All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 13, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:22
November 13, 2015, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, here's the Reuters five-day rolling presidential poll.
I'm pretty sure it does not include anything that happened last night.
But Trump is way up.
I mean, my memory is in his way up 34% for Trump in the Reuters five-day rolling poll.
Ben Carson at 19.6.
Carson's been in the 20s.
Rubio's at 9.
Somebody's at 7.
Cruz is at 7.7.
Jeb, you can't see him here in this poll.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
But I misread a comma for a period.
Rubio's at 9.7.
Cruz at 7.7. And all the others are...
Kasich, imagine that.
Who can believe that?
Kasich down there below 7.
Jeb below 7.
It's Open Line Friday.
We're back at it.
Great to have you, my friends.
Rush Limbaugh, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Doing what I was born to do.
And I have the added benefit, most days, of thinking it matters.
I could be totally wrong about that, but I think it matters.
At least it is a blessing and a godsend to have the chance.
Believe you me, I just got an interesting email.
You know, Russia doing great with your children's books.
And we are, and that's because of you, the latest Rush Revere in the Star Spangled Banner.
Four books, two years, readers in the age group of 8 to 10, 8 to 12.
Truth about American history.
Try to counter.
In fact, the purpose of these books is to counter the kind of stuff that's taught that makes these college students do and think what they think.
That's what we're up against.
That's exactly what the Rush Revere series is about, is trying to stop young people from learning and believing the kind of things that we see on display.
You know, way too many college campaign today.
But the note from the friend says, you know what, there's a lot of adults out there that you missed.
They're 25 to 35.
They were poisoned and polluted by the same curriculum that their kids are now being poisoned by.
You need to do some seminars for them.
You need to tell them the same stuff you tell your audience here, the same stuff that you're trying to tell these kids in the children's books, because you've got a bunch of 30, 35-year-olds who are just like these college campus kids who think the deck's stacked, who think it's unfair, who think that it's uncomfortable, it's unsafe.
And that's probably a good point.
Anyway, just interesting little tidbit.
As I say, I'm trying to say so much more than I have time for here, folks.
That's why I'm going like a bat out of hill here.
I've got to slow this down just a little bit.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program, it's Open Line Friday, which means there are very few boundaries limiting you and what you can discuss.
I mentioned earlier, let's move to the college campus aspect to this.
Well, one thing.
Let me go back to this Reuters rolling average poll.
And again, I'm pretty confident it was published today.
It can't include people who were paying attention to what happened in the news last night, such as Trump on CNN or Trump at Fort Dodge, Iowa.
So the number does not include the latest fireworks, is the point.
But again, it's Trump at 34%.
This is nationwide.
Carson, 19.6.
Rubio, 9.7, Cruz, 7.7, and everybody else, honorable mention.
Now, even despite, even despite not including the Trump tirade from last night, Trump still goes up.
And there are things that happen, like a lot of people thought Trump was a non-entity in the debate.
He really wasn't there.
He certainly wasn't the fiery, dominating Trump that everybody's gotten to know.
And so some speculated that, well, maybe that means Trump's getting bored or maybe just less excitement in general.
It's when I came in and reminded everybody, don't judge it that way.
Debates do not make candidates.
Debate can break somebody.
But a debate format, so many people on stage, Trump is not where he is because of how he's done in the debates.
Because arguably, if all people knew of Trump was what he has said in the debates, he probably wouldn't be leading the pack.
It's all these other things, his opening announcement, his campaign appearances.
And this is not to disparage the debates.
It's just keep them in mind and give them proper weight when you analyze their role.
There's also the other adage that you can't be hurt by what you don't say.
And it's really true.
You can be hurt by what you do say, but you can't be hurt by what you don't say.
I mean, unless.
I mean, I can think of exceptions to that, but as a general rule, with very few exceptions, that happens to be true.
So what explains Trump continuing to rise when it appears the excitement has waned or peaked or what have you?
And I'm telling you what I think it is.
I think it's this immigration issue.
I think the establishment, I think everybody in the media continues to miss this.
Clearly, the Republican establishment candidates miss it.
The donors, of course, miss it.
But I think in general, most people analyzing this, either the professionals in the media, the professional political scientists, they know it's a big issue.
I don't think they understand how deep it goes.
And I really don't think they have the slightest idea and ability to understand it in the way Ted Cruz was talking about it.
The pro-amnesty crowd is made up of a lot of different people with a lot of different interests.
On the Republican donor side, you've got cheap labor.
May as well admit it.
On the Democrat side, you've got future Democrat voters, voter registration, permanent underclass, more dependents, a way to grow government, so forth.
You've got all that.
And then also on the left, you have people who really think that by supporting amnesty and endless immigration, they're showing how big their hearts are.
Oh, yes.
It's a compassion issue.
And civil rights.
These are all people of color.
And some would say that they have been damaged in the past by the imperialism of the U.S. That we've stolen all the goods and resources on the planet.
We've taken it for ourselves and we've left them with nothing in their homelands and blah, blah, blah.
And so we owe them.
They deserve to be paid back.
So that's the compassion, and that's the civil rights side.
So here comes Cruz.
This isn't about civil rights.
This is about anything, but economics.
The American people are being creamed economically with this issue.
The American people are seeing their wages stagnate, their jobs vanish, and it's happening on purpose.
And if you want to have compassion, if you want to call this a compassion issue, the compassion needs to be for the 94 million Americans who are not working.
And you cannot erase illegal immigration from that equation.
And one other thing, you know, Trump's making some inroads or some noise, I should say, with his immigration proposal.
And his immigration proposal involves humane deportation and all of that.
There's a great, great piece today, investors business daily.
And it just, it makes a point that we've all made.
I'm sure you have said this to your friends during the times you've discussed this.
I know that I have made this point over and over again.
And one of the things everybody's worried about here is Trump's fence.
And they don't think the fence can be built.
They certainly don't think Mexico is going to pay for the fence.
I think the fence is unsightly.
It's not something a superpower does.
Senator Ted Cruz pointed to a 2006 law requiring 700 miles of double layer border fencing.
Unfortunately, in 2007, another Texas Republican helped the Democrat Congress change that.
Presidential candidate Ted Cruz told Fox News, existing federal law is quite robust on border security.
We already should have 700 miles of double layer fencing built along the southern border.
It's already the law of the land.
The Obama administration has about 30 miles built.
But Cruz said, if I'm elected president, we'll build it.
What's missing is the presidential will to get it done.
Look, the point of this is, and I think if we don't say it repeatedly, people will forget it.
And I'm going to repeat, you've said it over and over to people in the heat of debate.
I have said it to you.
We don't need any new immigration law.
We've got everything we need already.
The law is there.
It just isn't being enforced.
And I think that's something I don't care who it is, Trump, Carson, I don't Cruz, whoever it is on the Republican side, because this issue is the issue that's going to determine the Republican primary winner.
I think Trump's position on immigration gives him an insurance policy against such tirades as he engaged in last night.
Certainly it gave him insurance against his attack on McCain and all these other things.
I mean, there's a reason Trump is not fading, folks.
And it's a reason I am convinced that is found in substance.
It's not because he's a TV reality star.
It's not because he's an entertainer.
It's not because he's a strange-looking oddity with his hair or what have you.
It's none of the surface things that Trump detractors in the Democrat establishment, Republican establishment would like you to believe.
They want as many people as possible to believe that Trump's candidacy is surreal, that it's based on superfluous things that don't have any meaning.
And because of that, his candidacy is eventually going to implode.
And they're all missing it.
Some of that may be wishful thinking.
Trump's where he is because he has never wavered on what he intends to do regarding this issue.
But there's an unspoken aspect to pointing out the simple reality that to solve the illegal immigration problem, all we need to do is to enforce existing law.
And to show you how tough it is, Arizona got no help from the feds enforcing immigration law in the border there.
So they created their own state laws that basically mirrored federal law.
And they were told by a federal judge, sorry, you can't do that.
And Arizona said, well, we have no choice.
The feds are not enforcing the law.
We are going.
Well, you can't write your own.
It's a federal issue.
You have nothing to say about it.
We don't need anything more from Congress.
We don't need any more spending.
We don't need any more legislation.
We don't need any more appropriation.
We don't need, it's all there.
The legislation to build a fence, eight years old.
The legislation that defines who's legal and illegal has been around a long time.
We don't need anything else.
So how do you enforce existing law?
Well, the first thing you have to do is be willing to.
But my point is that the very act of beginning to enforce the law will result in what, Mr. Snirdley, self-deportation.
Which means that we will not need a separate deportation law.
We already have that too.
The deportation aspects of illegal immigration law are already on the books.
We don't need anything new.
And you don't realize how true this is of most everything else.
We don't need new welfare laws.
We don't need new entitlements.
They're covered.
All we're doing is creating redundancy, by the way, on purpose.
You crack down hard on businesses who hire illegals.
You crack down hard.
You make sure you find every employer who's hiring illegals and you punish the employer.
And you make it sure you make it known that every employer is going to take the hit.
The law is going to be enforced.
And there won't be any jobs for illegal immigrants.
And if there aren't any jobs, some of them will leave.
Some of them will not come.
If you enforce the border, if you enforce laws that already exist describing who can and cannot cross the border and how, well, it speaks for itself.
If you build the fence, which is already authorized.
And the fence is standing.
It exists and it's standing there.
It's another element that sends a message.
So far, we haven't had to go about rounding anybody up and deporting them.
And who says we have to do this inside of a year anyway?
Who gets to arbitrarily throw that into the argument?
I think I saw the other day.
I forget the exact numbers, but many illegal immigrants who are here just go back and forth.
They take money back home, visit their families, and they come back.
Sort of like a shuttle.
If you build a fence that's already authorized, and by the way, you can talk all day long you want about inhumanist and inhumane.
U.S. Congress has already done all of this.
Democrat congresses, Republican Congresses, all of these mean laws, they're already on the books.
And they've already been signed by whoever happened to be president at the time.
Have the wall.
You make sure every employer hiring illegals is penalized.
You'll cut off the jobs.
You'll end up having self-deportation right there.
But the big point is, we already have every tool at our disposal.
And the real point is, look at all the law, all the statutory law that we have that's being ignored and unenforced.
And that is the problem.
Not that we're incompassionate, which is not really a word.
Not that we're lacking in compassion.
Not that we're mean-spirited.
Not that we're racists.
Anyway, quick timeout.
Be back with much more as we roll here on the EIB network.
Back to the phones.
It's Open Line Friday, and this is Rich in White Plains, New York.
It's great to have you, sir.
How are you?
Rush, thanks for taking my call.
And you're absolutely right.
The only thing that's keeping me drawn to Donald Trump is his position on illegal immigration.
And somewhere, Tom Tancredo is asking himself, what did I do wrong?
But I'm getting a little tired of his rhetoric.
And in particular, in the beginning when Mr. Trump was attacking, he would say that I'm a counterpuncher and I only attack people who attack me.
But lately, I don't recall Rubio, Cruz, or Ben Carson doing any attacking to Mr. Trump, and here he is punching away at them.
So like Ben Carson said, where I come from, they call that a lie.
Yeah, it's I'm having a tough time associating the whole idea of a pathological temper with Ben Carson.
Yeah, that's for sure.
I just, I do not see that at all.
I think Trump, you're right that he says he only punches back, but maybe he considers Carson leading in Iowa to be an attack.
Maybe he considers Carson leading in Iowa to be something he needs to punch back.
Oh, we're stretching it there, Rush.
You know, we're spinning a little on that one.
I'm not spinning anything.
I'm trying to, I'm not supporting or denouncing anything.
I'm simply explaining to you what might be the reason Trump's doing this.
I'm mystified like you are.
I don't think it's necessary.
It's not.
He's saying some pretty harsh things that I think he's doing himself a disservice.
Well, I know it seems that way.
But did the Democrats get hurt by the way they went after Romney?
Look at all that.
I mean, look at all the veritable crap they made up about Mitt Romney.
And as Dingy Harry said when it was all over, hey, Dingi, you lied about Romney not paying his taxes.
No.
He didn't win, did he?
They don't have any scruples.
They don't care.
Winning is all it's about to them.
That may be another reason why.
A man, a legend, a way of life.
Did you know there's a Democrat debate tomorrow?
I wonder how many people do.
It's a Saturday night.
It's the least watched night of the week on television.
You know how different it used to be.
You remember All in the Family used to be on Saturday night.
All in the Family, number one rated TV show was a Saturday night show today.
And it's been this way for many, many moons.
Saturday night, that's where you, if you have to put something on the air, but you really don't care how it does, you put it on Saturday night.
The point of the Democrat debates is fulfilling the obligation to make it look like there's a contest, to make it look like the Democrat Party is still engaged in the traditional procedures of American politics, when what they really have here is a coronation.
They've already determined their nominee.
Everything else is just a sideshow.
But they can't conduct themselves that way.
So they have to do some debates.
So I think they're going to do a total of four.
Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders are livid about this.
That's why they petitioned Debbie Blabbermelle Schultz to do something about it.
But Debbie Blabbermelle Schultz can't and won't do anything about it because she's in bed with Hillary and Hillary's coronation.
So they're doing these debates and they're doing it on Saturday nights when nobody is going to watch.
Now there's another reason to do it on Saturday night too.
Despite the fact Hillary's coronated, I mean, that's the nomination.
They still have to win the general election.
And the fewer people see her, the better her odds.
You wait, if she does get the nomination, you wait and see the kind of obstacles that Democrats throw up in their effort to limit the number of presidential debates.
They aren't going to want very many of those.
And what's the max that we get anyway?
Three.
Hillary may petition for just one because she can't risk it.
They don't want to risk it.
She is in mortal danger the more she is on her own speaking.
But that's not the point.
Guess what is happening?
CBS is airing the debate.
I think, yes, CBS is airing the debate tomorrow night.
The political director at CBS is a guy named John Dickerson.
He is the guy who replaced Bob Schieffer on Slay the Nation on Sunday morning.
John Dickerson, who is moderating the Democrat debate tomorrow night, is meeting with each of the campaigns beforehand.
And we know this because it's in Politico.
Politico is trying to make big hay out of this because there's a lot of innuendo, there's a lot of follow-ups.
Moderator John Dickerson and his team met with each of the three Democrat campaigns for over an hour to discuss the major issues at play in the race, according to sources of the campaign.
This is just not done.
Anderson Cooper did not meet with any of the candidates prior to the CNN debate.
And clearly, none of the Fox or Fox business people, nor CNBC people, none of the others, none of the Republican campaigns have had pre-debate meetings with the moderators.
But the CBS moderator is having pre-debate meetings with all three, or however many there are.
It's Hillary, it's Bernie, and it's Martin.
Is there anybody else still left?
That's it, because what's his face, Webb got out of there.
Yeah, Webb and Chafee got out of there.
So it's just three of them.
CBS moderator meeting with each of the Democrats for an hour before the debate to discuss the issues.
To discuss the issues, yes.
How else are we to interpret this other than to say CBS meeting with Democrats in advance damage control?
I'm sure what's happening is they're asking, what do you not want us to talk about?
How do you want us to talk about Benghazi, Mrs. Clinton?
Do you prefer us to leave it alone?
I wouldn't be surprised if that was happening.
Would not be surprised at all if the candidates are getting veto rights.
What I don't know is, if Hillary tells Dickerson, just don't bring up Benghazi.
We've been there, we've done that.
We've had the congressional hearings, it's old news.
But Bernie Sanders says, I want you to talk about Benghazi.
I want you to ask me, but what's Dickerson do?
It tells Bernie to pound sand.
It's exactly what he does.
He tells Bernie Sanders to pound sand, and he reminds him, Bernie, you realize you're just here as a foil.
Bernie, you're just here to make it look like Hillary Clinton has to battle something to win something here.
Bernie, you realize that we're doing this on a Saturday night when nobody's going to watch it anyway.
I mean, the most coverage we're going to get of this is going to be on the Sunday shows.
Here's Stephanie in Asheville, North Carolina, as we head back to the phones on Open Line Friday.
Hi.
Hi.
What's up?
What's happening?
What's shaking?
Well, it's a beautiful day here in Asheville.
And earlier you were talking about doing what you have been born to do, and I couldn't agree more.
I'm sure your listeners all resonate with that.
We owe you a debt of gratitude and thank you for your presentation of the news every day to us.
We appreciate it.
I just wanted to make a comment about I have a knee-jerk to the news that I got from you today for the first time about the situation last night with Carson and Trump.
And what really became clear to me, and I'll just share this with you, is that both of these candidates are, you know, they're not politicians, and that is refreshing about them both.
We all appreciate that.
And they have different processes than that of the typical politician in the way they go about things.
And I think that to sort of highlight, I think the situation highlights the differences in somewhat in their processes.
I think that, and by the way, neither of them is like up on the top of my list for voting for.
So this is simply an observation and just a or just a comment.
But clearly, Ben Carson, his process is one that we all see time and time again.
His process is one of humility.
He's very humble.
And in sharing his story, he has made himself really vulnerable, is giving an honest representation of his strengths as well as his weaknesses.
And, you know, we all have strengths and weaknesses.
You know, he is clearly not afraid of the truth.
You know, you want to hide your weaknesses when you're afraid of them, when they're so big, bad, and ugly that you want to hide them.
But he's clearly not afraid of the truth.
And that's refreshing.
And I think that's one of the very attractive things about him.
But with Donald Trump attacking him in this way and especially using this guilty by association type tactic, I think is, I mean, he's attacking his character brutally.
And is really revealing something about his own character by doing so.
And also at the same time, he's being very much a typical politician.
He's using a typical political way.
Wait, let me understand what you're saying.
You think since Carson is opening himself up, if Carson is admitting what many would say are early life mistakes, vulnerabilities, that you're saying Trump is deciding to pounce because Carson's opened up and has admitted these flaws, then it's an open door for Trump to go in there and amplify them.
Absolutely.
That's what I see.
But you don't like Trump doing it.
You think it tells you more about Trump's character than Carson's?
Did I hear that?
I do.
I do.
I mean, I think that's what it is.
Okay, so then you expect this to at some point be reflected negatively for Trump, say, in future polls.
You think he might lose some support over this?
Well, he certainly has, you know, he certainly lost some of my support because of it because I see it as a personal, a very personal attack.
I think that it's sort of a desperate move.
And I really think that all the politicians that use this type of tactic, it's a desperate type move.
I don't support it.
I don't support it.
And I think that it is, that it does reveal the character of whomever it is that's using this language.
Let's conduct a little test here.
If you don't mind my doing this, and if you'll excuse me inserting myself into it, would you play along?
Sure.
I want to ask.
Well, I want to build on the fact and how you started the call.
You made it clear that you are a regular listener.
You appreciate the way I do the program.
You expressed admiration and so forth the way I present the news.
You've been here a long time.
If I began to treat callers the way Trump is going after Carson, you wouldn't like it, would you?
You would think something's wrong with me.
You would think that's not the rush I wouldn't, it'd make you nervous, would it not?
Absolutely.
And may I add to that some evidence that I would, in fact, not like it.
And I'll say this: you know, Glenn Beck, who I also respect, but he has this thing that he does and calls people up and asks them questions.
And I think that that's one of the things I always, you know, I don't listen to him as much as I listen to you by far.
And I don't really listen.
You know, I listen as often as I possibly can.
And I rejoice when I have the time to listen to you.
I'm sure it's true.
But one of the tactics that Glenn Beck uses, and I think he's a great, great guy, don't get me wrong, but this is, since we're talking about it, he will sort of capitalize on the weaknesses of some of his listeners or people that maybe he randomly calls and basically is attacking, sort of attacking people in their moment of weakness when they can't answer his silly questions.
Well, I'm unfamiliar with that.
I don't care for people attacking and capitalizing on that.
Well, but the point here is, the point what I'm trying to get at is, is that up to now, none of this has hurt Trump.
are you shaking your head at in there?
But the point is that if I were to all of a sudden start savaging people who had not savaged me, I guarantee you that a lot of people in this audience would not like it, would deem it immediately out of character.
and would begin to think something's wrong.
And if I kept it up, they'd go by.
I have no doubt.
I just wanted to put it to the test with her there.
And I think, well, she confirms some of it.
Well, that's different.
Take a liberal down.
That's issue-based.
I'm talking about this.
I don't need to further explain it.
I think everybody got the point here.
And I'm way over time.
I've got to go here.
But, Stephanie, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
You're very well spoken, especially in your compliments.
And I could thank you enough.
We'll be back after this.
Here, Joanne in Omaha.
Hi, Joanne.
Great to have you in the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hello.
It's great to talk to you.
Thank you, Bert.
I'll get right to the point.
I desperately need for you to come up with some kind of a test, a printable, maybe a two-page test or something, that will show that there's a whole lot more conservatives out there than we realize.
I mean, you're all about for the advancement of conservatism.
And I speak with my Democrat voting daughters and my son-in-laws.
And when you get right down to the nitty-gritty, there's so many issues that they lean conservative on, but they don't realize it, okay?
And if I had like a, you know, like a, you could put it out on your website, maybe a two-page printable test or something like that that wouldn't be, wouldn't have all the obvious talking points in it that would turn them off and wouldn't have a lot of liberals that really aren't liberals, and if they could just be shown that, it might open their eyes.
Okay, let's.
Exactly.
All right.
Well, it would have to, it would have to include like a like a post-test factual sheet, you know, on the questions, you know, to right.
But let me ask you a question.
There's something we have to deal with before we even get to that.
Okay.
And that is, at the end of the day, you want them to admit, oh, my God, you're right.
I'm really not that liberal.
Why don't they now?
My point, you think there are a lot of liberals out there that are not as liberal as they think, that they can be shown it.
They change their mind.
Why don't they?
What is it that makes them live their lives conservatively and probably speak conservative, but not vote that way?
What is it?
Well, for one thing, I can speak of my daughters.
They were raised in a conservative home.
They both married Democrat husbands.
They went through a liberal university, and all of a sudden their thinking process changed, okay?
But deep down, I know they still believe in a lot of those core conservative principles.
Yeah, but they're not going to vote Republican.
No, because right now they think I'm kind of whacked out and they pretty much think that.
No, they don't think you are.
But there has been such profound brand damage done that they think it would be just intolerably embarrassing if people ever knew they voted for a Republican.
Yeah, I think so.
Because they think, other people think, and they may even think it themselves, that Republicans don't like people, only care about the rich, that they're mean, that they're racist, that they don't like gay people, all of that.
That they're not against, they're not for civil rights.
You know, all this other BS.
And I think...
Because, yeah, they always throw back these talking points, you know, that I know aren't valid.
Well, but you can give them talking points.
You can prove to them until the sun goes down that they are not liberals.
But if you're never going to get them to admit, if I'm right about this, you're never going to get them to admit publicly that they're not liberal or that they are conservative Republican because of the brand damage.
My point is that has to be dealt with first.
I think that's the big obstacle.
I see it every day.
I read so much.
All it takes, all it, like Ben Carson, who is one of the finest human beings walking the planet today.
Ben Carson is one of the most honest, one of the most decent.
He's just, he is the epitome of class.
He's not dangerous.
He doesn't mean ill intent, have ill intent or desire to harm anybody.
But you mention to your average 34-year-old hipster the name Ben Carson, and they immediately think lunatic because he's a Republican black.
A black Republican has to be mentally disturbed.
And that's as far as they take it.
And the same thing with a woman who's conservative.
It's so I get what your idea is, and I like it.
And I would love to be able, we could do that.
Think about doing that as we expand and grow the website.
It's a good idea.
I got to go now, though, again, time, time, time.
Details are coming up, but this is it.
This is the last day for you to have a chance to win our latest sweepstakes.
A trip to Hawaii, five days for four people.
And if you don't want to go to Hawaii, name where else you want to go if you've been there before.
▲
Export Selection