All Episodes
Previous Next
April 15, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:48
April 15, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Ladies and gentlemen, Rush Limbaugh with talent on loan from God.
And as always, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Great to have you here.
The telephone number.
If you want to be on the program is 800-282-2882, and an email address, Elrushbow at EIB net.com.
I mentioned earlier, oh, and coming up by the way, Rand Paul, Rand Paul has done something that no other Republican has done.
He has turned the abortion issue around the Democrats, specifically on Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz.
And I am going to be having the evidence up in there for you in mere moments.
But I want to go back to something I mentioned in the opening monologue of the program today about uh Senator Rubio.
And it's based on something I I found uh reported by Byron York in the Washington Examiner uh a couple of days ago that I was unaware of, and that's why this stood out to me is that I was unaware of this.
It's very, very rare that I am unaware of something particularly something that was of this magnitude and importance regarding Senator Rubio and his time with a gang of eight.
Now, if you'll recall Rubio was a part of the gang of eight, Democrat and Republican senators, which were who were attempting to fashion a bill that would get ahead of Obama and essentially grant amnesty to a certain number of uh illegals.
And it is that participation of gang of eight by Senator Rubio that has soured so many Tea Party voters on him.
And in fact, it's done more than sour them.
He may have a tough time getting them back because of that.
It's the the illegal immigration issue and amnesty is seminal.
It's there's so many issues that you say the future of the country is tied up into it, but this one really is.
Not only is the future of the country as we know it tied into this, but so is the entire concept of uh two-party country.
I am convinced, and this let me I'm jumping ahead.
Byron York had an anecdote about Rubio in his story in the Washington Examiner.
Let me just read it to you here.
In 2013, as he worked feverishly to pass the gang of eight comprehensive immigration bills, Senator Marco Rubio admitted to having one big worry.
If it didn't pass, he said he feared President Obama would simply use executive authority to give legal status to millions of currently illegal immigrants.
And I'm gonna read to you Rubio's prediction.
Now, this again goes back to 2013, and this is before Obama has even begun to allude to executive amnesty.
That's why I can't believe I missed this.
Or if I did miss it, I can't believe it it didn't register.
In 2013, Senator Rubio said, and he was being interviewed by Byron Yorton, it's the quote, here's my big worry.
I fear that if this thing fails, meaning the gang of eight bill, I fear that if this thing fails, the president will basically say to anyone in the country who has been here more than three years, who has not committed a serious crime, he'll say, We're gonna do for you what we did for the Dream Kids,
and the problem with that will be that you will have 10 million people legalized in the United States by executive order, so that when there's a new president, if it's a conservative, a Republican, one of the first decisions that uh he'll have to make is whether to yank that status from those people and deport them.
And I cannot imagine a scenario where a future president is going to take away the status that they're gonna get.
And I believe it's what Obama will do.
Maybe not all 10 million, but he'll do it for six million.
That prediction, I again, I some of you may have heard it and remembered it, and I'm sorry if if uh you're out there saying, Where were you, Rush?
Everybody knows this.
I'm saying it skipped past me.
I was not aware of this until last night.
And I don't mind admitting it, I can't know everything.
But the point is, even before, and I'm not offering this as a justification for Rubio and his Gang of Eight.
That's not my point here.
I'm not I'm not trying to talk any of you Tea Party people out of whatever you think.
Don't misunderstand.
I do think, however, it's fascinating that this quote from 2013 gives insight as to why Rubio was doing the Gang of Eight thing.
A lot of people have assumed that he got snookered, that he fell prey to the advances, say of Chuck Yo Schumer and some of the other Democrats and Republican establishment Senator types, and that his last name is Hispanic, and that he might have been participating in Hispanic outreach for himself, and basically didn't follow through on some campaign promises and just got snookered by the power and seductiveness of the establishment.
And this quote gives us some doubt about that.
Well, it enables me to have some doubt.
I don't know about you.
I won't presume to put thoughts or to know your thoughts, but if Rubio is sitting there thinking, Obama, and remember now, in 2013, Obama hasn't even begun to whisper about executive amnesty.
He's on the verge of it, but he hasn't yet begun it.
Rubio says if this if the Gang of Eight bill fails, then Obama's just going to grant amnesty to 10 million, six million, or what have you.
And we're cooked.
Because at that point, if the next president is a Republican in 2016, how does he take that away and survive?
Let's say Obama grants amnesty to six million or ten million people, and with that eventually sooner than later, full citizenship.
Next president's a Republican, first thing he does, not putting up with that, and yanks that status, and by law, then will have to deport them.
And Rubio's feeling is there isn't a Republican that's running or will run that'll do that.
No republic no president would ever yank that kind of status away from people, particularly people who'd been in the country a long time.
So he was trying to head that off.
The Gang of Eight Bill, which was its own version of amnesty, but would take a little bit longer theoretically, as we know it wouldn't have Chuck Schumer involved, the amnesty would have been immediate.
The bottom line here, it doesn't really matter because the Democrats are gonna get amnesty no matter what.
Whether they get the Gang of Eight bill or the executive action, they're gonna get it no matter what.
And Rubio is still essentially being punished for signing on to one of the ways that the Democrats are gonna make it happen, rather than standing up and fighting it, which he is now doing.
So now here he is starting out his 2016 campaign.
And the big question that he has surrounding him, surrounding him out there is whether voters are gonna blame him or exempt him from his role in the gang of eight.
Now, none of the freshman Republican senators who are running, Rubio Rand Paul Ted Cruz, can point to any great legislative achievements yet.
But Rubio made by far the strongest effort, a year-long attempt to write and pass all-encompassing immigration reform, his Gang of Eight bill, cleared the Democrat-controlled Senate with a bipartisan majority, all the Democrats and 14 Republicans, but it died in the House.
Now Rubio admits that his approach simply could not work.
There were all sorts of many things that Republicans found objectionable in the Gang of Eight bill, but just one proof to be an absolutely insurmountable uh surmountable obstacle, and it was this.
The gang of eight would have given millions of illegal immigrants legal status before the tough enforcement provisions were in place and running.
Remember, part of the gang eight bill, which frankly none of us ever believed was the promise to secure the border.
Now we've always heard that, and we've always rejected it because we know that they know that's what we want to hear.
So any effort, bipartisan or Republican or Democrat, effort to get amnesty.
They always promises that the first thing they're gonna do is secure the border.
They promised 86 they were gonna do that.
And they never do.
The border remains effectively wide open.
Anyway, the whole point of this is just to remark on Rubio's prescience, is his forecastability, if you will, because it's 100% spot on.
Exactly what he predicted has happened.
Obama is going to do this.
And I think that the way things are headed, Obama's gonna wait and wait and wait to do this.
He's only got just a little over a year and a half left.
What if he grants amnesty at the same time he grants pardons?
Last day in office.
Or the last week.
What if the polling data makes it look like in November 2016 that whoever the Republican is is gonna win?
What do you think is gonna happen?
Obama's gonna grant amnesty to as many millions as he can and force whoever the next Republican president is to live with it.
And that's what they want.
And then now, let's say Mrs. Clinton is leading in the polling leading up to the 2016 election.
Let's say she wins.
He still does it.
Sets her up, then she comes in, one of the four tent poles of her campaign, uh, at least as far as she's uh explaining now is campaign finance reform, which is a laugh, I know.
The woman is promising, well, she is stating that she wants to raise two and a half billion dollars for her campaign.
Romney and Obama combined in 2012, spent 2.1 billion.
Hillary wants to raise almost a half million dollars more than they spent combined.
And then whoever the Republican nominee is going to be out there trying to raise as much as he can.
But anyway, Clinton is making it clear that she just she told, you know, this meeting she had yesterday, the scrum, wherever she was.
She gets out of Iowa, yeah.
She gets out of the van.
The van's name Scooby, by the way.
She gets out of the van, because just an ordinary person, you know, driving around on a man.
She gets out of the van, she goes in there.
There were more media people inside and outside than there were everyday people she was talking to.
And if Chuck Todd, you should F. Chuck Todd, even the media's laughing and mocking him, F. Chuck Todd acted like the biggest superstar in the world had been spotted when he saw her van go drive by where he was standing.
He literally lost it.
Oh my god, there she goes!
There she goes!
We've spotted it, we've spotted the van, there's the man, it's Hillary Clinton, right where we're standing, Samantha.
He just drove by, she just drove, she's in that, he just lost it, went overboard, and everybody's mocking him now for having done it.
But that's the extent of it.
They're excited over the fact her van drove by.
They believe she's doing things she's never done before because she ordered a burrito at Chipotle.
Oh, speaking of that.
Do you know that Chipotle are major donors to the Clinton Family Foundation?
Do you know that the CEOs of Chipotle earned 25 million dollars a year and want to earn more, and the stockholders said no.
But she didn't, the point is she didn't choose nothing with the Clintons is coincidental.
There are no coincidences with the Clintons.
There are no accidents.
There is no such thing as spontaneity with these people.
She didn't choose Chipotle because she likes it.
She chose Chipotle because they are one of the series underwriters of the so-called Clinton Family Foundation.
Anyway, I've never been there.
Doesn't matter.
I still know about the tip jar, but I've still never been there.
Doesn't matter.
She's out there, $300,000 a speech, $14 million advance for a book that nobody bought, and even fewer people read.
She couldn't draw flies to a book signing unless it was union people paid to show up.
Half or more of her Twitter followers are literally fake.
She's spending $38 per follower on Facebook.
The woman is out there trying to pass herself off as an average ordinary common American.
When she isn't, and at least when I was growing up, people didn't want an average ordinary schlub to be president.
They wanted somebody special.
They didn't want somebody ordinary.
But who knows now.
Well, we're not that far away from idiocracy as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway, she has stated, after trying to raise two and a half billion dollars, that campaign finance reform is a mess in this country.
And it's got to get fixed.
And it's one of the four things that she told this group of schlubs and I'm sorry, that's the media.
She told this group of everyday people in Iowa that that's one of the things that she really wanted to focus on, because it's just out of control.
Now you might think, don't these people know she just raises two and a half billion dollars.
She's not a hypocrite.
Doesn't matter.
That's my point.
It doesn't matter with them.
What you need to know is you combine, Hillary gets elected with two and a half billion dollars raised.
Obama grants amnesty to $15 billion, $15 million or whatever it is, Hispanics.
Hillary then puts in play her revamp of the camp campaign finance system, and you got a one-party country if she's elected.
That's the objective.
Their objective is to eliminate the opposition, not to debate it, not to get any arena of ideas with us.
None of that.
They don't want us around.
They don't want us being a viable opposition whatsoever.
That is their primary Iran deal, screw that.
That's a side show.
Defeating us is what inspires them, motivates them, and keeps them going.
That's their express avowed purpose.
And the best way they can do it is to make sure we don't have a chance.
So you revamp the campaign finance system, and they've given us indication how they're going to do it with the IRS did a Tea Party people.
Basically, they were not granted tax exempt status.
They were not allowed to raise any money.
Imagine when they're in office with Hillary revamping campaign finance and making that the law of the land that conservative groups are disqualified from raising money.
Add to that the 10 to 15 million brand new legalized Democrats, and they've got their one-party country.
That's what they are heading for.
Okay, back to the phones.
This is uh Sally in Richmond, Virginia.
It's great that you called.
I'm glad you waited.
Hi.
Hey, Rush, how are you?
Fine, thank you.
Good.
I was listening to the news this morning as it's April 15th, tax day, and they were talking about how the IRS is running out of money or doesn't have enough money to answer over 60% of phone calls.
Yeah, you know why?
You know what I was watching the news today, too, because I'm capped if I couldn't help it.
I just saw a story, Sally, that they've been discovered and spent like millions and millions of dollars on furniture for the offices at various uh IRS locations and so forth, and just a bunch of extraneous uh worthless stuff.
I mean, yeah, the the idea that any government agency didn't have enough money in this country is absurd.
Well, I agree.
I was just wondering, made me think, you know, are the taxpayers going to be off the hook and able to ignore any IRS correspondence if they don't get their taxes right this year?
It doesn't work that way.
And you know it.
I you know that.
You're just you're just you're asking a rhetorical question.
I know, but I just it's so infuriating, and if you try to, you know, follow and get it right, and then to hear them say it's not possible.
I know it isn't possible.
The hell, what did I just see?
Obama just just added three thousand pages arbitrarily to the tax code with some of his new executive orders on taxes and so forth.
It's impossible, I think.
Uh for for ordinary average American to get his tax return.
They have the IRS doing all these things that are not really their main purpose and you know, following up on people that don't pay for Obamacare or don't get you know it just seems like they are sending the IRS on all these other things that aren't you know their main job description.
It's all collection.
Yep.
And that's their job.
It's all collection.
And if you owe money because you don't have an insurance policy is mandated by Obama here, it's their job to get the money from you.
And they're gonna take it out of your refund if they have to.
They have the power of law behind them on that.
Okay, that's uh Bob in Duluth, Minnesota.
Bob, great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hi, hi, Maha Rushi.
Um a comment and if if time permits, a quick question.
With regard to your analysis Tuesday of Marco Rubio's speech on Monday.
Yeah.
It seems that one of the big takeaways was his assertion that the past does not hold the key to the future in terms of eradicating the myriad problems facing the country.
Well and and his his exact words were yesterday's gone, I believe.
He said yesterday's gone, Hillary Clinton is yesterday.
Right.
Big applause line.
Now later the same day on Hannity and Lovin, and perhaps in the original speech, I didn't hear all of it.
He continually evoked Reagan and the Reagan eighties, which last time I checked is in the past.
His inference being clear.
If we're gonna go effectively into the future, we need to utilize the Reagan eighties.
Well, didn't he somewhat invalidate his own thesis in the process?
I mean, you know, we're either gonna use the past for the future or we're not.
It it seems like there's a contradiction there.
What say you?
I don't think it's contradiction.
I think I think Reagan, when he cites Reagan, he's talking philosophy, he's talking issues, he's talking conservatism as uh philosophy and theory.
When he talks about Hillary being yesterday, he's talking she's actually old.
You know, she's been around, we've been there done that.
Nobody has ever tried to resuscitate Ronald Reagan and have him run again.
Uh Mrs. Clinton's been there done that.
He's just trying to characterize her as yesterday's news.
We know what she is, we know who she is, we know what she stands for, we know that it doesn't work.
What Reagan did worked.
We need more of it.
The era of Hillary is over, is what he was saying.
Well, can I ask you a quick question then?
Kind of ties in with that.
Sure, since I set myself up like a softball for you, what's the question?
If the twenty sixteen presidential election comes down to 70 style liberal, Hillary Clinton, yeah, versus full-throated 80s Reagan era conservative, let's say in the person of Scott Walker.
Right.
And the 70s liberal trumps the eighties Reagan full throated conservative and wins.
Will you admit you're wrong about full throated conservatism always winning?
Because I don't think it already wins at all.
Or I mean the eighties is gone, just like the Ditka 80s are gone in football.
That's my theory.
And if that happens and the 70s-style liberal beats the full throated evocative Reagan confirmation, look at what you have to do.
You're having to construct a fantasy, and then you're asking me to accept your fantasy so that I can then be forced into admitting I'm wrong.
I am never wrong.
Do not doubt me.
I don't believe in if.
If is for children.
Get real.
Stop dreaming.
That's a problem with you people.
Fantasy life 101 fantasy here, fantasy there.
It's you're proving my point.
You live for the defeat of conservatism.
That's all that matters.
The country can go to hell in a handbasket.
Just as long as conservatism is defeated, and as a bonus, Rush Limbaugh is proven wrong, which has never happened.
And it isn't going to happen in the next couple of years.
Nice try, Bob.
Always appreciate it.
Scott Manhattan Beach, California, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Rush, thanks for taking my call.
You bet, sir.
You were talking about Harry Reed, and I think what you're seeing here is there's a small group of alcoholics in Nevada who have done a better job at investigative journalism than all of the media in the United States.
Well, it's true, except the media didn't even try.
They didn't try.
We don't even know what their investigative abilities in this case would be because they never cared.
They never tried, which I think is proof positive there's something to find.
They didn't want to find it, and best way not to find it's not look for it.
Exactly.
So I'd like to be the first to say I will buy Larry Reed a drink if he gets out to Manhattan Beach.
If it...
If the story that we were told that John Hinderocker and I were told is true, then it's a family squabble.
And Harry Reed obviously feels very confident that his brother is not when sober, going to spill the beans on this.
You know, families do close the ranks.
I mean, families are like every other group people.
I mean, you just some of them you love, some of them you hate, some of them you resent, but when the family's under assault, everybody closes ranks and the family hangs together.
That's that's one of the great things about uh the family experience.
And it looks like it probably would be a factor here.
I wouldn't, I wouldn't look for Larry Reed to confirm any of this.
And I wouldn't look for Larry Reed to throw dingy Harry overboard.
Larry will take care of himself.
If it's ever to happen, we don't know what they were fighting over if they were.
If we take the story at face value, there was some family fight going on.
We don't know about what.
You know, maybe Harry was hitting on Larry's wife.
Who knows?
They're Democrats.
But whatever it was, we'll never know.
Because they will close ranks on that.
But after the event, if it was a fight, Larry was at least able to get out of there and get in a car and drive to an AA meeting and tell a tale.
Dingy Harry was in bad, bad shape.
and was reduced to blaming it on an exercise machine elastic band.
Media does not investigate Democrats.
That's the bottom line.
They only investigate Republicans, but you're true.
A bunch of, you know, ex-al ex-alcoholics at an AA meeting in Henderson, Nevada, put two and two together.
The guy shows up, bloody, sort of drunk, bruised and swollen hand, claims he had a fight with a family member and at a secret service, maybe following him.
And they think they've got a kook on their hands.
All it took was the guy, he's bloody and beat up.
I never didn't tell him his last name, just his name is Larry, and and that the Secret Service may be coming after him.
He had to duck into this meeting.
And they think, all right, it's Vegas, it's New Year's Eve, and we got a kook here.
So they gave him some coffee, trying to sober him up and send him on his way.
It was weeks later when the same Larry gets pulled over, traffic stop and takes a swing, tries to beat up the trooper.
That his picture appears in the paper, and they remembered that's the guy that came in here claiming he had a family fight, and the secret services was Larry Reed.
So the ex-alcoholics put two and two together and say it was Harry Reed, got beat up by Larry, who came in here shortly after the fight.
And one of them happened to call us and wanted to tell us this story.
And that's it.
As much as we uh much as we know.
Okay, let me take a take uh a little time out here.
When I come back, I mentioned at the top of this hour that Rand Paul has actually done something that I don't think it may have happened.
I don't think an elected Republican has done.
I don't think an elected Republican has actually turned the tables on the issue of abortion against a Democrat.
Now I know that all kinds of uh so-called conservative act like Philip Schlafley is superb on this when she gets in debates with these leftists.
Don't misunderstand.
But I'm talking about elected officials who normally run from this issue.
You remember what this is about.
Rand Paul's up there after he's announced, and they so what do you think about abortion?
And he turned it.
You go ask, go ask Debbie Schultz.
You go at Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she thinks it's okay to murder a seven-month-old fetus in the uterus.
You ask her that.
And they did.
They went and asked her that, and she stepped in it back after this.
Okay, so Rand Paul goes out there and announces.
And then he starts his media tour.
And we chronicled how this began.
He's mean to women.
It's uh it was the official changeover from the race wars to the gender wars.
It was the official media revival of the war on women, just like Stephanopoulos got the war on women going by asking Mitt Romney about contraception when nobody was talking about it, nobody had cared about it, wasn't even an issue anywhere on the horizon, kept badgering Romney, Romney finally answered it.
Voila, didn't matter what the answer was.
We've got a war on women, Republicans ain't women, blah, blah, blah.
Okay, then that was a brief interruption of the overall race wars.
Everybody's racist because they criticize Obama and so forth.
But now it's Hillary's turn, she's next up, so the gender wars are back, and so Rand Paul refused to accept the premise of Savannah Guthrie in a couple of questions, and they started saying, You mean to women?
You don't like women, you really mistreat women reporters.
Gender wars are back.
And they asked him in this whole process a question regarding restrictions on abortion procedures and whether or not the Republicans accept or favor exceptions to late-term abortion bans in extreme cases.
And Rand Paul, rather than fall for the trick of accepting the premise, turned the tables on him and told the reporters to go ask Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz if the Democrat Party favors no restrictions at all.
Not just late term, but at all.
And you go ask Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz if she would support the murder of a seven-pound baby in utero.
And amazingly, the reporters went to Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz and carried the challenge.
And she stepped in it.
She said, I don't care.
No exemptions, no, anytime a woman wants an abortion, it's her right.
Government has no right to come involved, be involved with whatever a woman wants an abortion, that's fine.
And then she realized that she had stepped in it and started trying to walk some of that back.
And she went on CNN Wolf Blitzer trying to walk it back.
Let's go to the audio sound bites on this.
First up, Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz last night on the Kelly file.
Meghan Kelly said, you and Rand Paul have had this dust-up about abortion.
He keeps saying, ask Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz when life begins.
When does she believe life begins?
Can you answer that question, Ms. Blabbermouth Schultz?
When does life begin for you?
The question that he was asked, and that he's trying to deflect from by pushing it on me is does he support exceptions to his opposition to women's rights and the bigger.
I give you that point.
I see the point.
But I'm wondering about you, because I have you tonight.
So from my perspective, from my party's perspective, we do not support rolling back the protection that the constitutional right to make your own reproductive choices established in Roe v.
Wade has given to women.
Okay, so Megan Kelly says 80% of the public is against an abortion in a third trimester.
And almost 65% are against an abortion in the second trimester.
So people are divided on this.
He's trying to get to the Democrats' position on at what point is it appropriate to say that it isn't just between a woman and her doctor, that there's a third life involved here, and it's the baby.
At what point does that baby have life?
Is it ever have life before it's born?
What do you think, Blabbermouth?
What is appropriate from our perspective?
I'll speak for myself, but I think I can speak for most in my party.
A woman's right to make her own decisions about her body should be between her and her doctor.
And there is a Supreme Court decision, though, that answers those questions for us.
But That Supreme Court just said how case he says the state has a say.
And the state can set a limit.
The state has a right to step in on behalf of the fetus and say at some point that fetus does obtain rights.
You would admit that you can't have women aborting third trimester babies just on a whim, right?
I mean, so you agree there.
Certainly not on a whim, but when a doctor's trying to get at.
See, that's what he's trying to get at.
You can't just on a whim, but she did try to get a weight on a whim.
Whatever a woman wants.
And see, that's not the majority position of people in the country.
That's all Rand Paul was trying to do was get her to admit that they are so far out of the mainstream on this.
And she knew she was snookered.
Uh, from the moment that the press came asking the question and she gave her a first answer.
So she's been trying to walk it back and go everywhere she can.
She just keeps stepping in it.
And uh so I've I've not been wrong, uh, but I I don't know of uh by the way, when I say I don't know of another Republican who's turned the tables like that's not an endorsement of Rand Paul.
I'm not endorsing anybody.
I'm just observing here.
Maybe somebody else has.
If your favorite candidate's Ted Cruz and he's embarrassed a Democrat, fine.
If your favorite candidate's Scott Walker and he's embarrassed a Democrat, fine.
I just have not seen it happen in this way.
I know.
Season is so young.
I even get an email now.
You know, say one thing positive about Rubio, he's still a creep.
He's still blew it.
And there you are, defending him.
Uh so.
And as you say, Snerdley, the season is still young.
The hate hasn't even really begun to percolate yet.
For two days I've been trying to get to the story that Bill de Blasio says he needs to see more from Hillary before endorsing her.
And how ticked off she is about that.
But I haven't gotten to it, although I guess I just did.
At least a little.
But there's always tomorrow, folks.
So I'll do it then with a whole bunch of other stuff.
▲
Export Selection