All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 4, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:32
August 4, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It is the fastest three hours in media, Rushlimbaugh, and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Making more sense in 10 seconds than the average host makes in a week.
Great to have you here, my friends.
Telephone number if you want to be on the programs 800-282-2882.
And the email address, lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
All right, here's the green card story.
Breitbart News has exclusively obtained text and a chart from the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest.
That's chaired by Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
And it concerns the ongoing policy of massive legal immigration.
The overwhelming majority of immigration to the United States is the result of our visa policies.
Improved border security would have no effect on the continued arrival of these foreign workers and refugees and permanent immigrants.
This is a visa program.
This is opposed to, instead of, in addition to, whatever the numbers are of illegals crossing the border.
The most significant of all immigration documents is by far the green card.
When a foreign citizen is issued a green card, it guarantees the following benefits inside the United States.
Lifetime work authorization, access to federal welfare, access to social security and Medicare, the ability to obtain citizenship and voting privileges, and the immigration of their family members and elderly relatives.
Now, under current federal policy, the U.S. issues green cards to approximately 1 million new legal permanent residents every single year.
For instance, the Department of Homeland Security statistics show that the U.S. issued 5.25 million green cards in the last five years.
It's an average of a little over a million new legal permanent immigrants every year.
Now, if Congress does not pass legislation to reduce the number of green cards issued every year, the U.S. will legally add 10 million or more new permanent immigrants over the next 10 years in addition to whatever numbers of illegals come across the border and apply for them.
Now, this is a way of characterizing this number of 10 million permanent immigrants over the next 10 years.
That is a number larger than the populations of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina combined.
So just to restate this, United States gives legal residency status, green cards, to over a million legal immigrants each and every year.
Do you know that that is more than what the rest of the world does combined?
That's a revealing statistic.
Over 1.05 million green cards a year.
Legal residency status is more than the other nations in the world combined in a year.
And yet it still isn't enough for some people.
The article points out near the bottom here the Breitbart story how immigration was curtailed in the early 20th century to give the country time to assimilate.
You know, I mentioned this a number of times that people don't, I don't think it registers.
Do you realize from, I forget the exact years, but it's from 19, I guess 1924 through 1965, there was no immigration.
Not legal anyway.
Zilch.
And you know why?
Because we stopped everything in order to assimilate the masses of immigrants from Europe that began the late 1800s and all the way through the Ellis Island group and so forth.
It was time to assimilate them into the American culture.
You can say whatever you want about immigration today.
That's one thing that is not happening as a national effort.
I mean, some of them assimilate.
Some of them come here and want to become Americans, but many do not.
They want to come here for other reasons, but maintain their own culture and cultural identity.
Back in the 20th century, it was just a huge decades and decades of no immigration.
And look at the arguments that we are having now.
I mean, the numbers were nothing like what we have today, if you count legal and illegal immigrants, but still, it was a huge number.
Speaking of this, get this.
This is a story from CBS Los Angeles.
Huntington Park, California, has become the first city in California to appoint two undocumented immigrants, illegal immigrants, as commissioners on city advisory boards.
City Councilman Johnny Panetta has picked Francisco Medina to join the Health and Education Commission and Julian Zatyarin for the Parks and Recreation Commission.
The 32-year-old lawmaker told CBS Eyeball LA News that he promised voters while running for office that he would create more opportunities for undocumented residents.
He said, yeah, he said Huntington Park's a city of opportunity, a city of hope for all individuals, regardless of socioeconomic status, regardless of race, creed, or in this case, regardless of citizenship.
We got no problem putting non-citizens on our town council or on our board of supervisors or whatever it is.
They're commissioners.
We got no problem with it whatsoever.
Both of these gentlemen have accomplished a great deal for the city.
And for that, on behalf of the city council, the mayor, and our city, I want to say thank you to them both.
And I am confident they will do an excellent job on their commission posts.
And the announcement was met with uproar at a city council meeting held in Huntington Park on Monday night.
I mean, a not positive uproar.
One resident told Mr. Panetti, you only want to appoint these specific individuals, only two, because they're your personal friends that worked on your campaign.
Shame on you.
Who cares the reason?
Look at the precedent.
But there you have it.
Okay, John Kerry explaining why the Iran deal is not legally a treaty.
His explanation is very simple.
Well, because you can't pass one anymore.
We didn't do a treaty because you can't get one passed anymore.
For 228 years, the Constitution allowed treaties to pass with the advice and consent of 67 U.S. Senators.
Senator Kerry was asked, or Secretary Kerry was there, why is this Iran deal not considered a treaty?
And Lurch replied, well, Congressman, I spent quite a few years trying to get a lot of treaties through the U.S. Senate, and it has become physically impossible.
That's why, because you can't pass a treaty anymore.
It's become impossible to schedule, to pass, and I sat there.
I sat there leading the charge on the disabilities treaty.
It fell to basic ideology and politics.
So I think that's the reason why.
Oh, okay, I get it.
So, if something that is mandated by the Constitution is no longer easy to accomplish because of political opposition, then you can just redefine your terms and ignore the Constitution.
I guess this is what you do when you're thinking about Obamacare, the tax, and when amnesty, I mean, if the Constitution gets in your way, you just ignore it.
It was supposed to be hard to do this kind of stuff.
The founders of this country built gridlock into the separation of powers.
They didn't arrive at 67 votes needed to override a veto, 67 votes to ratify a treaty by accident.
They knew how hard it was going to be to get two-thirds of any group of people to agree with each other.
The founding fathers did this.
I mean, I feel like an idiot having to tell people this.
Well, not an idiot.
I just, it makes me feel sad to have to explain this because everybody ought to know this.
This ought to be civics 101 starting at the earliest ability that kids have to understand it, which would be what?
Sixth grade, middle school, junior hasskruel.
The founding fathers, because of their knowledge of history and their own experiences, knew what governments and bureaucracies were capable of, primarily unchecked, unstopped growth.
And they knew that the bigger government and bureaucracies get, the greater the chance that citizens would lose liberty and freedom.
And this country was founded on the basis of individual liberty, individual freedom, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, was written to limit the actions of government, limit the scope of government, limit the ability of government to trample on and infringe individual liberty.
And as such, they made it difficult.
They made it difficult for laws to be passed.
They made it difficult for past laws to be vetoed.
They made it difficult for this.
That's why there's separation of powers, three different branches of government.
There's not supposed to be a rubber stamp anywhere, and there isn't a dictator.
There isn't a monarch.
There isn't one person that gets to define what's going to happen and when.
There's not a decider.
How many people today think?
How many people today don't even have any idea of that?
How many people think the president is the decider?
How many people do you think, young people, how many people do you think think, believe that our system of government is the president gets what he wants and Congress is there to agree and support him?
And if they don't, then it's their problem.
And if Congress doesn't support the president, they're being disloyal and they're being partisan and they're just opposing for no reason.
How many people do you think that believe that?
I think it's a lot.
I think a lot of people who have been educated in the last 30 years think the president, well, not a king, more or less gets what he wants, gets to set the agenda, gets to do what he wants, and Congress is there to rubber stamp it.
And if they don't, then Congress is being disloyal.
And they really think that if the president is of their party, I know they didn't so much think that of George W. Bush.
Or maybe they did.
Maybe they did think that's what presidents had the power to do.
They just scared to death or opposed Bush.
And so they applauded the Congress stopping him because Bush was so dangerous and stupid and cowboyish or what have you.
But I would feel very comfortable wagering that most Americans, particularly under the age of 40, don't understand separation of powers, do not understand and have not been taught that our system of government made it difficult for laws to be passed.
That was the whole point.
In fact, the Senate, the Senate was set up especially to be a break to put the brakes on the House of Representatives.
The Senate was designed to be slow moving and plotting.
The Senate was designed to stop things.
That's why it takes 67 votes to ratify a treaty.
The president doesn't get to dictate what he gets to do, wants to do, has to do.
But here, these guys are saying, well, you know, a treaty, hell, you just can't get one done anymore.
It's just too hard.
It's just impossible.
Hell, we can never get the votes for any of them.
Well, there's a reason for that.
They must not have been popular.
The American people must not have wanted them.
And they must have let somebody know.
But this bunch thinks they have a license that if they don't get what they want, if it's opposed, then whoever's opposing it doesn't count.
And they just get to override them with presidential power.
A brief obscene profit timeout.
We'll come back.
I still have some audio soundbites from this candidates forum that was on CNN last night in New Hampshire, a forerunner, a predecessor, a lead-up to the big, big, big debate on Thursday night.
So we'll get to that.
And of course, remaining moments with you on the phone straight ahead, too.
So don't go away.
And here is Steve in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Steve, I'm really glad you waited.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Thanks, Rush Megadidalis from St. Paul, Minnesota.
A longtime listener for about almost 30 years.
First time caller.
Well, great to have you here, sir.
I appreciate your patience.
Thank you.
And basically, I couldn't let we had a caller on earlier from St. Paul, and I couldn't let that stand the impression that he gave the country based on his lack of understanding as to what's going on with this abortion thing.
Well, let me repeat what he said so people know what you're talking about.
A guy called, I forget his name, but his wife worked at Planned Parenthood, and he said, hey, Planned Parenthood does a lot of good stuff.
They do more than just do abortions and throw baby parts in bags.
Yeah, I think he actually said they do more than kill babies.
They do other things, too.
They do more than kill babies.
He actually said they do more than kill babies and throw the parts in bags or something.
He was acknowledging that what we've learned on these videos happens.
And then he said the video, the tapes that we've learned all this stuff from obviously been edited.
And that's the only fireback that these Planned Parenthood advocates have is to attack the video, which is posted in its entirety.
Every one of these videos is posted unedited, in some cases three hours long at the Center for Medical Progress website.
They're holding a bag of baby parts.
What more do you need to see?
Right.
But they do more than that, though.
I don't care what they did.
They're holding a bag of baby parts.
Yeah.
You know, and I mean, we understand.
I don't know if the world understands it.
Somebody's got to understand.
This is a genocide the world has never seen in the history of mankind.
The numbers slaughtered since this began and before worldwide dwarf anything a Hitler did or a Stalin did or everybody put the Khmer Rouge, the Paul Pot regime.
It makes them look like rank amateurs.
And this is done by average citizen.
It's unbelievable what the world has been reduced to.
It's unbelievable.
I don't get it.
Yeah, the other point.
Oh, go ahead.
I mean, you get it.
We all get it.
That's part of what makes it even sicker.
How do you, you know, when the Jews are being slaughtered by the Nazis, I often wondered, why didn't anybody do anything?
Let me tell you something.
Since you mentioned that, way, way back, I'm going back 1994, 1995, Jeff Greenfield asked me to appear with him at the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan.
And I didn't really know what it was.
And because I had a certain amount of respect for Greenfield, I agreed to do it.
And it was my fault.
I didn't research it.
I didn't know what I was stepping into, which probably was a good thing.
And what it was was me and Greenfield on stage with him interviewing me and the crowd from the local neighborhood there, the 92nd Street Y, was the audience.
And it pretty much was Greenfield going through a series of questions saying, Do you really believe X?
Do you really believe?
And then he quotes something else I said.
And I was put in the position of explaining or justifying what I believe.
And it was polite.
It was not, none of it was rude or challenging.
And then he got to the word feminist.
You really, really think that's what feminism has become.
And so not really knowing where I was because of my own laziness and lack of research.
And by the way, everybody knew I was going there, but nobody told me what it was about either.
So that's kind of flying blind.
And I said, you know, what strikes me about this, Jeff, I said that we're a large Jewish audience here.
And given the experience of Jewish people, what's going on in abortion clinics, I would think, would really, really focus people.
I mean, what's happening in these clinics, you could draw a comparison to what's happened in death camps all over world history.
And the audience just booed me like you can't believe the comparison that I made of the killing of the essence of innocence in the womb to any mass murder, not just Hitler, but take your pick.
Just, I mean, they practically booed me off the stage, and I stood fast and I maintained it.
But they didn't want to hear it is the point.
And I want to elaborate on this just a little bit.
Earlier in the program, Washington Post story, the Iran deal is hemorrhaging support.
And what this is, it's about a new poll showing even worse numbers for the Iran deal.
The Quinnipiac University poll shows 57% of the American people opposed, only 28% in support.
Two to one negative split, by far the worst poll yet for the deal.
NBC Wall Street Journal poll, meanwhile, also shows support slipping, and a CNN poll finds that 52% of Americans should reject the deal.
So what the Washington Post story does, if you read it, and you don't have to, because I did, I read it for you.
And what they're trying to do here is spin the bad news and make it not that bad.
And it's totally understandable the American people, ignoramuses that they are in the deal, wouldn't oppose it.
Not sophisticated enough and not aware of the nuance.
And therefore, you've got to take into account that the people being polled, while decent and upstanding, may not know quite enough to really render an opinion.
And the Washington Post cites earlier polls that show support for the Iran deal, but they ignore the fact that in all the earlier polls, a majority said they didn't believe the deal would work.
Washington Post ignores that deal.
Even in previous polls that showed a modicum of support, even those people didn't think it would work.
But now, and again, I predicted this.
It might have been an hour ago.
Other people may have.
I haven't.
Frankly, in the last three days, I haven't had any news on.
So if others have made this prediction, fine.
I haven't heard it.
And so I'm not trying to claim any thunder, but I just think there's four hostages the Iranians are holding.
It's for just this moment.
See, I'm a cynic.
And I don't believe.
I don't believe.
No matter what you might think of Kerry and Obama, I don't believe that in these negotiations, they didn't mention these four hostages.
Now, Obama says publicly, well, we could have gummed up the deal.
You know, we could have given them other reasons to, you know, misbehave if we had to start demanding concessions on something that had nothing to do with the deal.
I don't believe.
I mean, that's.
I think, let me put this, don't be surprised if you wake up one day and the lead story from the Today Show to Good Morning America is the four hostages, American hostages in Iran have been released.
And that I think it's probably part of, I know those four people being held in case they're needed, in case their release is needed.
Because I don't care what Obama says about not needing congressional approval.
He cares about his legacy.
And he wants his legacy to contain either the insinuation or the direct statement that everything he did had massive support.
He doesn't want his legacy to be that everything he did was essentially governing against the will of the people.
So he's going to look at this opposition to the Iran deal and see a threat to his legacy.
And he'll want to save the threat.
The details of the deal are irrelevant to him, as long as he'd be the one to say the only president to secure an agreement with Iran, period.
No matter, whatever else follows is irrelevant.
Even if they get a new contention, it doesn't matter.
No other president got them to agree to anything.
Only Obama, who also only got us health care, and who also only got us a brand new roaring economy, and who also got us massive new immigration, a great rejuvenation of our country, blah, blah, blah.
Whatever else is going to be part of his legacy.
So I wouldn't just not predicting it, but don't be surprised if you see that happen.
Those four hostages released.
Now, in addition to that, this argues against it.
Actually, it may not.
Actually, it may not.
The Ayatollah Hominy has published a new book called Palestine.
It's a 416-page book.
It is a screed against Israel, the Jewish state.
A blurb on the back cover credits the Ayatollah Hominy as the flag bearer of jihad to liberate Jerusalem.
The Ayatollah Hominy has published a book on how to outwit the United States and destroy Israel.
So, in addition to standing up there with his Kalishnikov and leading chance of death to America in his speeches making fun of us after the deal was agreed to and telling everybody that just because they agreed to a deal doesn't mean it's going to change the way Iran behaves policy-wise,
the United States, death to America, death to America, standing there holding the gun, claiming that don't, don't, don't worry, we smoked the U.S., we're the ones that are happy, they're the ones arguing, we got everything we want, we got our nuke, whatever happens.
And now he's got a 416-page book on how to outsmart the U.S. and destroy Israel.
Subtitled, How I Hoodwinked John Kerry.
That's not the subtitle, but what does it mean?
What could this title possibly mean?
The Ayatollah Hominy claims that his strategy for the destruction of Israel is based on well-established Islamic principles.
And one such principle is that a land that falls under Muslim rule, even briefly, can never again be ceded to non-Muslims.
What matters in Islam is ownership of a land's government, even if the majority of the inhabitants are non-Muslims.
And the supporters of the Ayatollah Hominy are not alone in this belief.
Dozens of maps circulate in the Muslim world showing the extent of Muslim territories lost to the infidel that must be recovered.
They include large parts of Russia, large parts of Europe, a third of China, all of India, and parts of the Philippines and Thailand.
So these maps get circulated to people in Iran and Muslim countries showing these are the countries that used to be under our control.
The infidels took them, and we got to get them back.
And the book is how to do it.
How to outwit the U.S. and destroy Israel and get all of our land back.
The Soviets had a similar doctrine called the Brezhnev Doctrine, but they weren't able to stick with it.
Putin is doing his best to revive it.
But the Brezhnev doctrine basically was: if you've even had a communist thought, if you've ever had a communist dream, one person in your country, it's ours.
Or we will nuke you.
Brezhnev once promised, threatened to nuke the French for some reason.
I forget which.
They were laughing at his eyebrows, maybe.
I don't know.
So the question is: here yet again is the Ayatollah Hominy, the supreme leader, promising to do away with Israel after a deal with us on nukes.
Not the first time.
I can't count how many times the Iranians have now promised to do this and take care of us at the same time.
And what is our reaction?
Come on, it's just bluster, you know, Carrie.
Say, don't really mean this stuff.
It's just bluster.
You got to give them their due.
This is who they are.
This is how they keep their public.
This is how they stay in power.
You know, they got to talk this way to their population.
They're going to tell everybody how they outsmarted us.
But don't worry, I was there in the meetings, and I can tell you they didn't outsmart me.
That's comforting.
And now another obscene profit timeout, ladies and gentlemen.
Oh, you know what?
Before we get out of here, grab, I think it's audio soundbite three or four.
One, two, maybe three.
The Boehner soundbite on a talk show host 20 years ago, nobody ever heard of.
Number three, you have that standing button.
In fact, no, let's play it now.
We've got time to play it going into the break.
If you missed the first half hour of the program, John Boehner was on the golf channel last night.
It was a program hosted by David Faherty.
Many people would just say David Ferrity, but he pronounces it Faherty.
So that's how we do it.
He's Irish.
He's a good guy.
He had Boehner on, Boehner on Boehner's single-digit handicapper.
And David Faherty said, Is there less bipartisanship now than there used to be?
20 years ago, when we won the first Republican majority in 40 years, there was one radio talk show host that nobody had ever heard of.
There was one cable news channel that just did news.
And you look at today, you've got hundreds of radio talk show hosts all trying to outdo themselves, right, going further right and further right and further right.
You've got all these cable news channels, and all they do are politics.
And it's tending to either push or pull people into one of two camps.
Your host blamed for all of this last night on the golf channel, of all places, on the Faherty Show.
There was a radio talk show host 20 years ago that nobody ever heard of back when we won our majority.
How'd that happen?
Anyway, quick timeout, my friends.
Back with more in a jiffy.
Here's John in Tallahassee.
Hey, John, welcome.
Great to have you here.
Great.
Thanks, Rush.
I appreciate it.
Major Dittos.
So excited to talk to you.
Jumped on my iPad trying to get to the phone, so I'm going to have to wing this.
It's concerning Trump.
Some of the critics of Trump have referred to him as a progressive equal to that of Bush.
While I have always had hopes for maybe a strong conservative, such as Cruz, Walker, and Carson, I do like the fact that Trump is not a politician and he's not beholden to the party establishment in any way, as far as I can research in the way I feel.
But I figured you know him.
And I'd love, meaning that you lived in New York and your wide knowledge on the subject, I'd love to know what you think about that.
Does he have more of a progressive agenda, or do you feel he has more of a constitutional love for his country?
Just a seems to be doing this for the right reason.
I have a minute and a half to answer you.
So let me answer with what I think are the most important things you've asked.
I have been with Donald.
The last time I saw Donald, he was being honored as the annual honoree for great contributions and work for the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.
It's an annual dinner at the Waldorf Astoria, and he was seated with his wife at Roger Ailes' table.
I was the next table over, and I went over and talked to him.
This is a really pro-Americana group that was honoring Trump that night.
I have been honored.
Ailes has been honored by these people.
The Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation is just a wonderful thing.
They contribute 99.5 cents of every dollar donated gets passed through to the children of Marines killed in action, college scholarships.
I've played golf with Trump a number of times.
And first time, well, the first time we played after Obama had been elected, it was a year or two into Obama's first year, first term.
And he says, I don't know, Rush, this guy, doesn't seem like a good guy to me.
And I agreed with him.
The other thing I can tell you is that I've never, Donald around me has never uttered anything that made me think he was a Democrat or a liberal, but he's donated to them.
He lives in New York.
He's had to do that.
He's also very smart.
He may not talk about Democrat things with me because he knows that's not how to get close to me.
But I'm running out of time here.
I wish you'd have gotten there.
I wish I'd have taken your call sooner because there's other things I can say.
But damn it, I just sadly here, just out of.
Folks, I'm sorry, I run out of time answering the guy's question on Trump.
Maybe somebody will ask me again tomorrow.
And I try to have these.
I'm sorry about the audio soundbites of the Republican debate forum.
I just didn't have a chance to get to all of them.
▲
Export Selection