All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 27, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:19
August 27, 2015, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Views expressed by the host on this program have riveted the nation for 27 years to the shock and dismay of the drive-by media and the Democrat Party.
That's right, myself.
We are in, my friends, 28th year on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Great to have you with us.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882.
The email address, lrushmo at EIBnet.com.
So the second question to Jorge Ramos on ABC today was, how do you respond to critics who say that you're more advocate than journalist?
And Ramos said, well, look, as a journalist, you have to take a stand.
I think the best journalism happens when you take a stand.
And when it comes to fascism, I'm sorry, racism and discrimination or corruption in public life, dictatorship or human rights, as journalists, we are not only required, we are forced to take a stand.
And clearly, when Mr. Trump is talking about immigration in an extreme way, we have to confront him.
And I think that's what I did yesterday.
So there is your objective journalist, Jorge Ramos.
There's nothing journalist about him.
He's an activist.
He is pursuing an agenda.
And by the way, let me give you another thought.
For those of you who may think that is a little bit extreme, I'll acknowledge that there may be some.
Come on, Ryan.
Okay, I'll call him a shill.
Where does he work?
He works at Univision.
What is Univision?
It's a Spanish language television network.
As such, what does he need?
It's an American network.
What does he need?
He needs an audience that speaks Spanish.
Where is he going to get that?
He's got to support massive invasions of Spanish-speaking people into this country in order to maintain a large Univision audience.
So if you're not comfortable with calling the guy an activist, call him a shill.
And if you don't want to call him an activist because it makes you uncomfortable, then say, okay, he's a businessman.
And he knows he needs Spanish-speaking audience.
And he's not going to get that unless there is an ongoing invasion of Spanish-speaking people getting into the country.
For me, I think he could be a little bit of both.
I don't think there's any question of the fact that the guy's an activist.
The last thing he is is a journalist.
And by the way, what he just says there, he practically defines journalism today.
Journalism is not objectivity in any way, shape, or it is taking a stand.
Journalism has become activism.
Activism for the Democrat Party agenda in this country or the leftist agenda if you're in Venezuela or Cuba or wherever.
But journalism today has you are an adjunct of the ruling party.
You are a willing accomplice.
You are not independent anymore.
And Jorge Ramos made it clear that his purpose is to take Trump out because Trump threatens his existence.
If Trump was able to stop the invasion, then Jorge's audience is going to stop growing.
That's undeniable.
Unless he can convert this country's official language from English to Spanish, he's going to require an invasion of Spanish-speaking people for the Univision audience to grow.
Am I right?
Do I have a point or do I not?
Is it not brilliant or is it brilliant?
It's brilliant.
Whoever thought about it, besides me, is also brilliant, but I don't think anybody else has because nobody's me.
Now, we also have Jorge.
He was on with Megan Kelly last night.
I think Yep Kelly file.
We have a couple bites here.
Her question to Jorge Ramos, what he said was that you were looking for a confrontation, that you were rude to the other reporters in the room because you didn't wait your turn.
He was ready to listen to my question.
And as soon as I started telling him that it was impossible, because it's really his immigration plan is full of empty promises, that it is impossible to do what he's saying that he's going to do, he didn't like the question, and then he called on another reporter, trying to make sure that I would stop, and he told me to sit down.
But Jorge, your question wasn't a question.
Your question was a statement.
It was a statement from either a shill or a statement from an activist.
Now, the next answer from Jorge will tell you what you need to know here about him and journalists in general.
Megan Kelly said, can you understand Trump's side of it, which is that this is not the outlet I want to take these questions from because their mind's made up about me?
The problem is that he's not used to being questioned.
He doesn't like uncomfortable questions.
It happened with you.
It happened with your colleagues at Fox News.
He hates it when he's being confronted.
And we have to ask those questions.
I think, as journalists, with all due respect, I think we have to take a stand when it comes to racism, discrimination, corruption, public lies, dictatorships, and human rights.
And when he's speaking, when he's expressing those really dangerous words, we have to confirm that that's our job to ask tough questions, even if he doesn't like them.
See, whether you haven't, he said the same thing on ABC, here you go.
I think as journalists, with all due respect, we have to take a stand when it comes to racism, discrimination, corruption, public lies, dictatorship.
Jorge, 90% of the people who do what you do support those people.
That's the damn problem here.
90% of the journalism people around here support dictatorships and people and the statists and the big government crowd.
That's the problem with you people.
That's who you support.
That's who you give a wide birth to.
That's who you do not hold truth to power.
You do not challenge these people.
Trump is not any of that.
That's what's so backwards about all.
This guy stands, he defends people who are what he says Trump must be stopped from doing.
What he's really afraid of is somebody like Trump's going to come along and get rid of these statists and big government control freaks that Jorge happens to like.
Corruption, public lies?
What the hell are we talking about if not this administration, the Clinton administration before, and whoever's running MACO and of course Venezuela?
And let's not even talk about Cuba.
So there's your great model for modern journalism, Jorge Ramos.
Now moving on to CNN's new day today, Chris Cuomo interviewing Trump.
When you saw them on the show together last night, he's talking about Jorge and Megan Kelly.
When you saw him on the show together last night, did you think to yourself, why did I create these situations again?
Why did I have to bring up the Megan Kelly thing?
Why I have to go after her again?
Why did I go after Jorge Ramos?
When you're watching that, do you ask yourself, Trump, why did you do those things?
I didn't go after Jorge Ramos, first of all.
I was at a news conference, and he stands up and starts screaming like a madman.
And, you know, when they show the whole clip, everybody understands.
He was very rude.
He was very loud and obnoxious.
This guy stands up and starts screaming.
He wasn't asking a question.
He's giving a speech.
That was not a question he was asking.
I know I did the right thing, and I did take control.
Unlike Bernie Sanders, who lost his microphone with two women that got up and just took his microphone away from him like he was a baby.
I won't let that happen.
That's not what it's about.
And as far as Megan Kelly, I have nothing against Megan Kelly.
She's fine as far as I'm concerned.
I don't care.
You're right.
He said he's going to stop the bimbo tweets, by the way.
You hear that, Dawn?
Yeah.
If you can smile again, folks, Trump said he's going to stop tweeting that Megan's a bimbo.
And he's got better things to do now.
He's going to move on from that.
So that's in the past.
Everybody breathes a sigh of relief.
But he's right here.
The theme of the program yesterday, and I could make it the theme today too, is how none of these people, you know, and this is amazing because it's their business to know this.
It is striking to me how it is that so many of these people in high executive positions in both parties, in the consultancy of both parties, in the media, do not understand the relationship that Trump and his audience, supporters, what have you, have with him.
Either they are purposely ignoring and being stubborn, or they know it and don't want to admit it because they're jealous.
But the idea that they don't understand that Jorge Ramos, in everybody you watched that press conference, Jorge Ramos was the villain.
Jorge Ramos was the bad guy, and Trump was the biggest hero that these people have seen in a long time because they have desired to see somebody stand up and fire back at a journalist who's being unfair on purpose, who has an ulterior motive on purpose.
And rather than stand there politely and deal with it, Trump tells the guy to get the hell out of the room, wait his turn and come back.
And if they don't understand that being applauded, if they don't understand why people look at that and cheer, then they've got a long way to go before they're going to ever be able to put together a campaign for their candidates that's going to get them victory.
This is the most amazing thing in the world.
I'm serious.
It's amazing to me that so many people do not understand this.
Where is it written that a candidate for high office has to sit there and take a daily dose of excrement from people just because they're journalists?
Gobs and gobs and gobs of the American people are fed up with that arrangement.
And they think it's about time the excrement started flying the other way.
And with Trump, it is.
And I don't mean this in a way that's devoid of substance.
Now, I know what some people listening to me are going to be shocked.
Are you, are you really, Mr. Limbaugh, are you suggesting that this kind of disrespect for the media should be applauded and supported?
No.
I think you're missing the point that the media has not been showing Republicans and conservatives respect for our lifetimes, and we're tired of it.
This respect business goes both ways.
We're sick and tired of the first thing being asked, are you racist?
Are you sexist?
Are you bigot?
You want to apologize saying this?
Do you wish you hadn't done that?
Every first question is based on somehow we have to justify why we're even alive or why we think the way we think.
And meanwhile, the people who are destroying the country are treated as heroes.
We're fed up with it.
So it's for me, very easy to understand this linkage.
It's very easy for me to understand why Trump is engendering the support that he is.
It's based on much more than just the way he's dealing with the media, by the way.
But I'm talking specifically about people who think that Trump's behavior with Jorge Ramos should cause him trouble.
It's not going to cause him trouble.
It's causing Jorge Ramos trouble.
Jorge doesn't know it, but it's causing him trouble.
Jorge is the one who didn't look good.
Hell's Bells.
Even the New York Times TV critic had to admit that.
But it goes beyond this.
It's far deeper than just people wanting to have years and years of frustration dealt with.
Because this ends up mattering.
It matters because this type of arrangement is how we end up with despicable, destructive things like Obamacare and a horrible Iran deal and an economy that is an embarrassment for a country of this stature.
This kind of arrangement is why we have an entire Republican Party that appears to be afraid of its own shadow.
So it goes much deeper than just the way journalists are treated.
It has to do with what ends up resulting in policy because of this.
And again, I think it really, you know what it comes down to?
It comes down to the fact that there are people, both parties, especially in the Republican Party inside the Beltway, who simply do not understand the idea that people think the country's in crisis.
They really think that's a kook view.
That's Tea Party wackiness.
Country endangered, losing the country, one elect, that's silly, they think.
And therefore, they don't take people seriously who think that, who are worried about it.
And meanwhile, there have been two landslide elections in 2010 and 2014 of people showing up at the polls, desperately asking the Republican Party to save this country by stopping the advance of the Democrat agenda.
And they're not doing it.
And they then profess to not understand why somebody coming along telling them we'll stop it gets supported.
That's senseless to me.
Be back after this.
Don't go away.
Well, MSNBC might be getting serious.
They're moving Al Sharpton's show from, well, every day to Sunday.
I have a name for the Al Sharpton Sunday show, Meet the Mess.
And you put it on MSNBC right after Meet the Depressed.
Now, Dawn came in today.
She'd been out for a while.
Says she'd been indisposed and she really didn't know anything had gone on the last two or three days.
Wait till you hear this, Dawn.
This I'm sure you haven't heard.
ESP in the magazine did a long profile of a San Francisco 400 linebacker named Chris Borland from the University of Wisconsin.
He was on the way to superstardom after one season and quit.
He retired and will give away, gonna give back a portion of his $600,000 signing bonus.
He quit because of all the news about concussions.
He's not married, may be married someday, kids or whatever, wants no concussion damage as it goes on.
It's a big long profile about this.
And in the story, it was revealed that he had gone to the rookie symposium the NFL puts on in 2014 and he almost walked out when he heard some advice given to new rookies.
The advice was: now, if y'all are going to have a crew, you have got to make sure you have a fall guy in this crew.
You've got to make sure that somebody is going to be willing to go to jail for you if you're going to have a crew.
These are NFL rookies hearing this.
There's two NFL players giving them this advice.
You've got to make sure you have a fall guy.
And you assure that fall guy that you bail him out, but he's going to go to jail for you.
You understand?
If you're going to have a crew, the crew got to understand it.
You never go to jail.
They go to jail.
You've got a fall guy.
You get them out.
And the other player that was up there said, that's right, you will get them out.
The players that gave the advice were not named.
Borland said, I don't want to name the players.
I don't want to start anything here.
Well, people went to the NFL.com website and they clicked on the symposium tab and they found the video.
And it was Chris Carter of ESPN, a former player for the Minnesota Vikings, great wide receiver, supposedly mentored Randy Moss.
It was Chris Carter and Warren Sapp.
And the NFL still had the video up there.
The NFL still had that video up there for a year and a half from that symposium for rookies.
Now, if y'all are going to have a crew, make sure you got a fall guy.
Somebody willing to go to jail for you because you are the leader.
You cannot go to jail.
In fact, the almost exact quote was: if you're going to do wrong, if you're not going to do right, meaning if you're going to do illegal things, you've got to find a guy that'll take the blame for it with the assurance that he'll stay in the crew and you'll get him out, meaning you bail him out.
And Warren Sapp said, that's right, you get him out.
Well, the NFL immediately took down the video, expressed shock and outrage, and yet shock and outrage at what?
They had left it up there.
ESPN, upon learning this, then of course expressed shock and outrage and dismay that Chris Carter would ever say such a thing.
And they began a long apology and so forth and so on.
And then Chris had realizes he'd done wrong.
Chris now realizes it was wrong.
And then they went to Chris Carter.
He said, yeah, you know what?
I saw the video of myself saying that I knew that wasn't right.
I felt very bad about it.
So then they went to the reporter who knew who it was who originally reported about the symposium.
It was a guy from a Monday morning quarterback website named Robert Klemco.
And he said, well, I made a deal with the NFL that I would get access, and they asked me to keep that comment off the record.
And I made a judgment call.
I had access to 95% of what went on in this symposium if I would leave that alone.
I thought for the benefit of my readers, it's far more valuable to know 95% what went on in there than to be kicked out.
So I don't know where it is now.
I don't know what the latest on this is other than, I don't know, Chris Carter's still on the ESPN pregame show.
God, they'll have a problem with it for that deep a problem with it, but that's just one of the many things that you missed when you're indisposed.
That's right, a man.
A legend.
A way of life.
Okay, look, some more soundbites here before we head back to the back to the phones.
Jeb Bush, this was in Pensacola, Pensacola, Florida yesterday, a town hall campaign event.
And here is, this is Jeb talking about Trump.
This guy is now the frontrunner.
He should be held to account just like me.
He should be asked, as he was yesterday, how are you going to pay for it?
Why do you think this is not going to be, why don't you prove to me it's not practical?
Explain how you're going to stop all the remittances without violating people's civil liberties.
Go through these questions, and what you'll find is this guy doesn't have a plan.
He's appealing to people's angst and their anger.
Okay, so this is, I think, a great illustration of what the Republican establishment view of Trump is and his supporters.
That Trump's out there saying he's going to get rid of this, he's going to get rid of that, he's going to deport the illegals, and Jeb's, oh, yeah, yeah, how are you going to pay for this?
How are you going to make up for the civil liberties that you're violating?
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Yeah, I could go out and say that too, but I can't say it because I'm responsible.
I got to tell people how I'm going to do it.
I'm going to pay for it.
Well, why don't you ask Trump that?
Because you can't get an answer from Trump because he doesn't have an answer for it.
That's Jeb's point.
And after that event, it was at a press conference where Jeb said this.
I think people in the press ought to be treated with a little more respect and dignity.
How about that?
He was asked what he thought of the back and forth between Trump and Jorge Ramos.
And that's what I think people in the press ought to be treated with a little more respect and dignity.
How about that?
So it's clear what the Republican Party wants to be known for.
They are, folks, they are committed to that.
They are wedded to the idea that they have somehow got to disprove what they think people think of them.
And the way they're going to disprove all that, meaning Republican branding, racist, sexist, big, and homophobic, uncooperative, partisan, they've got to be uber polite, soft-spoken, and promise to work with everybody.
And they think that is going to solidify the base, and it's going to attract independence.
It's clear as a bill.
Now, back to Trump.
Reported earlier that Trump is signaling to the GOP brass that he will forego a third party run in Greenville, South Carolina.
He had an informal press event.
Reporters said there's a requirement in the South Carolina Republican Party candidates sign a pledge that they will support the eventual nominee.
Will you sign that pledge?
We have plenty of time to think about it because I think that's September 30th and there's a lot of time.
So we'll be making announcements on different things over the next couple of weeks.
So he's hedging on it now.
This report that I have is from the Huffington Puffington Post that he's told the brass that he'll forego a third-party source.
Now, I mentioned yesterday that there was a story about South Carolina.
I think the other was Virginia.
One was North Carolina and the third state, I think, was Virginia, where the Republican Party establishment in those states was going to mandate that the eventual nominee, the winner of that state, had to sign the pledge that they will not go third party.
They will support the nominee.
Now, I happen to know in North Carolina that's not true.
And I'm not sure it is true in South Carolina yet.
It could be, but I think what I read yesterday was it's something they're working toward.
But I will allow that I might have misread it.
It may already be quote on the books in South Carolina.
Another reporter said to Trump, can you talk about the event that you might be working on with Ted Cruz?
We are talking to Ted Cruz, who's a friend of mine and a good guy, about doing something very big over the next two weeks in Washington.
It'll be announced.
It's essentially a protest against the totally incompetent deal that we're making with Iran.
And by the way, even if you break it up, they're going to get $150 billion.
They're going to get hundreds of billions of dollars, even if you break it up.
And you know what I do?
I wouldn't give them the money.
I don't care what the deal.
I would not give them the money.
So that deal will be announced.
That location will be announced.
So here's Trump.
Yeah, I'm talking to Ted Cruz, a friend of mine, good guy.
Cruz is not criticizing him.
So Trump says, why should I get mad at him?
He's not ripping me.
And the same thing with Ben Carson.
Ben Carson had to rip me.
Why should I criticize Ben Carson?
So this is about the Iran deal.
And here is Jason in Bakersfield, California.
Look, I'm really glad you waited, Jason.
Thank you for your patience.
Hello.
Hey, great to speak with you, Rush.
Thanks for all the truth out there, spreading the truth, and all your great work.
Definitely appreciate you.
Thank you, sir.
You had mentioned, just speaking to a discussion you had had earlier regarding Trump and really wanting to actually be president of the United States.
And you'd had a theory, and it dawned on me, and I'd been thinking about this.
I had actually thought, if you take a look at all of the Republican candidates, you think, why on earth has not one of those candidates really stopped and taken a look at what's happening with Trump?
Why have they not said the American people are speaking?
It's in his raising polls.
And I have a theory here.
And my theory is, and here again, I'd be curious to see what you think about this.
But I truly believe that Trump is waiting for one of these Republicans to stand up and say, you know what?
Here it is.
The American people are speaking and come to Trump's side, his policies, his beliefs, maybe even with a little bit more tact.
And I truly believe that what Trump would do is once he sees that somebody's come over and he's led the pack, led the way, that Trump would actually back out and potentially endorse him.
Interesting theory.
Have no idea if that's close, if it's accurate or not, that if he finds somebody willing to carry his torch, that he get out and do it.
You know, my thought on that right now is that Trump is probably doing far better than he thought.
Braggadocio aside, I think Trump is among those who are surprised at how well he's doing.
Don't misunderstand.
I'm not saying that Trump didn't expect to do well.
His ego is such that he thinks he's going to do well at whatever he does.
I think he's probably surprised by this.
And I think now he's saying, you know, this could happen.
And I think he's starting to get serious about it.
I think it really, really, really happened.
It's quite a thing, become the leader of the free world.
So we'll see.
But I agree with you.
I'm surprised that...
Nope, I'm not going to say it.
I promised earlier I wouldn't, because I don't want to taint the natural flow of events and eventual outcomes.
I'm going to withhold this.
I appreciate the call, Jay.
There's Dan in South Padre Island, Texas, back to the phones we go.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Hi.
Well, Rush, I have a my question is about Jorge Raymond.
I don't have, I'm not going to talk about how he was handled or he wasn't handled and all that.
I don't care.
What I'm talking about is the things that he did say, even though they were statements and not questions, I suppose.
And I think it's personal between the two of them.
You cannot change the 14th Amendment.
You can't send 11 million people home.
You can't build this big old wall.
And the Latino vote is something you need.
Dan, what does the 14th Amendment have to do with it?
What's the 14th Amendment got to do with it?
Anything?
Hello?
What's the 14th Amendment got to do with anything?
I don't mean the Second Amendment.
I'm sorry.
But he wants to change the amendment, and he wants to get a whole different thing, and it's not going to work.
Wait, now, amendments, what are you specifically talking about?
He wants to change the amendment so that people who are born here cannot get citizenship.
Yeah, see, you know, this is, I understand this is something that people misunderstand.
That's not in the Constitution.
There's no, the 14th Amendment, there's nothing in the Constitution says that if you are born to an illegal immigrant in America, that you are an American citizen.
It's not there.
People think it is.
They confuse it with being born to an American citizen in America or overseas.
But there's nothing in the law, nothing in the Constitution.
There's not even a Supreme Court decision that says that if you are born to an illegal, you're an automatic citizen.
And there shouldn't be.
I mean, that's why the term anchor babies in Creek is because we're making it happen.
It happened to be an addendum to a Supreme Court decision.
It was added by Justice William Brennan.
It's not even in the Constitution.
Anyway, I got to take a break because I'm a little bit long here, but I appreciate the call, Dan.
Thanks much.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
Here's what the guy who wrote the 14th Amendment wrote a few years later.
He says, every person born within the limits of the U.S. and subject to their jurisdiction is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the U.S. This will not, of course, include persons born in the U.S. who are foreigners, who are aliens.
The 14th Amendment says the exact opposite.
That's what the guy who wrote the amendment said a few years later.
This does not, of course, include persons born in the U.S. who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors.
I mean, God, if that were true, it'd be a way to take over the country.
If that were true.
The man who authored the 14th Amendment was Senator Jacob Howard, and he wrote the above in 1866.
And yet look what people think the 14th Amendment says.
Even now, you still have candidates running around talking about it, trying to curry favor and pander to a Spanish with the 14th Amendment.
Doesn't say that if you are a foreigner or ill alien, illegal, that your kids, if born here, are citizens.
They are not.
Why would you want that anyway?
You people out there who, why in the world would you want that to be the case anyway?
That means everybody from the foreign country come here as a diplomat, stay here permanently, get diplomatic immunity, and start having kids left and right.
What would be the point if we permitted that?
Look, I know I didn't get to the Hillary sound bites.
But folks, I've told you from the get-go the woman bores me.
And I just can't bring myself to pull a trigger on the, I promise that we'll get to some tomorrow.
But they're just far more interesting things out there to me than Hillary Clinton.
I'm sorry.
And I'm not, I'm telling you what's relevant where she's concerned, and that's enough.
You know, this fall guy business, I think it's actually true in politics.
Look at all the politicians that have fall guys.
I mean, the Clintons had the McDougalls.
Jim, John, John, North Carolina, John Edwards had this guy who claimed the baby was his.
It's not just in the NFL.
Politicians have fall guys.
And the Clintons have so many fall guys.
You have to say they have fall gangs.
They had the McDougalls, and Hillary has Huma, Huma Wiener.
There's all kinds of people that take the fall for the Clintons.
Anyway, Open Line Friday tomorrow, ladies and gentlemen.
Can't wait.
Thanks so much for being with us today.
▲
Export Selection