All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 20, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:20
January 20, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
No, the idiots haven't updated it yet, and I they won't even answer my emails on it now.
Jerks.
And if you're gonna have a widget that works, then fix it.
Oh yeah.
Oh, greetings, my friends.
Welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network and the Limbo Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800 282-2882, the email address Lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
The other part of the Stan Union show, of course, obviously is the people that respond.
And we've got two different Republican responses tonight.
We've got a pig castrator.
And we have a pro-amnesty freshman Republican in the House will be doing the Spanish language response.
Right here it is, pro-amnesty, House Republican to deliver Spanish language response.
This is uh this is our buddy Dan Real, writing at Breitbart based on House Republican documents reviewed by Breitbart News, pro-amnesty Republican freshman Carlos Corbello of Florida will be delivering the Republican Spanish language address in response to Obama's State of the Union speech tonight.
Corbello recently, by the way, it's been confirmed by Boehner's office.
Corbello recently made waves with a January 18th interview in the Hill, that's just a couple days ago, which focused on his strong dissent from the basic Republican position on immigration and all but stated his support for Obama's executive amnesty.
So, you know, Boehner, he's that he may be talking a good game in regards to fighting the White House on immigration and fighting the White House on this and that, but it's tough to square that if you're gonna pick a guy, a freshman Republican,
pro, not just pro-amnesty, pro-Obama executive amnesty, Republican freshman to do your Spanish language response to the uh to the State of the Union.
I guess there aren't any conservatives in Congress who speak Spanish.
You know, Ted Cruz's Spanish is better than John Kerry's French.
Who's kidding who here?
Speaking of, you know what I think Obama ought to do?
Just punt the speech.
Just go get Bob Dylan to come out and sing.
Don't think twice.
Everything's gonna be alright.
And have that be the state.
I mean, if Kerry can have James Taylor over there from Hippie Incorporated, singing You've got a friend.
Why not bring Bob Dylan out?
Don't think twice, it's all right.
And just it's a great idea.
That's what I'm known for.
Since I brought it up, grab soundbite twenty-one.
This afternoon on CNN's legal view.
They played a clip from an upcoming interview on this afternoon's Christiana Monpoor program on CNN International, where the host Christiana Manpore interviews Paris France Mayor Anne Idolgo.
And during the interview, Idalgo and Aman Poor have this.
I'm sorry, Idalgo and Christianamanpoor have this exchange.
The Vauclur as you I think they'll have to sue.
I think they'll have to go to court in order to have these words removed.
The image of Paris has been prejudiced.
And the honor of uh Paris have been called prejudice.
And I think in the great discussion of truth, everyone is to play its role, and we are going to have to be realistic and put things as they are.
Can you clarify which exact network you're going to take to court and sue?
Fox News.
What's the name?
It is Fox News.
Fox News.
That is in Fox News.
Uh going to sue Fox News.
Do you know what the no-go zones are?
It's it's it what it's what who can't go in the who who can't?
The cops.
It's it is The no-go zones are one of two things, and maybe a combination of both.
It's where the cops don't go, where they refuse to go, and also where the cops can't go.
And Fox News reported about the no-go zones.
And so the mayor of Paris, and Idolgo thinks that they have been impugned, and that they have been prejudiced, and that the honor of Paris has been prejudiced or impugned.
And she said in a great discussion of truth, everyone is to play its role, and we're going to have to be realistic and put things as they are.
And we have to ban this talk about no-go zones.
I mean, I've heard of them long before Fox ever reported on the existence of the no-go zones.
Of course, CNN couldn't wait to report this.
And what they don't understand, it's just going to make Fox even bigger.
But the the thing is, you notice there was a tweet, I had a saw it, maybe I've still got it here.
I kept kept uh a stack of stuff regarding all of the assaults on free speech that are taken.
Yep.
From the French news agency.
Uh this is on January 17th.
Deadly anti-Charles Ebdu riots as France defends free speech.
And a number of other stories about the nature of free speech in regard to the cartoons and the drawings in Charles Edu insulting the prophet and his free speech going to be defended, or are we going to capitulate to those who don't want to be offended or have their feelings hurt by something that might be published, drawn, written or said.
And Britt Hume of uh Fox News tweeted on January 18th, which is two days ago.
So that's this is Tuesday, right?
So the 18th of Sunday.
At 1217 after Brit Hume is surprised.
He tweeted, I never imagined that in 2015, free speech would be such a controversial idea, not just around the world, but uh in the U.S. left and on college campuses.
And I'm a Britt says he's he's he's surprised that free speech is such a controversial idea.
It's been controversial ever since whoever it was invented political correctness.
But why guess what he's seeing he's surprised at seeing so many people capitulate to it.
You know, there's polling data after polling data showing that people think, yeah, these uh magazines they ought not to be allowed to do those cartoons.
Yeah.
And Andrea Mitchell, NBC News from Washington, pretty much said the same thing.
And here's Fox News, First Amendment, freedom of the press, freedom of speech.
And CNN is ecstatic and happy that Fox News is going to be sued for referring to the no-go zones in uh in in Paris.
They're very happy about it.
You know the old saw, you believe in something, you watch somebody else lose it, and you do nothing to defend it, you've got no excuse when they come for you.
And that's the way all of this stuff works out.
So, yeah, pro-amnesty House Republican will deliver the Spanish language response, and Joni Ernst, the pig castrating farmer from Iowa will deliver the traditional response.
And of course, the drive-bys are hyping that all up and creating eager anticipation and high expectations, and what should we look for in the response?
And are we going to see a career made here out of uh a pig castrator in the Republican Party, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So you can see, this stuff is also predictable.
It's also unoriginal, that it is I don't know.
I'm just speaking for me, folks.
It's difficult, very difficult to get genuinely excited about it, and I'm having to work and concentrate here to avoid being entirely cynical about the process.
And I don't know that I want to get rid of all my cynicism about it, because I think some of it clearly is uh is warranted.
But let's let's let me show you how the conventional wisdom works via audio sound button.
Show you everybody gets into it and plays their role in hyping it and analyzing it and making it seem like it's one of the most important things happening.
That's I guess that's what really gets to me.
It's being hyped as something gravely tremendously important, and it isn't.
It's perfunctory.
It happens every year.
It's required by the Constitution after, well, it wasn't originally, but it is now.
It's required.
It isn't any great thing.
Obama has to do it.
He probably would rather not.
It's not an elective.
It's not something that's coming up out of the clear blue.
This is one of these, yeah, I gotta do this, not really crazy about it, and to get all hyped up about it seems to just to be to fall for the trick.
But let's go.
We have uh, I guess this is a yes, it's a montage.
And the theme this year in the drive-by media is that Obama's State of the Union speech tonight is actually the kickoff of the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign.
He's really creating a platform for Hillary Clinton, building a bridge to 2016.
Barack Obama is simply setting up Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency in 2016.
Lay out the rationale for his party going into 2016.
Setting up the message for Democrats heading into 2016.
Setting the tone for Democrats heading into 2016.
Setting the table for the base of the Democratic Party for Hillary Clinton.
He's proposing things as part of a legacy, things Democrats presumably Hillary Clinton, but other Democrats can fight for after he's gone.
You see, folks, I you want to here's here's who that Larry Sabateau, Ted Baxter, Lisa Lehrer, Ed Henry, Julie Pace, A.P., Gloria Borger, E.J. Dion Jr., and they all say the same thing.
Well, I'm sorry, what what's it take to be in that club?
Be able to read instructions on a facts sent from Drive By Central, okay, drive buyers, here's the take on Obama's State of the Union speech tonight.
It is a bridge to Hillary's presidency.
And no matter where you turn in the media, that's how it's being portrayed.
Yes, it's Obama setting up Hillary for 2016.
Never mind the fact Obama doesn't like her at all and probably would sabotage any effort if he could.
Yes, it's Obama setting up the next president for the twenty Obama doesn't care about the next president in s except for one thing.
If the next president tries to unravel what Obama's done, then we're gonna see things we've never seen before out of past presidents.
And mark my word, make a note.
January 20th, 2015, I call it.
I'm telling you, if the next president seriously tries to unravel, you're gonna see Obama behave as former presidents never have.
Breaking precedent on being involved and trying to impact the agenda of the new president, George W. Bush had never done that.
Clinton really, at election time, he has interceded.
But for the most part, most presidents respect this.
Okay, been there, done that.
I'm in the past now.
New guy's got his time.
Go for it.
Not going to be the case with Obama.
But I just find it utterly boring or whatever.
What?
They've all got the same take.
Obama setting up Hillary.
Is that what you think tonight is, Snurdly?
Obama setting up Hillary for the 2016?
Obama doesn't care about...
How many candidates is Obama tried or helped get elected?
That's right.
himself Obama doesn't care now all of a sudden Obama what a magnanimous guy State of the Union Code tonight's all about electing the next Democrat.
I don't doubt that it's about destroying the Republican Party.
But quick timeout, we'll get back to phone calls after this, folks.
So hang in there, be tough.
Didn't didn't the Democrats their 2014 midterms that we just had back in November?
Didn't the Democrats, at least some of them run on the whole myth, this misnomer of income inequality and the need for income redistribution?
Now, how did that work out for 'em?
I mean, they got showacked.
Now, I I don't know how focused they were on that.
I know a you know, some of their candidates ran on that premise.
I mean, Obama's premise in a State of the Union show tonight, and now it's supposed to set Hillary up for 2016.
Where does this stuff come from?
Who in the world comes up with this and then sends out the facts to everybody in the drive-by.
So, okay, this is your take.
And then they all do it.
Why would they all want to sound the same anyway?
Here's the here Joanna in Lafayette, Louisiana.
Joanna High, glad you called your next on the big program.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Hi.
I've been listening to you since 1997, and I love you, so I can't believe I'm calling to disagree with something you said about Romney.
Well, it happens.
But what I feel is that um, you know, when you said that he was praising um our former president, I really don't think he was praising him.
He did say that what the Democrats did is wrong, it doesn't work.
He said what we need is to improve the economy so people get jobs.
And I was surprised that you didn't repeat that he said that.
Well, okay, Mike grabbed out uh Romney sound bite from the grooveyard of almost forgotten soundbites and yesterday.
Let's listen to the whole thing again.
And my point here, Joanna, is that I think I'm not discounting the substance of what Obama uh or what Romney said about how to deal with this, but my whole notion these guys are gonna have to learn how to play hardball.
And praising LBJ is big hearted, just isn't gonna cut it.
It's not gonna get him any points, it's not gonna win him anything, and it's a mindset that tells me that we don't really have a bunch of people willing to fight here.
I mean, the the game's being taken to us.
These people called him a murderer.
These people accused him of standing idly by while some guy's wife died of cancer, and they they accused him of not caring about the family dog, killing it practically like boiling in the sun riding on top of station wagon.
Anyway, here you got the bite.
Here it is.
Okay, here so we're gonna listen to the whole thing, Joanna, so that uh this would be like the third time for this now, so nobody can say we're short changing Mitt.
Fifty years ago, Lyndon Baines Johnson declared the war on poverty.
His heart was in the right place, but his policies didn't work.
We haven't won that war.
As a matter of fact, under President Obama, the rich have gotten richer, income inequality has gotten worse, and there are more people in poverty in America than ever before.
His policies have not worked.
The only policies that'll reach into the hearts of American people and pull people out of poverty and break the cycle of poverty are Republican principles, conservative principles.
They include family formation and education and good jobs, and we're gonna bring them to the American people and finally end the scourge of poverty in this great land.
There you go.
Okay, so you've heard a whole bite, and you heard all you I'm sure you liked a bit about family formation.
Yeah.
Look, Rush, can I just say this?
I believe that there was never a man better prepared by God, and I believe that he was prepared by God to fix the economy of this country than Mitt Romney.
I believe we had a great loss when he wasn't elected.
And it was because partly because people who didn't like Romney didn't go vote.
We've got to quit fighting among ourselves and and stick by our candidates.
You uh may have mentioned I'm from Louisiana.
I once had to choose between voting for um David Duke and Edwin Edwards, a Nazi and a crook.
Yeah.
And you know what?
A lot of people didn't go vote.
Right.
I voted.
I voted for the crook rather than vote for a Nazi.
Right.
And I think we have to, you know, hold our noses sometimes and pull the lever for something a little better than well, look what we've got.
I mean, we've got a president.
Look, Joanna, you know, if you if you've been listening since 1997, and even if you campaign in 2012, if you only had time to listen once a week, you had to have heard me praise to the highest Mitt Romney and his Morality and his character and his his his status as just a fine, fine man and a great gentleman.
Yes.
And I'm not among those who encouraged anybody to stay home and vote.
Well, all I'm saying here is he could have said everything he said without beginning with crediting LBJ with good intentions.
These these people are out to destroy him.
What do you think some of these four million people sat home?
Some of the people who voted against Romney actually believed Joanna that this guy idly sat by while another man's wife died of cancer.
They were able to convince people that Romney didn't pay his taxes.
They were able to convince people who's a tax cheat.
And I don't think the response to this is to start praising the people who are trying to destroy you.
It to me it just says we're not prepared to play hardball yet.
Yes, it was horrible what they were saying about Romney.
It's absolutely horrible.
I got the impression, and it's just my impression, it's obviously not yours, that he Romney was trying to pull in maybe some Democrats uh to get them on his side.
You think?
Yeah, well, how's that we've been doing that the last bunch of presidential nominees?
We've been shooting for the center, shooting for moderates, been shooting for unhappy.
How's it working out for us?
We're not quite I I know what you mean.
Well, because the reason the problem with that is that you do irritate your base.
And by the way, the Republican establishment's making no bones about the fact that it's embarrassed of its own base voters and would like to be able to win without them.
Uh it's it's most unfortunate.
But anyway, I'm glad you called, and there you go with a full soundbite again.
And I have no doubt that that Romney's prescriptions here are correct, but you have to go fight for them.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to be fair about things.
And as usual, utilizing talent on loan from God.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the uh program, this is Lee in Queens.
Great to have you.
Hello.
Thanks for taking the call.
You bet.
Uh I keep hearing you talk about the next two years and what's uh going to happen.
And my point is it's not the next two years.
Because after Amnesty Rush, I think that's it.
I think that this is the kind of government we're gonna have for the foreseeable future.
And every single major issue we have, whether it's taxes, energy, jobs, health care, uh, people's pensions, people's private property, I think everything's up for grips.
Because there's not going to be anybody around to stop it anymore.
Well, this is, I guess, my point.
Uh, when I whenever the next two years, tell me this will be helpful for me.
Tell me what you think I mean that you're objecting to.
I think the focus is greater if you look at it as the foreseeable future and not as just the end of Obama's presidency in the next two years.
I think the bigger issue is is after that.
I think this is it.
Well, uh clearly, and and you think the linchpin for all this is amnesty.
If this happens and all bets are off, we've got that that represents, if I'm hearing what you're saying, a cultural tsunami from which we simply can't overcome.
We can't.
Yeah, yeah, I I really do.
And I want to be and I want to be wrong on that.
But I think you're gonna spend the rest of your career being right about everything, but unable to do anything about it.
Uh yeah, well, here's the thing.
I have said the same thing.
The Democrat Party needs a permanent underclass, no matter where they get them, and the and the the what you your fear will be fully and ultimately realized when those people are finally given the right to vote, which is not going to take very long.
Now, all I mean when I talk about these next two years is that what we've had up till now in terms of Obama ignoring the Constitution is gonna pale in comparison to what he does the next two years.
I had a guy, this may help me explain it better to you.
I had dinner on Saturday night with uh an establishment news media type.
And I gave a usual question.
So, what do you think of the Republican field in 2016?
Who do you think's the front runner right now?
Who excites you?
And I said, I don't think that's the story.
And I said, I don't think the Republican presidential campaign is in any way, shape, manner, or form even understood yet, because you have no idea what's coming these next two years.
The Republican presidential campaign is going to be starkly different from what everybody thinks it's going to be today, because you haven't you have seen anything yet in terms of what Obama does, policy-wise, violating, ignoring the Constitution, who knows what.
Amnesty is just part of it.
But I, and and this guy, uh he understood what I was talking about.
He doesn't look at things like that.
He more as a more of a traditionalist.
Okay, it's presidential year, who the Republican front runners uh, who do you think's got the uh is the odds on favorite?
And I said, it's too soon to narrow any of that down because that campaign, Republican presidential campaign, is going to be predicated and based entirely on what Obama does these next two years, and I don't think anybody has the slightest idea how bad it's going to be.
And they won't until they get there.
And then amnesty is the first step of many similar kinds of things to follow.
I hope I'm wrong.
I but the evidence is pretty clear that the Obama told everybody he's got a wish to fundamentally transform this country.
Now, if you know what that means, and I know you do, Lee, if you know what that means, he's got two years, the Republicans have told him that they're not going to stop him.
He's got two years to get even with 200 years of injustice, the way he looks at it, and he's going to use them to the best of his ability.
Right.
All right, I think we're on the same page.
Yeah, exactly.
And amnesty is just one of the things.
Amnesty and endless immigration is just one of the ways Obama is going to right the wrongs that have been part of this country since our founding.
This country was founded on racism, he believes, founded on injustice and inequality.
And it's time that this country found out the way most of the people in the world live.
Our super uh uh power status is illegitimate because we've stolen it from other nations around the world.
We've bullied, we've conquered, we put people in jail that don't deserve to be blah blah all of these things, and it's his job to finally write all of these traditional injustices.
And I don't think, and I'm just trying to love to be wrong about all this, but I don't think people have the slightest inkling yet.
Who's who's gonna stop tooth and nail to stop him?
Ah, well, they're not gonna stop him.
All you have when you say, when you take impeachment off table, that's the only way to stop him.
What are the separation of powers?
I talked about this last week.
I don't mind repeating it.
Separation of powers is one of the primary safeguards built into the Constitution.
Let me explain this a bit.
The founders knew full well what they were dealing with.
They knew full well what the natural inclinations of tyranny are.
And they knew that this country was going to be attacked from the moment it was founded.
They believed in what they were doing.
They believed in what they were doing so much they pledged everything to make it happen.
Their lives, their fortunes, sacred honor.
And when given the opportunity to withdraw and retract, they didn't.
They hung in.
During the revolutionary war, many of them saw their children kidnapped and killed as prisoners of war.
They were blackmailed.
Recant this revolution will release your kid.
They didn't.
They were dead serious.
They also, you read the Federalist Papers, they were very proud.
These were smart people.
These were miraculously brilliant people.
They knew exactly what they had done in creating this country.
They knew exactly what they'd done when they wrote the Constitution.
And they knew, human nature being what it is, that it was going to be under assault from the moment it was enacted.
So they built safeguards into it.
They built self-protective measures into it that they rooted in their understanding of human nature.
And separation of powers is one of the first and in their intentions, most powerful safeguards.
What got me thinking about this was a call in the latter months of last year, discussing how Obama is breezing past the Constitution, ignoring it wantonly purposely.
And somebody called and said, Well, what's stopped any leader before Obama from doing this?
Why is he the first?
Caller said, is it the honor system?
Have we just been lucky that we've elected people who decided because of their own morality and all that to honor the Constitution?
I said, Well, you'd like to think that, but no.
There are many safeguards built in to protect the Constitution and to make sure that it is something that remains in force.
The way separation of powers is designed to work and rooted in human nature is.
The founders understood that human beings, particularly human beings who seek leadership positions in the world of politics, want power.
That's why they divvied it up.
That's why there is no king.
You've got the judicial branch, the judges, the courts, the Supreme Court.
You have the legislative branch, which is the House and the Senate, and you have the executive branch, which is the president and all the cabinet offices.
And I imagine some of you listening today are hearing this for the first time, given how woeful our education is on this.
The founders believed that the legislative branch, because of human nature, would be trying to secure as much power away from the president and his branch as they could.
And by verse visa, the founders believed that presidents would be doing everything they could to steal power from the legislative branch.
Their belief was that people steeped in, invested in, desirous of power would go to any length to hold on to theirs and thereby preserve the separation of powers and prevent any one branch from becoming essentially dictatorial.
They believed that the president would do everything he could to keep Congress from overrunning him, and vice versa, that Congress would do everything it could to stop some president from taking over their power.
Well, what's happened here in the last six years is that the Democrat Party, particularly those in the House of Representatives, as exemplified by these idiots, Barbara Lee and Sheila Jackson Lee and any number of others who said our job is to write executive orders for the president.
These are the kind of people the founders feared.
Democrats in the House and Senate have been more than willing to surrender their power to Barack Obama in the name of the cause.
And the cause is liberalism.
The cause is statism, the cause is power, party power.
And so the president has been allowed to usurp all of this congressional power because Congress has not fought to protect their own.
The Democrats didn't care.
It's all the Democrats they're saying, so Obama's a Democrat, we're a Democrat.
If he's got the power, we've got the power.
We don't care where it is.
The Republicans, this is why everybody's so upset.
The Republicans didn't really fight to preserve their power in the House because they didn't want to be called racists by the media.
They didn't want to be criticized as racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes.
And so this natural Safeguard, separation of powers is itself under assault right now.
Then you judges that the Democrats have put in office are themselves people who think they should have and do have the power to write law from their courtrooms.
Now add to that something that was never provided for in the Constitution, and that's all of these regulatory agencies out there that are in the executive branch.
Such things as the fish and wildlife and the EPA, these people are writing regulations left and right, 14, 15,000 a year that are becoming effectively law in this country without going through the process of becoming law.
That's one of the greatest violations of the separation of powers ever.
And there's there's no oversight over these regulators.
The regulators at EPA, if they want to be in charge of regulating CO2 because they believe it destroys the climate, then by God, they're going to be in charge of it.
And if they want to fine you for exhaling, or if they want to fine you for using more than your share, then there's nothing to stop them from doing it.
Congress hasn't even played a role in any of this.
And yet none of this is technically constitutional.
Everything coming out of these regulatory agencies, not everything.
Vast majority of it, in real terms, is not constitutional.
But if the people who are having power taken from them do not stand up and defend it and try to secure their own power and make sure that it isn't stolen, then the separation of powers kind of drifts away, loses some of its unique strength or power itself.
And so it's now left to other safeguards.
And other safeguards, if you read the Federalist Papers, it's why Madison spent so damn much time talking about the importance of character in the chief executive, character in elected leaders, morality and character.
All the things that are laughed at today by people that are uninformed on all this stuff in the pop culture.
But that's why so many people are concerned.
The safeguards have worked for over 200 years to protect and defend the Constitution and keep it from being basically used as toilet paper, and now it's under assault, and it doesn't seem to be anybody standing up defending it.
That's what really upsets so many.
That's get down to it, it was upsets the Tea Party.
Anyway, I'm a little long here, but that's summation of where we are.
I gotta take a quick time out.
As I mentioned, we'll be back.
Don't go away.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every busy broadcast day.
Rushlin baugh behind the golden EIB microphone.
By the way, there's one other thing here, in addition to the separation of powers.
I know you're gonna laugh at this.
But one of the most powerful things that keeps presidents in check is the fear of impeachment.
Do not doubt me.
The fear of being impeached.
Even after Clinton, this doesn't matter, it's it's not really the fear, but the idea that people don't want to be impeached, what it does to the legacy, the image, and all that, has it it is probably it it's it's the only way when you get rights, it's the only legal way to stop a president who is running amok.
It's the only legal mechanism built in, impeachment.
Separation of powers in and of itself is not enough.
It's just a safeguard.
But impeachment was established and built in as a legal remedy to a runaway chief executive.
Now the case for impeachment is not legal, except at the very end of it.
In order for there to even be The first steps taken to impeach the political will must exist in the country.
If you haven't done that, if you're the opposing party and you do think that impeachment's warranted, if you haven't established the political will to do it, don't waste your time.
Because while it is a legal remedy, it's a political procedure when it kicks off.
It doesn't matter its moot anyway, because the Republicans, uh, in an effort to show how cooperative they can be and non-confrontational and how they want to really work with the president and get things done, announced long time ago that the impeachment is off the table.
It will never happen.
Well, if you tell John Gotti that you are going to stop chasing the mob, what do you think John Gotti is going to do?
Or take Willie Sutton, I don't care.
Use any analogy you want.
Make the point.
Says that birth control does not mean that human beings should breed like rabbits.
▲
Export Selection