But I also think there's little personal Jim Clancy has left CNN after a controversial series of tweets he found himself involved in with Charles Edu.
He's quit.
When do you hear this?
That's coming at top of the hour, too.
By the way, I think there's another factor here too.
You look at Howard Dean and some of these guys.
I really do believe, and I'm dead serious.
I do believe that some of these liberals just can't believe that these groups are that Evil.
That they're that mean.
It's conservatives who are the problem.
It's any religion other than Christianity is the problem.
Conservatives are the problem.
And then there's the old saw, how much of this are we responsible for?
Meaning Islamic terrorism with our support for Israel.
So there's a whole bunch of just bat excrement, lunatic reasons that might explain these people's idiocy.
More broadcast excellence coming up online open line Friday resumes after a brief break here at the top.
▲
Export Selection