All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 25, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:15
February 25, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I got some emails.
So who are the 2% that have never heard of you?
Well, I announced Snerdley didn't hear this.
He was busy screening calls.
Now wait his cue numbers or whatever it is.
98% of people recognize my name when they hear it name recognition.
People are saying, well, who in the world are these two percent?
Who are I mean, to not have heard your name, how is that possible?
They may not know what you do, but how in the world are in a hundred I don't, folks, that's I'm surprised it's 98, be honest with you.
Um because people have to admit it for it to get up that high.
Anyway, great to have you back here, 800-282-2882 in the email address, L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
This is one of those days where I'm just overwhelmed with things, and I'm I'm I feel like I'm doing you a disservice.
I'm not spending enough time on any one thing to fully explain it in my effort to get to so many things.
I want to go back to our last caller, because I'm I didn't mean to sound rude to her.
Um it's just she her point was right on the money, but it doesn't have anything to do with the Texas judge.
Her point is worthy of mentioning and repeating.
There's a reason why dingy Harry and the Democrats are pressuring the Republicans for a clean bill out of the Congress that funds the Department of Homeland Security, including Obama's illegal executive amnesty.
The judge in Texas who has stayed Obama's implementation of his illegal executive amendment, which by the way, Obama is continuing, he's doing everything but granting the amnesty.
He's granting the work permits.
We're up to 9 million work permits.
That's quasi amnesty right there.
He he's he's granting all these work permits, social security numbers.
I think we're up to 9 million illegal immigrants before he has acted on the executive amnesty.
Well, it's one and the same, if you ask me.
So he's continuing to act and behave as though he knows this is eventually going to fall his way anyway.
But why wouldn't he?
The only opposition we have has announced that they are not going to stop him.
And he can see what they're doing in the Senate, they're caving, and they're leaving it totally up to the House to stop him.
Why would you if you were Obama and you have these grand designs on transforming or changing the country because you don't like it?
Way it's treated people, in your opinion.
And you've got two years left, and you you you know that nobody's gonna stop you, and you know that your race gives you a blanket amnesty yourself, why wouldn't you do what he's doing?
Well, by that I mean his race limits over half the criticism any other president would get, if not more.
So he's insulated by a lot of things.
Why would he not do this?
That's what makes, you know, you and me out here watching this from afar.
We can't understand why what what happened to the opposition.
There isn't any.
There isn't an opposition party.
And not only that, the opposition party has announced that they're not an opposition party.
So it human nature, everything else makes perfect sense.
Obama's doing what he's doing.
Why would he stop?
That's why I was able to accurately predict these two years, you have no idea.
You don't have the slightest idea what's in store, and this is just the beginning.
Net neutrality and getting control of the internet, that's another big step, but this is also just the beginning.
Now, the reason they want a clean bill is because this case that has been stayed because of the judge's order in Texas, is eventually going to get to other courts.
It may get all the way to the SCOTUS, but it certainly is going to get to one of the courts of appeal.
If the normal route were followed, it would get to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, which is in New Orleans and is, for all intents and purposes, said to be a conservative court, so the regime will try to get it moved to Some other circuit if they can.
Now, why wouldn't they?
They can do whatever they want.
Nobody's going to stop them.
The law doesn't matter.
The Constitution really doesn't matter here.
And if you don't respect it and revere it and self-discipline yourself to follow it, and if nobody else is going to make you, that's where we are.
But the clean bill, when we get to appeals of this judge's ruling, and those appeals will eventually get to the substance of it.
A future court sees that Congress authorized the full funding of the Department of Homeland Security, it would be a snapped overturn, this judge, and any other court that upholds him, because the will of Congress, and that's what courts look at, the will of the people, as expressed by votes in Congress.
If they're half both houses of Congress authorized the full funding of Department of Homeland Security, this case is over.
There's no court down the road that is going to continue to hold for the judge who ordered the stay.
But if the Congress refuses to give the clean bill, and if a clean bill doesn't therefore come out of Congress, then the will of Congress cannot be said to be full funding of Homeland Security.
That's why it's crucial that Boehner hang on.
That and a number of other reasons.
That was the point the caller was making, and she's dead on right about that.
But in in the Texas ruling, that judge didn't rule on any of this.
She's right in explaining why Dingy Harry and the Democrats are so adamant about getting a clean bill.
Thank the number now.
Obama has uh issued 7.4 million work permits.
Uh see that so that's since 2009.
There are nine million that have been legally allowed by law since 2009.
Obama has issued 7.4 million of them, if I understand that right.
And that's akin to granting amna when you tell the illegal you've got here's your legal work order.
I mean, what's it's a it's a semantic semantic argument.
Now back to the Krikorian piece at National Review Online.
His point here is that Jeb Bush basically has the same opinion of America that Obama does, and that is it's imperfect and needs to be perfected and needs to be fixed.
That Jeb is dissatisfied with America and wants to change it to be more to his liking, identical to what Obama wants to do.
And Jeb Bush, like Obama, looks at immigration as the fastest way to affect or bring about the change in America that he wants, that he thinks is necessary to improve America.
Now, Jeb appeared at uh 92nd Street Y. Uh he made an appearance there, and it was a full-fledged appearance with QA by a moderator.
And here are some of the things he said about immigrants, illegal or otherwise.
I mean, to Jeb and Obama, there's no such thing as an illegal immigrant.
They're just people that want to be Americans, and that's great.
And calling them illegal is unkind, and it misstates who they are, and it stigmatizes them, and it's a very, very discriminatory thing to do.
Plus it's mean.
Jeb Bush said that the immigrants, the the illegals that we're talking about, the subjects of amnesty, they are more entrepreneurial than Native Americans.
They set up more businesses than Native Americans, they buy more homes than Native Americans, they are more family-oriented than Native Americans, and they work in jobs that in many cases are jobs that have gone unfilled.
At another juncture in the appearance of the 92nd Street Y, Jeb Bush said, I think Detroit would do real well if we started repopulating it with young, aspirational people.
Meaning immigrants.
Another thing that Jeb Bush said.
We have people that mope around thinking my life's bad, my children will not have the same opportunities that I had.
What a horrible notion in America.
The most optimistic of places.
And I think an economically driven immigration plan would lift our spirits up dramatically.
That's Jeb Bush.
Economically driven immigration plan would lift our spirits up dramatically.
Another thing that he said: "The one way that we can rebuild the demographic pyramid is to fix a broken immigration system." And if we do this, we will rebuild our country in a way that will allow us to grow.
If we don't do it, we will be in decline because the productivity of this country is dependent on young people who are equipped to be able to work hard.
Immigrants create far more businesses than native-born Americans over the last 20 years.
Immigrants are more fertile and they love families, and they have more intact families.
Krikorian writes that the truth or falsity of these claims is almost beside the point.
Because Jeb's preference for immigrants over Americans is based on emotion, not reason.
And despite what some might say, the problem with Jeb is not that his wife is from Mexico.
It's not that their kids grew up speaking Spanish and that they live in a Latin American cultural enclave in the U.S. in Miami.
The problem here is that Jeb wants to use government policy to fix America by making it more like Miami.
If Jeb had so little affection for and grounding in his own heritage that he wanted to assimilate into a Latin American milieu.
Well, that's a perfectly legitimate choice.
I know a number of non-Armenians, Kerkorian's Armenian.
I know a number of non-Armenians who've basically chosen to assimilate into Armenian life, but to try to impose that personal choice on the nation as a whole is beyond the pale.
We don't need another president who thinks Americans are defective and need to be fixed by the state.
That's Gricorian, reacting to what Jeb said in his appearance in New York at the 92nd Street.
Why?
And it really is the point.
Okay, so Jeb thinks America's flawed, and he wants it to be something else.
Wants it to be more like the place he chose to live, the Latin American enclave in Miami.
But to take that personal, emotional choice and to impose it on the nation as a whole is beyond the pale.
And Obama is doing the same thing.
They have different reasons, but their desired results are the same.
I don't know how to react to some of these things that Jeb is quoted here as saying.
It's clear that emotion is behind this, not reason.
But on the one hand, you have Obama who has his beliefs, and he doesn't care what the law is, and he doesn't care what the Constitution is.
He's going to make this country look like the way he wants it to look.
It's going to be the kind of country he thinks it should have been from the get-go.
He's going to fix all the mistakes that were made that were part of the founding, all the injustice, all the grievances and so forth.
And he's going to break the law to do it.
It's almost a revolution.
Taking place without ammunition and without weapons.
It's an amazing sight to behold here.
It's happening right in front of our eyes.
Right in front of our faces.
And people who profoundly disagree with this don't speak up.
Well, that's not true you were speaking up.
I'm talking about the official opposition party in Washington or elsewhere.
Doesn't speak up.
And then try this, this a Huffing and Puffington Post.
The police commissioner in New York is William Bratton.
And they love Bill Bratton in New York because he used to go to Elaine's when Elaine's was open.
If you went to a lanes, they loved you on page six.
And they loved your wife if you took your wife with you to Belanes.
They loved you on page six.
They loved you in the New York Post.
They loved you in the New York Daily News.
Didn't matter if the mayor was a guy like Giuliani who they hated.
He never went to Elaine's.
And if he did, everybody there would walk out and wish he wasn't there.
New York City police commissioner William Bratton acknowledged yesterday that police were to blame for many of the worst parts of black history in the United States.
You heard me write.
The New York City police commissioner William Bratton acknowledged on Tuesday that police were to blame for many of the worst parts of black history in the United States.
Well, what do the police do?
The police enforce the law.
In the case of laws that hurt blacks, most, if not all of those laws were enacted by Democrats.
So why not say Democrats are to blame for the worst parts of black history?
Why is it fall to the police all of a sudden?
What is the point here?
Why does the police commissioner feel it necessary to stand up and say?
Because look, the Justice Department.
Do you realize what a bill of goods we were sold about the gentle giant and hands up don't shoot?
You realize what a bill of goods we were sold about Trayvon Martin, a bill of goods we were sold about Eric Gardner.
All of that was there was.
Well, I've got a little routine built up on that.
I'll save it for then.
I've got to take a break now.
And I want to come back and continue with uh with people on the phone.
Sit tight, my friends, much more straight ahead after this.
Don't go away.
And here is Sue from New Lebanon, Ohio.
As we head back to the phones, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Mr. Limbaugh.
How are you?
I'm great.
I'm great.
Thank you very much.
Real quickly, I am wondering why that Mitch McConnell has not implemented the same Um option that Harry Reid did in order to get the health care uh bill passed, which was I think they called a nuclear option, which I understood at the time that the Republicans were so upset because they were only to use that option when it concerned a budget item.
And certainly Homeland Security budget is a budget item, so I don't get why he isn't.
So I wanted your thoughts on that.
Well, I think you're you're talking uh probably about budget reconciliation.
Yes.
Uh I yeah, people have been asking me, Sue.
I I mean I hate to I'm not I'm not diffusing your question.
People have been asking me for 27 years why are the Republicans doing X. I don't know.
All I could do is guess, the same as you.
Why won't the Republicans use the same techniques on the Democrats that the Democrats use on us?
That's what your question is.
Correct.
I haven't the slightest idea.
I can only guess.
And my guess would be somewhat informed, but I'm still end up being uh a guess.
And that is they're just afraid of any media criticism for what they're gonna get for what they do.
They're afraid of the consultants have told them they're gonna anger the independents.
I think right now, what probably is and this is just a wild guess, because frankly, Sue, to tell you the truth, I've gotten a point where I don't care anymore, so now I'm having to fake caring about this while giving you an because you you you have a obviously an interest in this.
My My wild guess, rooted in a lack of passion on this is that they are so worried about not screwing up 20 2016, the presidential race, that they are trying to avoid any action they think would be provocative, would upset the Democrats, would upset the media.
They're trying to lay low just like they did during the campaign last year.
The Republicans didn't campaign for anything.
Nationally, the Republicans didn't have a message.
They didn't have an agenda.
Their mission was to shut up, not say anything, and don't get any criticism and don't offend anybody.
And I think they're just carrying it forward, thinking the best weapon they have is silence and no opposition, and not be provocative so as to not screw up their chance to win the White House in 2016.
But at the same time, then aren't they alienating their very base?
They think, based on this last election, the base is going to show up no matter what.
I am convinced they think that.
I'm convinced they're not worried about losing the base.
I think they're very wrong.
And I think even further, I think there's a sizable percentage of the Republican leadership that wouldn't mind losing the base, even if it meant being in the wilderness for two or three elections.
Oh, I think perhaps it could be longer than that.
Well, ever.
A lot of people agree with you.
But that's that's as good a guess as I could give you.
As to I mean, how do you explain the senseless?
Right here, my formerly nicotine stained fingers.
I have this story from the Huffing and Puffington Post.
Bill Bratton, the New York police commissioner, says the police are to blame for the worst parts of black history.
Bill Bratton, the New York police commissioner, says the police are to blame for the worst parts of black history.
This is a third time I've said it, and still people don't believe they're hearing it.
Bill Bratton, a New York City police commissioner, they love him there because he went to a lane's when it was open.
That made him hip.
Says the police are to blame for the worst parts of black history.
He acknowledged this yesterday.
Police are to blame for many of the worst parts of black history in the U.S. He gave a speech morning to a predominantly African American crowd during a Black History Month breakfast at the Greater Allen A.M.E. Church in Queens.
Slavery, he said, our country's original sin sat on a foundation codified by laws enforced by police, by slave catchers, Bratton said.
Aren't the police supposed to enforce the laws?
Isn't it the problem here?
The law.
Who gave us the laws?
I would I would venture to say, folks, that the law is what gave us the worst part of black history, and who's responsible for those?
I would say it's a Democrat Party.
I know that goes against the grain of what every bit of conventional wisdom is.
Because the conventional wisdom is that the Republican Party was the party of slaves, and so the Republican Party was the party of emancipation.
Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.
The Republican Party was needed and necessary to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
It was Democrat senators who opposed it.
The police, they just enforce the laws that are already there.
They don't write the laws, they don't make the law.
So how in the world do you blame the cops for the worst parts of black history?
The commissioner pointed out that the first thing the Dutch colonist Peter Stuyvesant did upon arriving in what was then New Amsterdam was to set up a police force to prop up a system of slavery.
Since then, the stories of police and black citizens have intertwined again and again, Bratton said.
The unequal nature of that relationship cannot and must not be denied.
What an utter bag of nonsense.
Did this commissioner learn his American history from the same schools where Obama and Reverend Wright attended?
And you know what the other part of the story, I forgot to give you the other half of the headline.
Here's the headline.
Bratton says police to blame for worst parts of black history, but there's more in the headline than what says.
Reform advocates unimpressed.
Meaning civil rights leaders unimpressed.
Of course they're unimpressed because they don't want this solution.
They don't want this solved.
And no amount of taking the blame and no amount of raising your hand and say, I'm guilty, I did it, is gonna change anything.
It's not going to buy you any good vibes, it's not going to buy you love and respect.
You have to reopen Elaine's for that.
Yeah, no, it's just like Harry Reid, it's never enough.
They got a total cave in the Senate on the Homeland Security Funding Bill.
Dingy Harry said, Oh, you haven't even gotten close yet.
You need to get Boehner to cave now.
I mean, this is just, this is just No, no.
I read you the quotes from a speech he gave on Tuesday, part of Black History Month at the Greater Allen A.M.E. Church in Queens.
And the story is replete with reaction from civil rights reform activists who said, eh, no big deal, unimpressed.
We don't think he really means it, or there won't be any follow-up action on it.
So Brad's just saying this stuff, trying to get in our good graces, but it's not gonna work.
That's essentially what the civil rights reform activists are saying in reaction to it.
The commissioner, let me read this graph to you again.
Commissioner pointed out the first thing that Dutch colonist Peter Stuyvesant did upon arriving in what was then New Amsterdam was set up a police force to prop up a system of slavery.
Since then, Bratton said, the stories of police and black citizens have intertwined again and again.
The unequal nature of that relationship cannot and must not be denied.
I'm gonna tell you that the laws in New York have been written by liberal Democrats almost exclusively for its entire history.
The police are just there to enforce them.
It was an unexpected speech from a commissioner normally in the business of defending the police.
That's what the Huffing and Puffington Post said.
It was an unexpected speech from a commissioner normally in the business of defending the police.
And then a piggyback story.
The Washington Examiner by Paul Bedard.
Yeah, I I I thought I thought the first thing the Dutch did was rip off the Native Americans.
I I thought the Dutch really shafted the Indians.
Yeah, but you know, we found out that that's all a bogus story.
Oh, yeah, the Indians took the Dutch for a song on that.
They they didn't, they didn't sell them Manhattan, they sold them.
It was, it was we just did this last year sometime.
Part of the uh research I did on the Rush Revere series.
That's a totally bogus old wives tale.
The Indians did not get the short end of that stick.
The Dutch did.
I'll find it, I'll get to it.
It's not relevant right now.
I just that's just a little aside.
The piggyback story is from Vice President Bight Me.
Vice President Bite Me used a black history month event as official residence Monday night to decry the rich, both white and black.
Blame the rich for the stunted economic growth of America and suggested that emancipation is in order.
Vice President Joe Biden said a lot of wealthy white and black people aren't bad, but they control one percent of the economy, and this cannot stand.
Biden told about a hundred guests, including past civil rights activists and NBC weatherman Al Roker.
It's not fair, said Vice President Whitemy.
It's not fair because the business experts are saying that concentration of wealth is stunting growth.
So let's do something that's worthy of emancipation.
He wants reparations.
Biden thinks we need to emancipate people's wealth in order to redress all of these grievances.
Everything that we have done to start to continue to try to make amends for the original sin of slavery is never enough.
And we are guilted into doing it more and more and more, and now we've gotten to the point where the vice president says that we must all be emancipated from the money we have earned because we are stunting the growth of the country.
Emancipating people from their wealth, but Biden is suggesting that the government steal people's money.
And then redistribute it somehow.
By the way, the 1%.
It's interesting how the 1% of people who work are always targeted and tagged as the bad guys.
What percentage of the U.S. economy is owned by the government?
Look at what Biden said here.
A lot of wealthy white and black people aren't bad, but they control one percent of the economy.
Last I looked, the federal government controls about 25% of it.
Why don't we emancipate some of the money from the government?
Okay, so the rich own one percent of the country per se, as the vice president says.
That's nothing compared to the take.
And government isn't producing anything.
But this leads me to a collection of thoughts that I have had recently.
Based on recent news, Trayvon Martin case was never never a civil rights case.
The gentle giant case, Ferguson, Missouri was never a civil rights case.
Eric Garner in New York was never a civil rights case.
We had three local crime stories that magically were transformed and amplified, blown up and projected into gigantic civil rights cases, and in each instance,
the occasion was taken to blame this country for its imperfection, for its institutional racism, its institutional bigotry, its institutional homophobia and sexism and all of that.
But if these cases, if Trayvon Martin, if the gentle giant, Barry Garner were not civil rights cases, then what were they?
They were nothing more than local crime stories.
But what fun would that be?
I mean, if you're the drive-by media and you have three little local crime stories here, big whoop, you can't make any news out of that.
Politicians can't score any points out of that.
Obama just keep playing golf.
The narrative readers would just keep ignoring the country getting the shaft.
But you had these three local crime stories that provided a great opportunity to the left to blow them up into something they weren't.
Why did Barack Obama want to adopt Trayvon Martin?
Because he wanted an issue.
He wanted a racial divide, he wanted anger.
Everybody knew it.
A little tweak to the narrative, and we're off to the races.
Sure was fun.
It was like making a real-time movie with a fictional narrative.
All the actors got together, it was Filmed for free, everybody played along, and it was number one at the box office for weeks.
Then came Ferguson.
Started a show, The Gentle Giant, but he wasn't so gentle, really.
Hands up, don't shoot became a hit song without the music.
Hands up, don't shoot, number one on the Billboard charts.
No music, no lyrics.
But it was cool.
It was fun.
It was also a lie.
So what the hell?
It made for great entertainment.
It helped the left advance their agenda.
The president was thrilled.
He got to play the role of a concerned leader.
Ferguson, another smash box office hitting the news.
Great production values, no cost to the networks, got to have burning buildings, riots were staged, guns with Lime Avo were fired, narrative reporters were on the air, it was fantastic, and it was all phony.
Of course it wasn't all.
Policeman was smeared.
His life was ruined.
He was then run out of town.
Unfortunately, and of course, at the end of all of it, there weren't any civil rights violations because it wasn't a civil rights case.
The Justice Department has said sorry, after all we've done and looked at, there's nothing to see here.
But the president got his issue.
He played the role of a hero, white policemen were the villains, and the networks got weeks of great pictures.
And this show sparked arguments all over the country about phony narratives and phony images and phony racism and phony sexism and phony bigotry.
It was all a series of lies that claimed to have grand civil rights meaning.
But it had none.
And who can forget the Eric Garner show?
It was caught on tape, and I can't breathe became a hot-selling t-shirt and another song without the music.
That one got celebrity endorsements, got Al Sharpton to hijack a funeral, good times, unforgettable performances, riveting TV.
Just a local crime story.
Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, the Gentle Giant, all used by the left and their narrative readers, took the country for a big long ride.
Now I know all three died, but they died for the great cause of liberalism, folks.
It was worth it to the left.
Now what happened was that the people that sold Manhattan to the to the Dutch didn't own it.
They ran a scam on the Dutch.
Everybody thinks this is the other way around.
The Canarsi tribe, that's Curtis Sleewa's tribe.
The Canarsi tribe.
They were from what is now Brooklyn.
And the tribe that actually owned and controlled Manhattan was the Wappinger Confederacy.
But it was the Canarsis that sold Manhattan to the Dutch, but they didn't own it.
The Dutch claimed to Manhattan was later contested, and the Dutch had to compensate the real owners, which meant they had to pay a second time.
Therefore, the Dutch settlers paid for Manhattan twice.
And the Canarsi tribe ran a scam.
Welcome, welcome to America.
Now we're told, now we're told where Bill Bradden goes out there and says what the Dutch did was actually send the police out there to enforce slavery laws.
But it was should have sent the cops after the Canarsi tribe is what should have happened, but they couldn't have gotten them because the Guardian Angels were there.
Curtis Lee was guarding the Canarsis.
He's from Cannarsi.
Well, he's not from there, but but he's identified with it.
So it would have been a tough sell.
Look, my point here, folks, is that Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, the Gentle Giant were all used by the left and their newsreaders, their narrative readers, to take the country for another ride.
It was the quintessential definition of what drive-by media is.
Now all three, Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Gentle Giant, they're all dead.
But not because of civil rights violations.
They're not dead because of the country's racism.
They're not dead for any reason given us by the media.
But in their deaths, it allowed the president and Al Sharpton and newsreaders to appear to care and look big.
And they relish their roles, and they're always looking for more.
None of these incidents, Trayvon Martin, Gentle Giant, Eric Garner, none of them actually happened as reported.
The president lied, the narrative readers lied, and if you look back, they can get away with that crap.
Why fire Brian Williams for embellishing a few stories?
Why single him out?
Some of three of the biggest scams on earth have been run against us just in the last year and a half here.
All under the guise of America is defective.
It will be back.
Don't go away.
Well, all of a sudden, a couple of leftist groups are getting worried about net neutrality.
They've discovered it isn't what they thought it was going to be.
And they're a little worried now, but it looks like it's too late for them.
At least at this phase.
▲
Export Selection