All Episodes
Previous Next
April 27, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
30:50
April 27, 2015, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, let me ask you a question.
Let me ask you a quick question.
I have so many people saying a variation of this to me, and I'm just going to put a question out there.
No matter what I say about a Republican candidate here, get the cudlow column here, snarking Hillary not the way to the White House, blah, blah, blah.
It's all based on the media.
It's all based on the media's gonna tar and Federist Rush.
If we go after Hillary, they're just gonna say we're sexists and so forth.
Okay, let me ask this question.
I am hearing.
Every objection I hear to any strategy.
If somebody has designed to help the Republicans win, it's almost without fail.
The objection, or one of the objections, will always be, Nat'll never work because of the media.
Can't go after Obama, rush, they'll call you racist.
Uh we gotta focus on our economic message.
McCain did that.
Romney, that's all Romney talked about.
Romney wouldn't even jump on Benghazi when was thrown a hanging curveball in a debate.
I mean, there was there was absolutely no harassment of Obama whatsoever in in 2008 or in 12.
The media didn't vet Obama.
The Republicans decided not to.
So in each instance, the reason was the media will crucify us.
Cudlow's theory is also uh he doesn't per se say it, but here, let's read what he writes.
A number of GOP candidates are engaging in Hillary bashing over allegations she used her office as Secretary of State to help her husband's business dealings, prop up speech making fees, grease the path for foreign governments to donate massive amounts of money to Clinton Foundation.
He doesn't say here, and also this they're being bribed or selling access to government policy.
But here's a warning to my friends on the presidential campaign trail.
Bashing Hillary is only going to make the Republican Party look mean-spirited and snarky.
It's no road to the White House.
So you see, criticism, disagreement, that's hate.
Yes, they're gonna call us haters.
So we can't criticize.
Bashing Hillary.
Why does criticism have to be bashing?
Why is pointing out the near criminal behavior of these people unfair?
Why is it bashing?
And the answer you always get is the media.
So my question to you is this.
And every one of you who has ever said to me personally or has written me or has called in here and give me a variation on a theme, this won't work, that won't work, the Republicans can't do it because of the media.
What would you think about a candidate, Republican candidate, who decided to seek the presidency by making the media his opponent and not the Democrat nominee?
In other words, would you support a candidate running against the media?
Because I'm...
That's right.
That's all that's left here.
If the media is the reason we can't implement a tough political strategy to win, then we're gonna have to beat the media.
And it sounds to me like a number of people think we're gonna beat the media first before we even get to beating a Democrat.
That they're one and the same, actually.
Well, they are.
I mean, the media is a branch of the Democrat Party, there's no question.
But the media uh they, I mean, they get criticized as being biased in this, but nobody ever runs against them the way people run against candidates.
And I'm not talking about individual media.
I mean, you might use individual media as examples.
I'm not saying run against Chuck Todd.
I'm not saying run against Bob Schaefer, just the media.
I would think a lot of you out there would be cheering.
Saying, yep, that's exactly what we need to do.
And we need somebody that would take bravery, it would take courage, it would take sticktuitiveness, it would take somebody's got a thick skin, but that's the only way we're ever gonna win anything and start beating any of this back, is to somehow de-emphasize and disempower the media.
You're shaking your head in there, Mr. Snerdley.
You don't think it can be done?
You don't think it's a good strategy.
But no, no, no.
Oh, I'm just that's the people I hear from saying we can't run a campaign on the issues.
The media is going to lie about us.
The media is going to destroy us.
The media is going to carry the Democrat Party's water.
The media is the poison.
The media is the reason the country's going to hell in a handbag because the media does not ever present a fair exposition of Republican or conservative ideas.
The media is the agent of destruction of all opposition to the Democrat Party.
So you got to run against the media.
You've got to make no bones about what you're doing.
The only way this, I've had a couple of people, the only way we have a chance, Rush, is if there is a Republican candidate somewhere willing to run against the media.
So I know I know Reagan won twice.
I know George Bush won twice, Reagan won twice, uh, Nixon won twice, and so forth.
I understand.
I'm I'm not advocating.
I'm asking.
No, I'm not pushing the idea.
I'm kind of I'm asking it as a as a rhetorical device.
Uh I mean, I've even heard, you know, Russia wasting your time.
Every time you talk about Democrats, you should be saying media.
Everybody talking about Harry Reid, you should be talking media.
Media is a problem.
The media, you've got to destroy the media.
I say, you know, the problem is I am the media.
I mean, I'm in it.
Yeah, Rush, but you know what I mean.
I'm talking about the Democrats of the media.
And it sounds, it sounds good, but when you think about actually doing it.
You know, don't have guests on this program, but ought to get hold of your favorite Republican consultant.
Just ask him to come on and help me on the air as an exercise.
Develop a campaign strategy seeking the presidency, running against the media.
And see what this professional would say.
Now, the first thing he's gonna say, can't do it, be a mistake.
You'd kill yourself, you're finished, you wouldn't get past the first primary.
I say, okay, after that, let's say I stiff if you tell me that I still want to do it, I still want to run against the media.
How would we do it?
It's an obstacle the Democrats don't have.
You have to, you admit that, don't you, Mr. Snerdley?
The Democrats do not have an obstacle like the media.
Look at this White House Correspondence Dinner.
People ask, why don't you go?
Why would I go to a place that's gonna be openly hostile to me?
That the White House Correspondence Dinner, if you you'll notice that everybody gets up to speak, realizes they're speaking to buddies and friends.
That gives them all kinds of confidence.
When you think you're in a room full of friendlies, it changes everything about your confidence level and your your overall comfort.
As opposed to you walking into someplace where you know there's hostility.
They don't have it.
They don't face hostility in the media.
Democrats don't know what it is.
They never encounter it.
They never have to overcome it.
Unless one of them just is so egregious that the media and the Democrats decide we gotta get rid of this person for the sake of the party.
But that is extremely rare, and that is also not because the media disagrees essentially with what the candidate happens to believe.
It's the candidate's providing.
Embarrassment, we've got to shelve that.
Anyway, be thinking about that.
Look, there's some other things in the news I want to touch on here.
Homeland Security working overtime to add new Americans by 2016.
This is this everybody Christian Adams.
He was in the Justice Department, left the Justice Department when the Obama regime took over.
He was the man, as you recall, that was running the case Against a new Black Panther Party in Philadelphia on voter fraud, voter intimidation when he learned that Eric Holder was going to drop the case, wasn't going to pursue it because of racial aspect of the defendants.
He resigned.
And he he's now a columnist at PJ Media.
He appears on television now and then.
He's a brilliant guy.
And he's got a piece here.
And this this is.
I mean, it's great because it's what everybody knows.
It's what executive amnesty is all about.
It's about registering Democrat voters.
But here how they're here's how they're doing it.
President Obama's amnesty by edict has always been about adding new Democrats to the voter rolls.
Make no mistake about that, folks.
All this other fault or all is just that.
All this, well, we got to bring them out from the shadows, Rush.
These people are working hard and are paying taxes, and they're good citizens, except they're not citizens because we won't let them be.
Well, come on, man, we gotta be fair.
We gotta be nice.
We gotta let them come out of the shadows.
We've got to be in their hell that are ones making a country work, man.
You've heard all that.
That's not what this is about.
This is about Democrat Party needing a permanent underclass.
And this is about it's a massive voter registration drive of the Democrat Party.
That's what amnesty is.
That's why so many of us do not understand the Republicans openly, eagerly trying to help.
Sources at the Department of Homeland Security report to PJ Media that the United States citizenship and immigration services is reallocating significant resources away from a computer system, the electronic immigration system.
They're reallocating away from that, instead sending letters to all 9 million green card holders, urging them to naturalize prior to the 2016 election.
Let me read that to you again.
The Department of Homeland Security sources there are telling Christian Adams and others at PJ Media that the U.S. citizenship and immigration services is reallocating significant resources away from a computer system, the electronic immigration system, and instead sending letters to all nine million green card holders.
I guess they know where they are.
Since they've got green cards, they're not in the shadows.
We therefore know where nine million of them are.
How about that?
And we're gonna send them letters urging them to naturalize prior to the 2016 election.
They've even named this effort.
It's called the Department of Homeland Security Task Force on New Americans.
You heard right.
The Task Force on New Americans sending out 9 million personal letters.
PJ Media has obtained an internal Dear Colleague letter written by Leon Rodriguez, the director and co-chair of the Task Force on New Americans.
The letter refers to a White House report called Strengthening Communities by Welcoming All Residents.
Isn't that just ideal?
We are going to strengthen all communities by welcoming all residents.
We are going to strengthen your community by making sure the illegals living in the shadows in your community now come out and naturalize.
And that will make your community stronger.
Leon Rodriguez has a tainted history.
Not only was he a central player in the radicalization of Eric Holder's civil rights division, Leon Rodriguez also undertook a purportedly illegal search of a government employee's computer in Montgomery County, Maryland.
The details on this are at the Washington Post website.
Now, the Leon Rodriguez letter to all nine million green card holders, urging him a naturalized, says this report outlines an immigrant integration plan that will advance our nation's global competitiveness and ensure that the people who live in this country can fully Participate in their communities.
Full participation is code language.
Full participation is a term commonly used to include voting rights.
That's what full participation means when these people start talking amongst themselves.
To that end, resources within the Department of Homeland Security have been redirected toward pushing as many aliens and non-citizens as possible to full citizenship status so that they may fully participate in the 2016 presidential election.
For example, the internal Department of Homeland Security letter states that one aim is to quote strengthen existing pathways to naturalization and promote civic engagement, close quote.
This means, folks, that the Department of Homeland Security not only rushing green card holders toward citizenship before the 2016 election, they are jamming previous visa holders toward green card status.
I mean, if that's what they're encouraging people to go get their green cards so that they can then get naturalized and vote before 2016.
This is all part and parcel of Obama's executive amnesty.
These policies and priorities add to the brazen public positions of the president toward enforcing immigration law, which essentially they're turning upside down.
Now, this is not a shock to any of you who have been following what's happening with the illegal immigration and the amnesty.
I mean, you know the objective has been to get them to vote.
The objective all along here has been the registration of illegal aliens as Democrats.
That's going to happen one way or the other.
That's what all of this talk is about.
What's newsworthy here is that it has been learned that the Department of Homeland Security is mobilizing now to essentially create 9 million new registered Democrats by the 2016 election among current green card holders.
That's essentially what you need to know from this.
Meanwhile, Congress hasn't acted.
There is no amnesty yet.
Obama hasn't signed it, whatever executive action is.
Nothing's happened, but look at what they're getting ready to do.
They're putting everything in place so that when Obama decides to go executive amnesty, it's not the beginning of any process.
It's just the period.
It's just the last thing to happen.
When Obama signs executive amnesty, he'll have a statement.
And he'll talk about this as the beginning of a bright new America, the beginning of a bright new future, the beginning of this or that organ.
In fact, it'll be the end of the process of getting them registered to vote because while Obama's waiting the sign, these efforts going on behind the scenes to get these people registered is taking place even now.
Welcome back, my friends.
Rush Limbaugh rocking on a brand new broadcast week here on Monday.
Let's see.
All have you heard about this?
ABC News, Brian Ross and James Gordon Meek.
Stand by, folks.
Families of American hostages who communicate with foreign kidnappers or raise money and pay ransoms will no longer have to fear prosecution for aiding terrorist groups.
A White House ordered advisory group on U.S. hostage policy is expected to recommend.
So there's a White House ordered study that is going to recommend exactly what Obama wants.
Big shock there.
And what Obama has probably already done on this lie.
Bull Bergdahl, Peter Theo Curtis.
Anyway, what they're saying is here that if you have a family member who is taken hostage by ISIS, you are free to pay them a hostage, a ransom.
You are free to make a deal with them.
That's what the White House is a White House ordered advisory group is going to recommend.
There will be absolute in other words, we have a policy of no negotiation with terrorists, but you and as a family member, you can negotiate, you can pay a ransom to try to get your loved one back.
There will be zero chance of any family member of an American held hostage overseas ever facing jail themselves or even the threat of prosecution for trying to free their loved ones, said one of three senior officials familiar with the hostage policy's ongoing review.
The study undertaken by the National Counterterrorism Center on orders from Obama has involved interviewing many of these with the tragic experience, such as the parents of the journalist James Foley, who were among several families alleging they were repeatedly threatened by administration officials with prosecution last summer because they tried to raise millions in ransom demanded by ISIS and other groups in Syria.
Story makes it look like here that the families and friends of hostages all think this is a good idea, so it must be a good policy.
What problems do you see involved in this, Mr. Stirr?
Because I'm imagining on the surface, first glance, a lot of, especially LIVs, low information voters, are gonna love it.
They're gonna think, oh, this is a wonderful policy change.
But it's not.
Let me get back to your phone calls here in just a minute.
And another story that you won't see very many places.
This from the defense secretary.
See, you'll get the implic implications of this.
10,040 male troops subjected to quote unwanted sexual contact.
Close quote last year.
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told a group of ROTC cadets last Wednesday that sexual assault is a particular challenge and a particular disgrace to the military.
He noted that last year far more men, 10,400 than women, 8500 experienced unwanted sexual contact.
Carter said, we've made some progress.
We seem to have uh seen some decrease in the estimated number of assaults, and we seem to have seen some increase in those reporting an assault.
Last year, we estimated at least uh 19,000 service members, 10,400 men, 8,500 women, experienced unwanted sexual contact.
Carter added, too few men reported the incidents as sexual assaults, or even more.
No, they called them unwanted rather than sexual assault.
But he says most of it was sexual assault.
10,400 men, 8,500 women.
Well, I think that's what they want you to think is that the women are hitting on the on the men more than the men are hitting on the women.
Doesn't it sound right?
Why you you don't think of women as predators in that in that way?
Well, then how would you explain it?
How about don't ask no tell?
I didn't say slap.
And here's Jake, Fort Myers, Florida.
Hi, Jake, I'm glad you called, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Thank you, uh.
Thank you very much, Doctor.
You're welcome to Blah, if I may call you so.
So uh I called back in 09, and uh forgive me, but I wanted to challenge you on how could you know that President Obama would shred the Constitution and so forth.
And and please forgive me my 33 years of experience, and obviously you have proved us all wrong.
However, my my question to that is if uh a constitutional government is the best form of government, and the constitutional government has allowed us to go so far away from the Constitution.
Would there have been a better way to have gone?
And and please forgive 33 years of experience.
I could only base it on that.
And granted, uh you know, we all read the books, we all I mean the Constitution's in black and white.
It's pretty obvious how it's supposed to go, but for a constitutional government to let us so far away from it.
Um, you know, what what is the step?
What would be the next way to go?
I will tell you how this happened.
This is actually a good question.
We don't need to replace this.
That do not, if you're thinking that, you are as wrong today as you were in 2009.
I say that with all affection.
You have a lot of guts here to call and admit.
I remember the and maybe not you specifically, but I had a lot of people calling in in 2000, even during the campaign year, 2008 and 2000.
How do you know all this?
You're just this is crazy.
Obama's gonna do this.
How do you know you don't know?
He hadn't been president for a year, he hadn't been president yet, he isn't how do you know?
My answer was I know liberals don't doubt me.
I knew it was a monumental Herculean task.
It's just it's so frustrating, it was so obvious to anybody who knows this stuff that this was going to happen.
And if the education system of this country were up to snuff, it wouldn't take people like me trying to warn people they'd know it already.
Anyway, the Constitution didn't fail here.
There are numerous safeguards.
You're asking if Constitutional Republic is so great, how has it failed?
Uh it's the wrong way to look at it that way.
The Constitution has not failed.
What instead has happened, the the number one safeguard that's built in, Jake, is the separation of powers.
The founding fathers knew human nature.
The people that put together this Constitution understood that it was only a matter of time before powerthirsty and hungry despots would try to take this country over and turn it into the average ordinary tyranny that every other country in the world has been or will be.
That is human nature.
They were students of history.
They knew that what they wanted to do with the United States had never been done.
It had never been done.
A country organized around the sovereignty of the people, with the government in a secondary role.
It had never been done.
Most people have grown up under tyranny of one degree or another.
They've grown up under bondage and torture, you name it.
But liberty and freedom have been rare.
Real liberty, self-determination, liberty and freedom have been rare.
They believed in it.
They left England to escape it.
They set it up here.
They did everything they could think of and conceive to see to it that the Constitution would remain strong and valid.
And the number one safeguard that they wrote into it was the separation of powers.
They took what they understood about human nature, the acquisition and desire for power, and they put limits on it.
They divided us into three branches.
The executive, which is the president, and his cabinets, Department of Justice, all those things, the the courts, the judiciary, Supreme Court on down, and the legislative, congressional, Senate, so forth.
And they assigned responsibilities to each.
They denied power to each.
And they wrote the limitations of power on all three.
They understood that most men elected to be president would try to coalesce and steal, acquire as much power as they could, because they understood human nature.
They put limits on what the executive could do.
They put limits on what Congress could do.
And they also understood that members of Congress would not want the president stealing all their power and would fight to the death to keep their power and try to get some of his.
It was set up for a constant war for power.
What has happened, I'm giving you the Cliff Notes version here.
What has happened when the Democrat Party also gained control of Congress in 2008, both houses.
The Congress surrendered its own power and willingly gave it to Obama.
He was allowed to take as much as he wanted.
Because they believe in their ideology being dominant.
They they totally squandered what the founders assumed would never happen.
And that is Congress giving up its own power.
Congress is extremely powerful.
Congress can't, there's not a dollar that can be spent in this country without Congress first authorizing it and granting permission.
That's gone.
Obama can spend whatever he wants now and does.
He can borrow whatever he wants.
The Congress gave that up.
The Democrats gave it up.
They want a ruler, not a president.
They want him to be of their party.
They wanted the executive to have magic wand powers.
So they willingly gave it up.
But they were not alone.
The Republicans, the first two years couldn't stop anything because they didn't have enough votes.
They literally couldn't stop anything the Democrat Party wanted to do, Jake.
But then the people of this country so objected to this massive collection of power.
They may not have understood what was going on per se, but they knew they didn't like what Obama was doing, as evidenced by the 2010 midterm elections.
So they threw the Democrats out in record numbers, Jake, and put Republicans in.
But the problem remained.
The Republicans were so afraid of criticizing Obama that they willingly capitulated in trying to hold on to congressional power.
They did a much better job than Democrats did.
But they were basically neutered and remain so to this day.
The one big safeguard that's failed, and there are many, by the way, But the one safeguard that's failed is the separation of powers.
Nobody is willing to stand up to Obama.
Obama is left without restraints in violating the Constitution, from executive amnesty to the way he's done Obamacare.
It's shocking.
It's really scary to contemplate all the things Obama has done in violation of the Constitution with nobody objecting.
That's the reason, Jake.
It's not that the Constitution was flawed.
It's not that there's a better way.
It's that the competing branches stopped competing and pretty much let Obama have the run of the place.
It's never 100%.
But the Cliff Notes version is that is what's happening.
And it still exists today.
To this day, Congress is still timid and unwilling to stand up and describe the American people what Obama is, who he is, and what he's doing.
They have taken impeachment off table.
They have openly admitted that they will do nothing to stop him.
They're just waiting for the 2016 election, hoping they win the White House so that the power then will be theirs.
It's a rockin'good start to another busy broadcast week hosted by me on the Rush Limbaugh program here at the EIB Network.
Thank you so much for being with us today, folks.
Always, always appreciated and always will appreciate you being here.
We'll see you tomorrow.
Can't wait.
Be back then.
▲
Export Selection