All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 18, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:31
August 18, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
As usual, my friends, Rushlin Boy, your guiding light, operating with half my brain tied behind my back.
To be fair, to make things equal with everybody else, to make things the same.
Happy to have you with us.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
I took the occasion, a top of the hour break, to dig deep.
Found some interesting things.
The Rangers, the U.S. Army Rangers, are insisting that no standards were changed and none were lowered in order to secure the two female graduates from Ranger School who will be announced in the ceremony will be taking place on Friday.
As you recall, this all started with my recollection that we had a woman, Sally from Maryland, 4th of June, call here.
She's very proud, said her daughter was in Ranger school, was probably going to graduate.
She was all excited.
So when I saw that it was being announced that the ceremony was actually Friday, I remembered that.
They got some other conversations.
It was then established President Obama will go to the graduation ceremony since there are two women that are in the class.
And we got some phone calls from people.
Speculation on whether standards were lowered.
How can this be?
The Rangers insist no standards were lowered.
From the Daily Caller, according to a senior Army official, both the women are graduates at West Point.
Officials have insisted the women were not given an easier time, despite critics noting that the Obama administration is dead set on integrating women into all combat roles in the military.
Now, that is actually about West Point.
What I just read to you is not about Ranger School per se.
That's about West Point.
But for all intents and purposes, I guess we have to assume here that it's the same for Ranger School.
It would apply, maybe even more so.
So the Rangers themselves are insisting that standards would not have been lowered.
My whole point when I heard this was, I mean, Rangers is special forces.
Rangers is right up with Delta and SEALs, and it's elite.
It's the creme de la creme.
I just, I can't imagine.
But then again, there's a lot of stuff I can't imagine that's happening.
But the military is one of these institutions that I have, my faith in the military would be hard to shake, let's put it that way.
I think of all the institutions that have existed in this country since its founding, the military is rock solid.
Bad actors everywhere, I know, but I still think ours is the best in the world.
I think it always will be.
I just can't see standards in these elite units being altered significantly or drastically for PC purposes.
I have to be open to the possibility that it could be, but I always have faith that somebody, somewhere, is going to draw a line somewhere on this stuff.
But then we're talking about Obama, and we're talking about leftists.
We have to be honest.
The military is not held in high esteem, high regard by these people.
The United States military, to many on the left, is the focus of evil in the modern world.
The U.S. military is one of the worst things about us.
And I have often said over the years that many on the left actually don't feel bad if we have a military defeat now and then because they like the idea being established that our military is not infallible and that it sometimes doesn't deserve to win.
I mean, leftists are cockeyed.
But I've always assumed that the line would be drawn in these elite units.
I mean, it's just too important.
But balancing that out, we know, I mean, without doubt, that the left uses the military as a social experimentation laboratory.
They use it to test some of their heartfelt beliefs.
Whether they're doing it to weaken the military or not, I don't know.
After 9-11, I don't know that that's as much a focus of the left as it used to be, although it could.
Now, on the fire department stuff that I referenced with the two ladies that called from the New York Post, December 11th, 2014, was a story about the New York Fire Department dropping the physical test requirement, period, just dropping it because of low female hiring.
They simply weren't getting enough female applicants, and those who were applying were not passing.
So the fire department, this is from the article, the fire department has stopped requiring probationary firefighters to pass a job-related physical skills test before getting hired, a move that critics derided as a lowering of standards.
The move by first-year fire commissioner Daniel Nigro, which allows probationaries to fail components of the functional skills training test but still graduate from the fire academy, comes amid criticism of the department's low hiring rate of women.
It is a lowering of the standards across the board, said one former Fire Department New York official familiar with training protocol.
I knew this was happening in fire departments, and I think it's happened to police departments around the country, local police departments around the country.
There's no question that it has.
Anyway, that's out of the way.
I mentioned the conclusion the previous hour that Hillary Clinton has been caught on an undercover video arguing with activists from Black Lives Matter who were comparing her and her husband to plantation owners.
CNN is actually playing some short clips from this, but they are not showing you what you're going to hear here.
They are not showing you the part where the activists lecture Mrs. Clinton and blame her for the black incarceration problem in America and compares her to a plantation.
Or we have three bites.
It was last Tuesday in Keene, New Hampshire, after a campaign event, Hillary Clinton meeting with Black Lives Matter activists.
And during the meeting, an activist says this about African American incarceration and the 1994 crime bill, which of course was her husband's.
Until we as a country, and then the person she's in the seat that you see, actually addresses the anti-blackness current that is America's first drug.
We're in a meeting about drugs, right?
America's first drug is free black labor and turning black bodies into profit.
And the mass incarceration system mirrors an awful lot like the prison, the prison plantation system.
You, your family, have been, in no uncertain way, partially responsible for this, more than most.
Okay, so the Black Lives Matter activists decided to give Bernie Sanders a break and they headed on over to a Hillary event, at which time they said, you know what?
Anti-blackness is America's first drug, right?
America's first drug is free black labor.
That's slavery, folks.
That's what he's saying.
Slavery's still alive and well.
It's what most people want in this country.
It's his charge.
And turning black bodies into profit.
And he says to Hillary Clinton, you and your family have been in no uncertain way partially responsible more than most.
And as he was talking about the 1994 crime bill, Hillary turns around, lectures this guy, and tells him a few things.
You can get lip service from as many white people as you can pack into Yankee Stadium and a million more like it.
We're going to say, oh, we get it.
We get it.
We're going to be nicer.
That's not enough.
Let's get an agenda that addresses as much of the problem as we can.
Because then you can be for something.
In addition to getting people to have to admit that they're part of a long history in our country of either proposing, supporting, condoning discrimination, segregation, et cetera.
Now, what do we do next?
Okay, so she's telling this guy from Black Lives Matter it's up to his movement to come up with an agenda.
Now, again, this is undercover video.
Hillary, I don't know if she knows that there were cameras there.
I don't know.
This sounds like a Hillary Clinton not reading from a teleprompter telling stiff jokes about Snapchat.
You can get lip service from as many white people as you can pack into Yankee Stadium and a million more like it are going to say, well, we get it.
We get it.
We're going to be nicer, okay?
But that's not enough in my book.
All I'm suggesting is for us sinners.
In other words, we white people.
You're right, Black Lives Matter guy.
You're right.
We are sinners.
But we got to find some common ground on agendas that can make a difference right here and now in people's lives.
Because you got to be for something.
You just can't be running around there being against things.
You got to be for something.
And the guy pushes back.
He doesn't, you know, Hillary thinks it's over.
Then this is Hillary's Hillary's world is: here comes an activist raising an issue, making a complaint.
Whatever she says is supposed to be accepted, whether it makes sense or not.
Whoever she says it to is supposed to be proud and happy that she even addressed them and to be satisfied and walk away.
This guy pushes back.
And Hillary has something to say to him in the process.
If you don't tell black people what we need to do, then we won't tell you all what you need to do.
This is and has always been a problem of violence.
It's not, there's not much that we can do to stop the violence against us.
If that is your position, then I will talk only to white people about how we are going to deal with a very real problem.
I don't believe you change hearts.
I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate.
Did you catch that?
Okay, so Hillary says, look, she said to the Black Lives Matter guy, all right, yeah, you're right.
We sinners, us white people, you're right.
We got to do better, but you got to join us.
You got to help us with the agenda.
The Black Lives Matter guy comes back and says, it's not up to us.
It's not up to us.
There's not much we can do to stop the violence against us.
That's all on you.
And Hillary is, oh, okay, so you're not going to join me in this agenda?
Fine.
Then screw you.
I'm only going to talk to white people about how we're going to deal with it.
The Black Lives Matter guys, that's not what I mean.
That's not what I mean.
Clinton says, I don't believe you change hearts.
I believe you change laws.
Folks, right there.
I don't believe you change hearts.
That can also be read.
I don't believe you change minds.
What Hillary Clinton is saying here, she's not interested in persuading people.
She's not interested in debating people.
She's not interested in trying to get to people's hearts or minds because she doesn't think it's possible.
What she wants to do is bully them.
She wants to use the power and the force of government and create laws and regulations and dictate behavior that way.
And then come up with behavior that becomes penalized.
She doesn't want to try to talk to people and make them better.
She is not interested in engaging people and having them improve and maybe get rid of prejudice or whatever.
If they don't, then they're going to deal with new tougher laws because Hillary doesn't have time for it.
The entire conservative movement, when it comes to abortion, is almost all about changing hearts and minds.
That's the only real way that you affect permanent deep change.
You have to reach people.
You have to connect with them.
You have to try to persuade them.
There's an art to it.
That's how you build momentum.
It's how you build support for your agenda, whatever it is.
And she's not interested in that.
She's not interested in actually sitting down and changing minds and hearts.
She doesn't think it's possible.
She just wants to dictate to people what they're going to do and what they're not going to do.
And if they violate what her dictates are, then here comes penalty A, penalty B. I mean, this is overwhelmingly informative about just who this woman is.
And I don't believe she would say something like this in a speech.
I don't believe she would say something like this for public consumption on a campaign stump.
She would not dare say, I don't believe you change hearts.
Her entire campaign is based on, I have a big heart.
My heart's bigger than yours.
And we want everybody's hearts to be pure.
What?
Turns out to be all bogus.
This woman is not interested in changing hearts.
She's not interested in reaching.
You don't change hearts.
You change laws.
You change allocation of resources.
You change the way systems opt.
In other words, you bully.
You dictate.
You punish.
You do not try to make people better, help them get better.
I think this is profound.
Back in just a second.
We go back to the phones to Los Usos, California.
This is Don.
Great to have you with us, sir, and I appreciate your patience.
Glad you waited.
Boat.
Hey, no problem, Brush.
It's an honor to speak with you.
Thank you very much.
I've been wondering about this possible scenario.
It's common knowledge that GOP establishment is concerned with a third party run by Trump.
What do you think the chances of Bernie Sanders becoming disenfranchised with the Democratic Party and running on its own third party?
That is something that I don't see being permitted, even if Bernie got the wild hair to do it.
Yeah, it seems like he's a curmudgeon, and he might, if he gets mad enough and he has enough of the.
Well, that would be fantastic if that happened.
I mean, I would absolutely love that.
If the Democrat Party makes a move to impugn Bernie and his effort and have him get so mad that he goes third party, you know, it depends.
I can't see it, but if his support continues to build and build and Hillary continues to weaken and the party doesn't do anything to acknowledge it, I can see him getting mad, but I just, I don't think the guy's going to get within 20,000 feet of the Democrat Party nomination.
I don't think they're going to permit it.
I think they'll do something to undermine the guy.
Something's going to happen somewhere along the line.
They're not going to risk the fact that this guy could get the nominated.
That's why they're talking about Biden.
That's why they're talking about, well, Gore's kind of been rejected already, but Biden is the lone potential savior should something actually really bomb out with Hillary.
I don't think I don't see Bernie Sanders going third party.
Oh, well, it'd be the perfect storm for the conservatives, that's for sure.
Well, it would be, everybody knows that if Trump goes third party, that's it.
I mean, that's hello, Hillary.
Everybody knows that.
It'd be kind of nice if that kind of scenario existed on the Democrat side.
Well, thank you, sir.
Thanks for I just want to know your thoughts on that.
You are more than welcome.
I'd love to be wrong about this, but I just don't see anything about Bernie Sanders that says third party.
In fact, folks, the fact is here, you know, both parties, based on previous primaries and things that happened that they didn't like, both parties have structured this primary season to prevent things that happened in the past.
The irony is the poor old Republican establishment, they did everything they could to see to it that their establishment candidate would once again get the nomination.
And they did it by reducing debates and a number of things.
And the one thing they didn't factor, because they couldn't have, is Trump.
And Trump has upset every plan they put in place.
I mean everything.
Everything's out of, everything has been blown up.
On the Democrat side, without getting into the weeds here and explaining how, the Democrats did everything they could to make sure that Hillary Clinton cannot be dislodged.
And you hear Martin O'Malley talking about it.
He's out there.
What?
I don't even recognize this Democrat Party.
He's saying, there are no debates.
I mean, they're not even allowing us, meaning other candidates, to be recognized.
He says, we don't even know that we exist out here.
And that's on purpose.
The Democrats didn't want anything undermining Hillary this time.
It's payback.
It's her turn.
But now they're living and perhaps dying with that.
Because the fact is that Hillary Clinton is going to be their nominee no matter how badly she does.
They've made it practically impossible for anybody else to secure the nominee.
And again, without getting into the weeds on how they've done it, I mean, it is kind of fascinating if you study the actual science of the business of politics, how they've done this.
But it's coming back to bite them.
She's a horrible candidate.
She is making embarrassing moves, saying embarrassing things, looking Trumpy.
Nothing about this is going the way anybody planned.
She was supposed to be at 80% approval.
The Republicans were not even supposed to exist right now.
And I've got a story here of Chris Salizza in the Washington Post.
And this is a limbo echo from Munser.
Here's the headline.
Maybe Hillary Clinton just isn't a very good candidate.
Well, it could have told him this and did tell them this eight years ago.
They're just now starting to realize it, but they've got a problem.
Their system is structured this time around where it's going to be impossible to unseat her in the whole primary process.
So both parties are stuck with what's happening.
Welcome back, my friends.
It's a thrill and a delight to have you here with us on the Rush Limbaugh program, Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, utilizing talent on loan from God.
Audio sound bites, get back to them.
Scott Walker this morning, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, talking about people tired of the Republican leadership in Washington that does not deliver.
We've just got a government in Washington that can't quite seem to get the job done.
When I talk to people all across this country, people all across America are fed up with Washington.
And I feel your pain.
I'm fed up with Washington too.
We were told by Republican leaders during the campaigns last year that we just needed a Republican Senate to be elected to repeal Obamacare.
Well, here we sit.
Both chambers of the United States Congress have been controlled since January by Republicans.
And yet there's not a bill in the president's desk to repeal Obamacare.
I want to be perfectly clear.
Americans want more than just campaign promises.
They want results.
Actions speak louder than words.
Ladies and gentlemen, do you know what this means or represents?
This is Scott Walker joining Ted Cruz.
What is starting to happen here, and we're going to note it as it happens.
Right now, it's just barely a trickle.
What is beginning to happen here is that you have Trump over here doing what he's doing, and you've got Cruz here doing what he's doing, next Trump.
And now you're starting to see other members of the PAC from the remaining 14 try to distance themselves from the PAC and get closer to what Trump and Cruz are doing.
I call it the Me Too phase, but it is, well, I'm trying to be very guarded here.
I asked yesterday, you know, you have all these people complaining about Trump, whatever his plan is.
immigration take the issue he talks about.
Where are the – I know there's a reluctance on the part of people to speak out against Trump, which is indicative of things itself.
And that's because he's so popular.
I mean, the only people willing to speak out against Trump is a Washington establishment.
These candidates are not doing it because they don't want to insult Trump's voters.
They want Trump's voters.
And I've been wondering, well, where is these other candidates actually joining Trump on this field, whatever, say if it's immigration?
My plan's better.
I like what Trump's doing if they do it, but my plan's better.
Where is that?
Now, we're starting to see that now.
We will see if this continues.
But this to me is a potentially explosive time and portion of this entire Republican primary here.
And this is two days in a row here that Scott Walker has attempted to move away from the PAC, distance himself from the PAC.
Yesterday, it was, hey, you know what?
I have a lot of things I agree with with Trump on his immigration stuff.
Today, he's joining Cruz in the criticism of the Republican leadership in Washington and Congress.
So this is beginning to take place.
Now, Jeb Bush is never going to do that.
Jeb Bush is never going to leave the PAC.
He's going to try to remain the one guy in the PAC after everybody else leaves it.
The strategy in the establishment here is to have all these so-called conservatives out there divvying up the vote with Jeb Bush left standing as the moderate inheritor of the fractured vote and winner of the primary so he can see that he can say that he won the nomination without pandering to the base.
That's his objective.
The Jeb Bush objective is to have the base vote split so much by all these other candidates that he's left standing alone in the pack.
And he can then say, hey, I was true to my word.
I told you I was going to win this nomination without the base.
That's what he's trying to do.
So we go to Charleston, South Carolina, campaign event.
Jeb Bush speaking about immigration reform and Trump.
This is not about the big personality in the room.
This is about how do you fix problems that are broken.
We need to start solving problems instead of just saying how bad things are.
And so I appreciate the fact that Mr. Trump now has a plan, if that's what it's called, but I think that the better approach is to deal with the 11 million people here illegally in a way that is realistic and to have border security that is done in the right way to lessen the number of people crossing our border.
Okay, all well and good.
This border security business, no, I have to tell you something.
Of course it's the right thing to do, but we've had nothing but lip service on it.
You know what?
If we really had border security, if we were able to stop what I think is an invasion, folks, I'm going to open up here for a minute.
I don't even think we're talking about immigration here.
This isn't immigration, what's happening in this country.
It's not even illegal immigration.
We're being invaded.
These are refugees from either poverty-stricken, war-torn parts of the Western hemisphere, southern hemisphere, whatever.
We're just, it's happening in Europe.
European nations are facing the same influx from people in third world countries that are having to leave because of poverty and war or what have it.
This is not illegal immigration what's happening here.
I mean, it is when you have solutions that call for them to eventually become citizens.
But what's actually happening here, to me, is not immigration.
We don't have an immigration system that permits this.
This is happening in violation of the immigration laws, which is the whole point.
To call these people illegal immigrants is to give them a status that I don't think is valid.
Even though they may say, no, we're coming here.
We want to become citizens.
Well, yeah, of course that's what you're going to say, or you want asylum.
But that's not what this is.
Immigration, when it happens, is legal.
There are people who fill out forms, they apply, they go through the process, they wait, they get visas, they follow the law.
That's immigration.
This isn't.
This is something else.
Now, you call it whatever you want, but I look at it as a bunch of refugees flooding the country, and the Democrat Party and the Republican Party are not interested in stopping it because they have uses for these people.
The Democrats see them as voters.
The Republicans see them as cheap labor, or at least their business donors do.
And maybe some Republicans also see them as voters or what have you.
Whatever, it's a total mess.
Here's the thing.
If there were really border security, like there is at practically every other border, you can't do this.
In the Canadian border, we guard it.
We govern it.
People don't even try.
But on the southern border, it's wide open.
If that were shut down, and all these candidates give lip service to it, but nothing is ever done.
We build a fence and then we stop after 10 feet.
A state then gets frustrated and tries to do something about it.
They get sued by the Obama administration.
And all the state's doing, in this case, Arizona, was attempting to create state laws that were a mirror of federal law that is not being enforced.
The administration sues them, saying you don't have jurisdiction.
It's our issue.
So people have rightly concluded the establishments of both parties don't really want to stop it.
Because if you did, if you stopped, you wouldn't have to go do anything about anchor babies.
There wouldn't be as many.
You wouldn't have to propose changing the 14th Amendment.
You wouldn't have to propose getting rid of birthright citizenship because there wouldn't be very many if you actually were enforcing the immigration law.
But we're not.
There's a reason why we're not.
But that's not what this is.
And it's a big mistake to even call it immigration, illegal or otherwise, because it isn't that.
Real immigrants go through the process of following the law.
They become citizens.
They want to become Americans.
They attempt to assimilate in the American culture.
None of that is what's going on here.
And this is why people are outraged by it.
People know full well what's going on.
This nation is being flooded.
And in the process, the job market is being diluted.
The wage scale is being destroyed.
The welfare state is being expanded, all for the benefit of the political parties with no benefit for the American people.
And to call what's happening.
Jeb Bush, I'm sorry, but this is not an act of love, this mass invasion of refugees.
And people aren't going to accept that.
They're not going to fall for it.
So here comes Trump saying what he's saying.
And because people clearly realize what this is, they're standing and supporting it because they want somebody to.
Now, more and more people are starting to say, my gosh, I mean, if you don't have borders, you don't have a country.
And it's true.
But this isn't immigration.
I don't mean to be redundant here, but we're just, I think we even get sidetracked calling it that and supposedly debating it as that because that isn't what it is.
And the people behind this, and I'm not talking about just the parties here.
There are people outside the United States who are promoting this.
say, other governments, other countries that are not our friends, that are promoting it.
They know full well why they're promoting it, and they know full well the impact it's going to have in diluting greatest country ever.
People want to come here and become Americans, assimilate, become part of the greatest country on earth.
We welcome them.
We have all kinds of processes for people to follow and make it happen, so that when they take that oath and they have their naturalization ceremony, they are Americans from that moment forward.
That none of that is going on with this, not even close.
If there were border security, 90% of what Trump proposed wouldn't even be necessary, is the point.
Quick time out.
Don't go away.
John Kasich on Trump's immigration plan.
I don't favor citizenship because, as I tell my daughters, you don't jump the line to go to a Taylor Swift concert, okay?
You just don't do it.
The idea that we would go out in cars and hunt people down, it's not doable, and secondly, I don't think it's right.
I don't think it's humane.
So Kasich is saying this, deportment isn't possible.
We're not going to do it.
It's screwy.
It's not.
It's inhumane.
Jeff Sessions, who helped Trump put together the plan, explains a little bit of it last night on Fox.
It's just a mainstream plan to do what politicians have been promising to do for 30 years and haven't done.
These are things like you have in the jobs magnet by not allowing people who are here illegally to get jobs.
You strengthen border enforcement.
You stop the visa overstays of illegal entries into the United States of people who come on visas and overstay.
These are things that he talks about in his plan that are bread and butter, basic, and need to be done.
And if we do them, we'll be surprised how dramatically we can reduce the illegality.
Jeff Sessions, Alabama, helped Trump put together the plan to the phones quickly before we have to get out.
Jeff in Minneapolis, a little over one minute, but I wanted to get to you before we had to go.
Hi.
Spatula City, dittos, Russian.
Hey, great to have you here.
Thank you.
Great, Minnesota.
Thank you very much.
Say, you had sent a friend of mine a bed a number of years ago.
It had something to do with power napping.
I always thought that was pretty generous of you.
Thank you very much.
Say, it's really statistically unlikely that Trump will be the nominee as much as he should be for the Republican Party.
If his name's on the ballot and when the election's held, he will win.
But unfortunately, it won't be with the Republican Party because historically, there's only three times that they've selected a candidate who wasn't a Republican in an elected office before.
And it was General Ulysses Grant, General David Eisenhower, and Wendell Wilkie in 1940.
Right, but Trump doesn't drink.
He has never had a drop of alcohol.
Grant couldn't say that.
And he doesn't smoke.
He's never smoked.
But statistically, it's very unlikely, Rush, that that'll happen.
Probably so.
I mean, everybody involved just knows that it's a long shot.
It's unusual.
It's out of the mainstream.
If he's on the ballot when the election's held, as long as you don't play Napoleon XIV, he can win.
You think so?
I think so.
I think so.
I know so.
Can he win third party?
Yes.
Yep, he could win any third party, Constitution, party, or by himself.
Jeff in Minneapolis.
And on that, we have to get out.
Take care, folks.
Be back to wrap it up here in just a second.
Ladies and gentlemen, I could not let this program come to a screeching halt today without telling you that the White House has hired its first openly transgender staff member.
The White House announced that Raffi Friedman Gerspan, that's hyphenated, has been appointed on Tuesday as an outreach and recruitment director for presidential personnel in the Office of Personnel.
Transgender advocates say that she is the first openly transgender official to serve in the White House.
How lovely.
How cool.
▲
Export Selection