All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 5, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
30:52
October 5, 2015, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Rush Limbaugh here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Great to have you here.
The telephone numbers 800 282-288-2 and the email address Ilrushbow at EIBNet.com.
As I mentioned earlier, and as you may have heard, nineteen people were injured, three killed, three children when uh a hospital in Afghanistan was bombed, and it apparently was one of ours.
Apparently we did it.
And I mentioned that if this had happened when George W. Bush was president, that's all you'd be hearing about right now.
And you'd be hearing about a horrible, reprehensible country we have, and military we have, and how the mission is unjust and the mission is unnecessary, and this is a classic example.
This is not who we are, Obama would say, and the Democrats and the meeting.
This is not who we do not bomb hospitals.
Blah, blah, blah.
We did be never ending.
But it's happened here.
It's happened here during this regime.
And so the White House press secretary went out there today.
And you tell me if this is the way they sounded when Bush was president.
Remember, just just to remind you.
Somebody would allege that a bunch of Marines were terrorizing Iraqi moms and kids in their homes at night.
All we had was the allegation.
John Kerry came out of his coffin and said he agreed with it, and Marines were acting as terrorists, and it was reprehensible, and it was one of the reasons why Iraq was an unjust wall and why Bush had no idea what he was doing.
And then Jack Mertha came out and he started dumping, and it turns out these Marines were found innocent, not guilty.
And there were two or three other similar examples, and yet whenever any allegation was made about atrocities committed by American military, the Democrats, somebody, maybe two or three, Hillary Clinton won it two times to come up and just start excoriating them.
Same thing had happened when the photos of the Abu Ghrab prison came out.
Okay, so now apparently we had a friendly fire hit on a hospital in Afghanistan, an American bomb or two, and there are some children deaths.
At the press briefing today, Roberta Rampton of Reuters says, Doctors Without Borders has called the hospital bombing in Afghanistan a war crime.
Is there anything you can say, Josh, about that?
Is there an accurate way to describe what happened?
This is something that continues to be under investigation.
The thing I do think warrants mentioning is that there is no country in the world and no military in the world that goes to greater lengths and places a higher premium on avoiding civilian casualties than the United States Department of Defense.
Right.
That's now.
But let's go back to August 13th, 2007.
Nashua, New Hampshire, during a campaign event.
Barack Hussein O is talking about Afghanistan.
We've got to get the job done there.
And that requires us to have enough troops that we're not just air raiding villages and killing civilians.
Right.
So that's see.
Back in 2007, we were killing civilians.
We were air raiding villages.
So we were doing it on purpose.
And we were doing it maybe due to incompetence, but we were doing it.
And we need enough troops.
We need competent leadership now.
When they're in charge, there's no military that goes to greater lengths to stop this.
Now here's the difference.
I don't know anybody that wants to jump over on our side who wants to start jumping on the military or even Obama for this.
This is one of the unfortunate things that happens.
In other words, I don't know anybody on my side who wants to politicize this.
It's a horrific thing.
It's a terrible thing, and it's it's it's unfortunately the kind of things that happen, the kind of thing that happens in wars, especially when your enemy headquarters itself in places like this.
Although I don't think that's what this was, but it does happen.
They dress up as civilians, they put their military headquarters in hospitals and schools.
But I don't know anybody on our side who wants to politicize this, the way the Democrats politicize this kind of thing constantly throughout, well, especially the last four years of Bush's term, so his second term.
And it was uh it was unbecoming then.
And as such, they're not going to get the same kind of treatment that they dished out.
Get this from Bright Bart News by Pamela Geller.
On Wednesday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced at the United Nations that her office would be working in several American cities to form what she called the Strong Cities Network, SCN.
It's a law enforcement initiative that would encompass the globe.
This amounts to nothing less than the overriding of American laws, up to and including the U.S. Constitution in favor of United Nations laws that would henceforth be implemented in the U.S. itself without any consultation of Congress at all.
In other words, what's happened here, the Obama administration of the United Nations announced a global police force to fight extremism in the U.S. So all of a sudden, the Obama administration, the UN have no trouble calling out extremism.
And guess where they found it?
Not in Syria.
No, no, they haven't found any extremism with ISIL or ISIS or however you wish to pronounce it.
They haven't really found any extremism at all in extreme Islam.
There's no such thing in Obama's world.
It's not possible.
Whoever these people that are committing atrocities claiming to be Islam or Muslim, they're not.
We can't even call them that.
But when it comes to finding extremists here, why it's all speed ahead, in conjunction with the United Nations.
And in case, you know, you you you you you want to not think there's any big deal, remember that the Obama administration's Department of Justice already controls the police departments in more than 25 cities.
They control the police department Ferguson, for example.
They control a police department in Baltimore now, and in Oakland, and in a number of what's happened is that every time there's some sort of civil unrest, the DOJ goes into action to investigate what went wrong, the atrocities committed against the ordinary average everyday citizen by the local police department.
And then they issue at some point a consent decree requiring that if these cities want to continue to receive any kind of federal aid whatsoever, they must subject themselves to federal control over the police department.
And that has happened now in 25 American cities.
So on top of that, the regime has gotten together with the United Nations to announce a global police force to fight extremism in the U.S. The groundwork is being laid for federal and international interference down to the local level.
The strong cities network said Loretta Lynch will serve as a vital tool to strengthen the capacity building and improve collaboration, i.e., local dependence on federal and international authorities.
And the DOJ put out a press release.
It says that it will aid initiatives that are working toward building social cohesion and resilience to violent extremism, building social cohesion.
What the hell is that?
Well, I will tell you, it is a euphemism for keeping peace between non-Muslim and Muslim communities.
That's what they mean.
Building social cohesion.
And the way they're going to do that is by mostly making sure that non-Muslims don't complain too loudly about rapidly expanding Muslim populations and the Islamization of their communities.
That's the extremism that is being found and targeted in the United States.
The extremism that's epitomized by people Complaining too loudly about, or maybe even working against the rapidly expanding Muslim populations and Islamization of their communities.
So in other words, the UN and the Obama administration are going to decide who the extremists are.
And they could well determine.
They could just decide randomly to call people who complain about Muslim extremism extremists.
Somebody like Pamela Geller could be labeled a domestic extremist.
And could end up being targeted but identified by this UN, U.S. coalition.
Now there's a companion story to this from the politico, and it's about this totally inept mayor of New York City.
This guy is so inept that even liberal Democrats are beside themselves over what to do with this guy.
A, he's hardly ever in town.
B, when he is, he doesn't go to work.
He's he's it's just he's an absolute walking disaster, which we all foretold.
He's nothing but a hardcore liberal, a hardcore liberal theoretician who is implementing all of this godletty gook.
He spoke at the UN too, the mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, and he said it was last Tuesday.
He said that cities can help combat violent extremism by making local residents feel included in civic life.
The mayor said the creation of New York's municipal identification card is an example of belonging.
While closing public schools to commemorate two Muslim holy days, sent a powerful message of inclusion.
He said, we have all seen what happens when parts of our cities, parts of our populations, don't feel respected.
They don't see the overt and consistent signs of respect.
You know what he's guy is such a he it he he's he's talking here about the forever put upon black community.
That's that's who he's referring to here.
But but now they're going to be uh uh they're gonna close the schools to commemorate two Muslim holy days uh in New York City, and then that's gonna send a powerful message of inclusion.
Right.
Yeah, an ID card, uh, it's it's exactly right.
Uh it's gonna have a municipal identification card is an example of belonging.
If you have one, then you belong.
You are part of the what?
The community, you are part of the club.
And if you don't have one, that means, well, it isn't good for you if you don't have one.
There is a story, this is redundant.
This is not going to be a shock to some of you, but the very fact that it appears in the Associated Press.
It's a pean to Ted Kennedy and his foresight, 1965 Immigration Act.
It was considered a symbolic move.
President IlBJ going to the Statue of Liberty and signing an immigration bill that gave people from every country in the world an equal chance to come to America.
The president himself described the legislation as less than revolutionary.
It does not affect the lives of millions, it will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or power, said LBJ during the ceremony, October 3rd, 1965.
But the new law would strengthen us in a hundred unseen ways.
And by us, LBJ meant the Democrat Party.
1965.
You know, every time I tell people this who don't know it, they are shocked.
They are literally shocked when they learn that there was no immigration in this country, essentially from 1924 to 1965.
We shut It down.
We stopped it.
There wasn't any.
And people who don't know that when they hear it can't believe it.
And then they say, why?
I said, because it was time to assimilate all those who had come.
And some people say, well, what do you mean assimilate?
Well, it was time for them to become Americans.
They came from all over the world, but primarily they came from Eastern Europe, some Western Europe, but they came from.
Let's just say Europe, and they come into a brand new place.
They wanted to be Americans.
They wanted to live in America, but they brought their identities with them.
But they wanted to be Americans.
It took a while.
It took a lot of time to assimilate these people who wanted to be assimilated.
Back in these days of immigration, that's why people came here.
They wanted to be Americans.
And there was a distinct American culture.
And they wanted to be part of it.
They wanted to prosper.
They wanted to learn English.
All of these things that were necessary to assimilate them.
So we shut down immigration.
And Ted Kennedy decided to revive it in 1965.
And everybody knows that the reason he did so was to enhance Democrat voter registration.
There's no, there's no mistake about it.
And in 65, uh, one of the reasons we did it was the fact that we hadn't had any immigration in such a long time, it was time to kick it back into gear.
And all the usual bromides and arguments were used about compassion and fairness, and there's only one place in the world you can come to approve yourself and better yourself, and this was it, and who are we to say?
No.
All of that stuff was used.
And while it was happening, LBJ and Ted Kennedy were all telling us you're never going to even notice it.
It's not going to affect America.
LBJ's quote again here.
It does not affect the lives of millions.
It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives or really add importantly to either our wealth or power.
But the new law would strengthen us in a hundred unseen ways, he said.
Fift years later, there has been dramatic change as a result of this bill.
It was actually called the Heart Seller Act, C E L L E R. A country that was almost entirely native-born in 1965, has a significant foreign-born population.
Demographic diversity is spread to every region, expanding a black and white racial paradigm into a multi-colored one.
This is the political and the AP, and they're all excited.
But here's some stats for you.
Jeff Sessions put these out.
He's the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration.
And we're going to have to go back to the next question.
And he analyzed, he and a group called the National Interest, analyzed data in a new Pew Center Immigration Survey.
And they calculated something incredible.
Under current, oops, I just saw the clock.
Under current law, between now and 2065, dot dot dot dot, be right back.
All right, folks, here is the data.
Under current law, meaning legal immigration under current law between now and 2065.
For every one American added to the population by our existing citizens, i.e.
BERF, immigration will add seven more.
That's under current law.
For every one American added to the population by our existing citizens, immigration will add seven more.
And again, that's current law.
This does not, that has nothing to do with amnesty.
It has nothing to do with any reform, comprehensive or otherwise, that would add even more illegal immigrants to the mix.
Can you say transformation of the country under existing law before Obama even does his amnesty, before Congress maybe gets together on a comprehensive immigration reform bill, just existing law.
Seven new immigrants in America for every one American added by virtue of birth.
And when you throw in amnesty and all the and and in some sense that's already begun.
You know, whether there's an official Obama amnesty bill or whether there's an official comprehensive immigration, we're doing it flooded here at the southern border still with minors.
Look at all this that's taking place and nobody's ever voted for it.
Thank you.
And as the the point has been made here that as long as the the talk remains focused on illegal immigration, you know, illegal immigration is said the sessions people, illegal immigration while major is a actually a small part of the issue.
This is stunning.
I had, I mean, I knew, but putting it in numbers like this is a sobering way to look at these numbers and facts.
Here is Sid in East Brunwick, New Jersey.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
How are you doing?
I'm doing fine, Rush.
It's a pleasure to speak with you.
Thank you, sir.
I've been a fan since I found your TV show and surfing back in the 90s.
Well, I appreciate that.
That goes back to 1992, the TV show.
That's about right.
Uh I was thinking about uh your comments about uh illegal aliens and other aliens voting.
And it seems to me that even if not one of them ever went to the poll, and I'm sure a lot of them do, they still skew our elections because they get counted in the census, and that's used to identify how many congressmen get assigned to each state.
So you get states with heavy immigration populations like California and Texas getting a whole lot more votes than states that don't get the big immigration.
Sid, you are very shrewd.
What Sid's calling about here, folks, he heard me the opening of the program.
There's a political story today, and the headline illegal immigrants could elect Hillary.
And they're fine with it.
The subheadline to the story is how non-citizens decrease Republican chances of winning the White House next year.
Hey, hey, right on, dude.
They like the story.
There doesn't seem to be a single problem with this assertion.
Now let me tell you what this story really is, because Sid hit the ball out of the park here with his with his uh assessment of what this is really all about.
In the first place, what this story really pretends to be is an argument for getting rid of the electoral college.
The Democrat Party, particularly with demographic shifts taking would love to get rid of the Electoral College.
If we didn't have the Electoral College, there would have been no George W. Bush presidency.
Al Gore would have been elected.
They have not gotten over that, and they never will get over the recount, the aftermath of that election in 2000.
They are still animated by today.
It is a significant portion of the rage and anger they carry around with them every day.
So they want to get rid of it.
So here comes a story.
Headlined illegal immigrants could elect Hillary, how non citizens decrease Republican chances of winning the White House next year.
No, the the story uh makes the point that this happens just like Sid said, even if they don't vote.
And we know that some of them do.
But even without voting, illegal aliens Do affect who gets elected president.
And that's since the Electoral College elects the president, and the states are given 80% of their electoral votes based on their population, whether they include illegals or not.
Is that what is the assessment and i that that that is how they affect uh elections.
Not just that, though, the illegal immigration affects policy.
The argument of it, even if these people don't vote, they end up having an impact on elections based on policy arguments and debates over what to do uh about them.
And it sends people going in different directions depending on how they feel about the issue.
But the real point here is that well, the politico is pretending to be concerned about this because they think it's unfair to report.
I mean, that's the joke of the story.
The political is trying to make you think they think this is all unfair to Republicans, and for that reason we need to get rid of the electoral college.
That's because even without voting, illegal aliens do affect who gets elected.
The electoral college elects the president, the states are given eighty percent of their electoral votes based on their population, whether they include illegals or uh or not.
Now I had not considered that angle.
It had never occurred to me before till I till I saw this story.
But now we know, I mean, it should have been crystal clear from the beginning, it probably has been to a lot of people, why Democrats push so hard for illegals to be counted in the census, even to the point where they use estimates to boost their numbers.
And it's uh but I just I find the whole thing fascinating fascinating in the sense that here you have a major American news organization headlining illegal immigrants could elect Hillary.
As though there's nothing odd about it, as though it's in fact cool.
Non-citizens decrease Republican chances of winning the White House next year.
Now, this is what the establishment believes.
Yes, sir, the Republican establishment believes this hook, line and sinker.
And that's why they claim the only hope we've got is to try to get some of these illegals in favor of us, whether they can vote for us or not.
We've got to show them we don't mean them any harm, so they don't go out and vote against us, agitate against us, or what have you.
And this is one of the reasons why.
Brief time out here, my friends, as the clock continues to move on, but sit tight.
There's always more when we get back, and there will be here too.
Stay there.
Jason Chavitz throws his name in the ring for house speaker.
He says that he's uh he's got fifty members of the House who say that the next speaker should not come from the leadership, which Kevin McCarthy does come for the leadership.
So Chaffetz and also Daniel Webster, Florida has thrown his hat in the rebater just announced he's going to move the leadership election, the meeting back to October 29th.
Um I don't know what significance that has.
But it as always the case, it was assumed that McCarthy was a shoe-in because he's the next in line, his leadership preference and so forth.
People are saying, wait a minute, I'm gonna make that much difference.
So Chaffetz has come along here and says exactly right.
We need somebody from outside the current leadership to take over this gig.
And that person is me.
And he raised his hand and he started campaigning for it.
And uh and Daniel Webster.
No, I don't have a I don't have a feel uh for this yet, how this is uh how this is going to go.
Here's Mike in Cordelia, California.
Welcome, sir.
Appreciate your patience.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Thank you, Russ.
And uh mega second amendment dittoes.
Thank you, sir.
Um statement on Friday after the shootings at Oregon, he declared uh that he could not do anything by himself, that he needed the support of Congress and the people.
Right.
And I seem to remember hearing that statement a couple of dozen times about immigration.
Yeah, exactly right.
He thinks he's not a dictator, the Constitution stops him and he can't do these, and then he proceeds to do them.
Well, my my question to you would be do you believe that statement?
Do you think he will stand uh by and wait for Congress or anybody else?
Oh hell no.
That those kinds of statements are just intended for the low information crowd to make them think that he's abiding by the Constitution, not overstepping his bounds while he goes out and does it.
Absolutely agreed.
Um the gentleman who wrote the article about Babe Ruth needing the bat to hit all the home runs.
Pete Hamill.
Uh the bat needs Babe as much as Babe needs the bat.
Uh uh.
Without Ruth, the bat isn't up to the battery.
Well, I know it's look at it's a it's one of these analogies that when you first hear it, you go, wow, yeah, man, really right on, dude.
Babe Ruth couldn't hit those home runs without the bat.
And you're supposed to think, and so and so couldn't have killed the kids without the gun.
But what I never heard anybody want to ban bats.
Yeah.
Uh, especially the Kansas City Royals.
I hope they go far this year.
Well, it's all going to depend on who they have throwing out ceremonial first pitch and sing the national anthem at the playoff game.
Don't you laugh about that, but but I'm telling you, when I ran that portion of the operations when they won the World Series.
Uh, you can you can laugh about it.
You can laugh about it all you want.
I do look up, seriously.
I think it's cool too.
There was you know, last year the Royals were the Cinderella story came out of nowhere.
This year they dominated from opening day.
I mean, it's been automatic they're gonna be in the playoffs.
And I'll tell you, you know, the the there's a the wildcard game between the Houston Astros and the Yankees tomorrow.
And it's at Yankee Stadium, and my time with the Royals, the Yankees were the hated rivalry from 76 all the way through 1980.
70, actually 75, but uh 76, 77, 78.
Three years in a row, the Yankees just took us to game five of the playoffs.
Heartbreaking losses every year, finally 1981.
In 1980, beat the Yankees, went on to the World Series, play the Phillies.
Um, and then '85 went back and beat the St. Louis Cardinals.
So there's some sentimental value in the Yankees.
I uh my my kind of uh I'm kind of hoping the Yankees win the wild card game tomorrow, so that the Royals Yankees playoff rivalry is reignited.
I might even go in for that.
I might even show up for that for at least a game, depending on the schedule and uh and how it all works out.
Would you get this guy on line one's number and ask him if we could call him back tomorrow?
We've got a guy up there who used to be an Obama supporter and called here, and I put his call on our website, and it ended up persuading him to change his mind.
He's uh admitting he's been duped by Obama and he wanted to confess here.
And we're just simply out of busy broadcast time for today.
I mean, I could I could squeeze him in here, but it wouldn't be nearly enough time to do it right.
So if he'll give us his number, we'll call you tomorrow and do that as part of the program.
What a rousing start to another busy broadcast week, folks.
And it's always great to have you here, and there's another one slated for tomorrow.
We will be back in a mere 21 hours.
There's going to be a lot of stuff popping.
It was kind of a slow news weekend, actually.
But it's gonna start popping here, and we'll be loaded and revved and ready to go tomorrow.
Thanks so much.
▲
Export Selection