All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 18, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:46
November 18, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 podcast.
I don't know about you folks, but I tell you what, listening to this administration talk about what's happening in the world today is like listening to the insane.
It's inexplicably insane.
From Obama to John Kerry to Luis Scutieris.
It's really insane.
It's unfathomable.
John Kerry says, well, the Charlie Hebdo attack.
We can see why that happened.
There's some reason to that one.
It's just it's it's mind boggling.
And now Obama is out.
Um calling Republicans names, being afraid of the media, being afraid of three-year-olds, being afraid of toddlers and so forth.
Greetings, anyway, great folks.
It's great to have you here.
As we've already made it to the middle of the week, hump day.
If you want to be on the program, it's 800-282-2882 in the email address, Ilrushball at EIBNet.com.
As you know, I'm a history buff.
I think there are a lot of lessons in history, and I want to share some history with you now.
I've spoken frequently in recent months about how immigration to the United States was practically it was it was it was more than curtailed, it was suspended in the early 1920s, from 1924 to 1965, we didn't have any immigration.
And I've mentioned that one of the reasons for that, you'd be amazed still at the number of people who are hearing that for the first time and don't know it.
That simply is not part of the American education curriculum, especially now.
And I know I didn't learn that in uh in school, at any level of school, but it is particularly relevant today because the left and Obama and the United Nations are all accusing the United States of these horrific acts of bigotry and inhumane treatment and behavior of people and so forth.
And they want to try to create this impression that we are reaching new depths, that the United States is sinking the new lows, and it's it's uh it's a terrible shame what's happening because of the right wing bigotry and the closed-mindedness and all of that exists in this country.
So I think it would be very useful and helpful here just to review a little history to let you know that what we propose today and what many Americans support today is actually traditionally American.
It is not new.
It is not unprecedented.
It is historical.
No immigration, 1924 to 1965.
The reason was that we had seen a flood of immigrants to the country, and we had to assimilate them.
And we took time to assimilate those who had come to America.
They wanted to be Americans, they wanted to assimilate, they did not want to establish Balkanized beachheads of their countries.
They did not forget their native cultures.
They held on to them and they they lived in in neighborhoods, but they wanted to be Americans.
They knew what being an American meant compared to where they lived and where they were from.
They wanted everything about America that they could get.
They wanted to work hard for it.
You know the drill.
But there was another reason why.
Immigration was curtailed in the early 1920s.
And would you be surprised to learn that that reason was terrorist attacks.
There were acts of terror committed in the United States, mostly from groups, the the so-called anarchist groups.
They were really mostly communists.
But for instance, September 6th, 1901, President William McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist in Buffalo, New York.
And in the early 1900s, there were a number of bombings and bombing attempts committed By these anarchists, the majority of whom were from Southern and Central and Eastern Europe.
They were part of this massive immigration that took place in the country the late 1800s into the early 1900s.
I'll give you a name.
Fernando Sacco, I'll give you another name.
Bartolomeo Vanzetti were two revolutionary terrorists who were convicted and executed in 1927 for a 1920 double murder carried out during a robbery.
Sacco and Vanzetti became a communist cause celeb for decades, liberals argued they had been wrongly convicted.
It was exactly what you get in the news today, except it happened back in the early 1920s.
And if you read books and you see movies from or about that period, anarchist bombings loom large.
We had terrorism.
It wasn't Islamic, but they were nevertheless acts of terror.
There was a group, they were known as the anarchists.
They have modern descendants to this day occupy Wall Street and so forth, all these anarchists that gather various global meetings of the United Nations around the world.
The bill, the piece of legislation that limited immigration.
The Immigration Act of 1924 was primarily aimed at further restricting the immigration of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans because those regions were seen as the hotbed for radical terrorists.
It's not like we haven't been here and done that before.
We have done exactly what is being suggested today.
We've done it before.
We have specified certain people.
We've targeted certain people for either deportation or imprisonment, or just keep them out of the country precisely because of where they came from and because of the acts committed by others who had also come from the same place.
Now the difference was back in 1924 and the early 1920s, everybody was all for it.
You didn't have any terrorist apologists.
Well, you did, you had some terrorist apologists, but they weren't anywhere near.
They certainly weren't in the White House.
And they weren't in the U.S. House of Representatives, and they weren't in governorships.
I mean, they were random, you know, Hollywood types and others.
The literary crowd.
But for the most part, my my point here is that what's happening today has precedent.
What's happening today is not the United States descending to new depths, never before plundered.
One other thing that you might be shocked to learn, ladies and gentlemen.
President Obama, in one of his many harangues, you know, Trump put a message out on Instagram that said, you know, it's it's really scary and it's really dangerous.
Our president is insane.
Okay, Ditto Camp, sorry, I thought I had it on, it was off.
The Ditto Cam is now on, but I can't turn it back on when it was off because it was off.
There's no way it was a glit, it was not a glitch.
I forgot to turn it on.
So it's on now.
Obama's out there, I mean, defending acts of terror, downplaying acts of terror, and being hypercritical, and he doesn't need, by the way, when he starts in on Republicans and conservatives, either generically or by name, he doesn't need a teleprompter.
Have you noticed?
He doesn't need cue cards because that's when he's speaking from the heart.
I have told you over and over again that Obama and many like him, the Democrat Party and the left, we represent their greatest threat.
In their eyes, we are far more dangerous to them.
We pose a greater threat to them than ISIS or any other terror group, because we are trying to take their power away.
We are trying to stop them.
Do not doubt me.
When Obama gets on these tirades and they have been tyrannical and they've been juvenile, and even some Democrats are starting to get worried about it, according to the drive-by media.
Now, for example, in his latest rip at Senator Ted Cruz and others opposed to his insistence on continuing to import thousands of Muslim refugees from Syria.
Hey, by the way, can I ask a question about that?
We're vetting them, right?
Well, that's what they tell us.
We have an exhaustive uh vetting process.
Right, it takes up to two years.
And we got biometrics and who knows whatever else that we use, magic and technology.
But we've got, we've got, we've got the greatest, we we, I mean, we we're really doing it.
I mean, we re we really vetting these people, right?
Well, would somebody tell me what are the deal breakers?
With our extensive and exhaustive vetting of refugees, what do they have to do to be rejected?
Well, that's a it's a legitimate question, isn't it?
Are they just being rubber stamped?
Are any rejected?
I want to know what deals end up being broken.
What are the things that they do?
What are the things that we can find out about them that would say, uh uh uh?
No way Sahib, you not getting in today.
Have you ever asked yourself that question?
You wait a minute.
See, you would assume if they have any terrorist ties they wouldn't get in.
I don't want to assume anything.
What if they had terrorist ties, but only because they were mad at the picture some Abu Ghraib, do we let them in?
What if they had terrorist ties because they were upset and made medily deranged by George W. Bush?
That same thing happened to a lot of Democrats.
Would that be a deal breaker?
Or would we welcome them in as like-minded?
No, no, no, no, no.
I'm serious.
What are the deal breakers?
What has to be said, what has to happen, what has to be discovered for a refugee to be rejected.
I haven't seen that anywhere.
I would just like to know.
Anyway, Obama's latest diatribe against Senator Cruz and other Americans opposed to his insistence on continuing to import thousands of Muslim refugees from Syria.
He said, When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who's fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, that's shameful.
That's not American.
That's not who we are.
We don't have religious tests to our compassion.
And I would venture to say that virtually everybody who hears him say that probably has to nod their head in agreement.
Yeah, yeah, that's probably right.
Except you'd all be wrong.
My friend Andrew McCarthy, National Review Online.
Under federal law, the executive branch of the United States of America is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum.
Under the provision governing asylum, section 1158 of Title VIII U.S. Code, an alien applying for admission, quote, must establish that religion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.
We damn well ask them about religion.
We damn well do decide who gets in and who does not based on aspects of religion.
And it is in the federal statutes.
Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a refugee, as defined by federal law.
That definition also requires the executive branch to take into account the aliens' religion.
Quote.
The term refugee means a any person who's outside any country of such person's nationality and who is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of religion.
Well, how can we confirm any of those claims if we don't know what their religion Is we have to ask them.
It's in federal law.
There are religious tests and requirements throughout United States law.
President Obama doesn't know what he's talking about.
President Obama is pontificating from liberal feel-good bromides.
He's projecting bigotry and racism and all these other things because he is a leftist radical and assumes that everybody opposing him is a bigot, a racist, or what have you.
And he dares to tell some of the most devout and religious people of this country that they are bigots and unqualified, and that they are shameful.
This country has a record of looking out for itself.
This country has statute after statute, historical event after historical event, precedent after precedent.
This country has never ever just opened the doors to anyone on the basis of humanity or compassion and said, come on in.
Never.
Another first brought to us by Obama.
That's what he now wants to do.
While claiming that people opposed to it are a new kind of American, despicable racist, zingoistic.
All of these negatives that they attach to Neanderthals is the impression of Obama is trying to leave.
So the law requires a religious test.
And the reason for the religious test is obvious.
Asylum law is not a reflection of the incumbent president's personal sense of compassion.
No matter who that president is, we do not base any of this law on compassion.
Asylum is a discretionary national act of compassion directed by law, not whim, to address persecution.
Nowhere does the law say we must put ourselves at risk in order to exercise this compassion.
Nowhere does it say anywhere in affair in American statutory law or an American president that we must throw our values overboard in order to be compassionate or to satisfy the whims of a dubiously and questionably all there president of the United States.
There is no right to emigrate to the United States of America.
Therefore, us, we maintaining our standards as established by law, protecting our national security and sovereignty.
We are not violating anybody's rights by standing up for our own.
We are not violating anybody's freedom, rights, or otherwise by acting in a way as to defend and protect the people of this country and the Constitution.
The fact that someone might come from a country or territory ravaged by war does not by itself qualify one as an asylum candidate.
If it did, we would be overrun already because war is never over.
War is a staple in a world governed by the aggressive use of force.
We will be back.
Don't go away.
And there's another argument that's percolating out there that I'm going to nuke as well.
And here it is articulated by well-known racist Luis Gutierrez, Democrat, Illinois.
He's on the floor of the House yesterday.
This is despicable and cowardly and precisely the kind of reaction ISIS wanted.
ISIS could not have written a better script.
The free people of the world are turning their backs on people seeking safety and freedom.
When we send Jews back to Germany and when we send Japanese to internment camps, we regretted it.
And we will regret this as well.
They cannot actually stop refugees from resettling in their states.
And they know it.
How sad.
Instead, they have instructed state agency not to assist people fleeing terror.
We are a better country than that.
So we're all bigots, folks.
According to Luis Gutierrez, we are all bigots because we are wary of an unstemmed flow of Syrian refugees.
And the latest attempt being employed by people like Gutieris here is to equate this with what we did with the Jews in World War II.
They made a movie of this, by the way.
I saw the movie, and I was too young, didn't know what it was.
It was the most boring movies I'd ever seen.
It was called The Last Chip.
I didn't know what it was about.
I didn't have any historical concept or knowledge at the time I saw the movie.
But it was popularized.
But it's time to nuke this too, folks.
I mean, these people are coming at us with arguments that are they're just hanging curveballs.
So sit tight.
We'll take a swing here.
We get back.
That's right, a man, a legend, a way of life.
Look, uh, folks, this this whole argument that we're being mean-spirited, inhumane, no compassion.
And that ISIS is loving this.
This is exactly what ISIS wants.
ISIS is trying to demonstrate that we are the world's bad guy, according to Luis Gutierrez, and that we're falling for an ISIS trap by opposing these refugees.
You know, we're not the Republican Party here and fall for stupid tricks like this.
This is just that is one of the most pathetic attempts at intimidation, bullying, or persuasion I've encountered.
That by protecting the country, engaging in national security concerns, determining who gets in the country and who doesn't, we are doing the work of ISIS.
Somehow we end up on a scale, a bigger threat and more immoral than ISIS, according to Luis Gutierrez and Obama and the Democrats.
What percentage of Syria is Christian?
Do you know?
I will tell you it's 10%.
10%.
We have let in 2.4% of all these refugees from Syria, 2.4% are Christian.
90% of Syria, well, 70% of Syria is Muslim.
Doesn't sound like we're being too discriminating to me, unless you want to talk about discrimination against Christians.
We're letting in Syrian refugees left and right.
Obama wants to ramp it up with 10,000.
He wants to make it a hundred thousand.
He wants no end to it.
Then you go to the southern border and add up what's happening there, and you find out this is not about compassion.
Just so happens the Hispanic votes 80% Democrats, so's the Muslim vote in America.
80%.
They don't care what happens to the country as long as they're running it because they don't think any of this is ever going to end up being in their neighborhood.
Sad but true.
The French.
They've been tolerant as all get out.
Look what happened.
ISIS loved them.
Is ISIS appreciative of all the tolerance the French have engaged in over the years and the rest of the countries in Europe.
Seems to me ISIS is mounting attacks in these places that have been overabundantly tolerant, Mr. Gutierrez.
It seems like these European countries have set themselves up.
They thought they were being nice guys, and they thought they were demonstrating they were being nice guys, and they thought they were demonstrating their tolerant, and they thought they were buying insurance against any terrorist attack.
And look what's happening, Mr. Gutieris.
You can try this rigmarole bullying on us, but remember we're not the Republican Party here.
We're not going to fall for these kinds of tactics designed to get us to shut up or agree with you.
Back to the audio sound bites.
No, no, no, I haven't forgotten.
This argument about we that that it's no different than what we did with the Jews in World War II or the Japanese.
That's got to be swatted down.
I'm going to do it.
Hang in there, be tough.
By the way, just so you know, a half hour before the program started, I didn't know I was going to be doing any of this that I've done since the program began.
But events dictate what happens here.
A bunch of lies and a bunch of distortions Out there.
This historical perspective on America, I thought was quite necessary.
And also to inform you that there is a religious test.
There are many religious tests in refugee law in this country.
There's nothing new going on here.
There's no new bigotry or racism or anti-this or anti that.
There's nothing unprecedented happening here other than Obama.
Obama is what's unprecedented.
The Democrat Party is what's unprecedented.
Transforming the country, doing damage to the country.
That is what everybody's concern ought to be, not those trying to protect it.
Here is Obama.
Last night in Manila.
He had a joint press conference with uh Benino Aquino.
And during a QA, reporters said, would you care to comment at all on some of the discussion back at home about allowing Syrian refugees into the U.S.?
There have been some lawmakers talking about closing our borders to them.
Apparently they're scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion.
First they were worried about the press being too tough on them during debates.
Now they're worried about three-year-old orphans.
That doesn't sound very tough to me.
They've been playing on fear in order to try to score political points.
or to advance their campaigns.
And it's irresponsible.
And it's contrary to who we are.
And it needs to stop, because the world is watching.
It's not contrary to who we are.
What is this three-year-old orphan stuff?
Folks, you know, this is childish.
This is a petulant, childish man child who's having trouble getting his way without opposition.
Opposition offends him.
How dare anybody oppose him?
There are real concerns, and we see them on television every day.
We are living daily fear.
The media, if there is no terror attack during the day, the media's got everybody in a crisis mode on something else.
Every day, everybody keyed up, there's a crisis of something happening that is threatening our health, our lives, our existence somehow.
Every day in the news, and here comes a real life terror event, which is predictable.
There will be more, and Obama impugns those who react to them.
This is childish.
This is childish.
Contrast this to the president of France, Francois Hollande.
He rallied his people.
He tried to unify his people.
He told the people of France they were going to go find who did this and take them out.
They were not going to be tolerant of this at all.
Compare this to Barack Obama.
And once again, he gets all jazzed when he has a chance to attack Republicans.
He doesn't need to cue cards, he doesn't need a teleprompter.
At first they were too scared of the press being too tough on them in the debates.
Now they're scared of three-year-old orphans.
That doesn't seem so tough to me.
Men make up 72% of the refugees fleeing the Middle East by crossing a Mediterranean Sea into Europe.
That's United Nations numbers.
72% are men, military-age, able-bodied men, not three-year-old orphans.
And, of course, the debate.
Republicans weren't afraid of anybody.
They were fed up and finally took the debate moderators out.
Long overdue.
But, hang on.
Last night, PBS Frontline...
They played an episode entitled ISIS in Afghanistan.
And here's a little portion of the program.
Actually, two sound bites from it.
Looking at the training of children in jihad.
And you will hear an unidentified narrator and journalist in this piece.
That's the voices that you hear.
First of two soundbites are ready.
The fighters tell Najibullah they receive propaganda videos directly from ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
They say they show the videos to the village children every day.
They said they should learn, they should know from now.
And it's normal for them.
You mean they're teaching these young three-year-old orphans and five-year-old kids jihad.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen.
PBS frontline inadvertently.
I'm sure they didn't mean to undercut dear Obama.
ISIS in Afghanistan, how to raise young children in the jihad.
Right on the heels of Obama.
Those Republicans, for three-year-old orphans.
Oh man, really tough.
That'll embarrass me.
I'm very afraid of three year old orphans.
And here's the next soundbite.
This is an ISIS military school for children somewhere in the Middle East.
All these videos, they're just telling them how to kill people, how to behave, and how to become suicide bombers.
And their main thing is to kill infants.
This is their and they clearly telling this is in Quran.
So what that child believes.
What's he think?
You think yes, I'm Muslim, and he's telling me the truth.
When I saw these young children, I was really, really upset, really sad.
These children who learn how to kill people, how to do jihad, how to behate, how to fire?
I was thinking maybe the war will never end.
Never.
It'll never end because ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force.
Anyway, so here you have it.
PBS front line last night, ISIS and Afghanistan inadvertently doing a feature on how young children are taught to engage in jihad.
They are taught to practice beheading, killing.
Suicide bomber techniques.
How to kill infidels, young children, watching videos, rehearsing, copying, practicing what they've seen.
You know, the Sonarov family were refugees, a mother and her children.
Look what they did.
And they passed the screening, by the way.
Jokar Sanarov was ten years old when he was admitted to the U.S. as a refugee.
I wonder if he saw any videos.
I wonder where he learned jihad, folks.
Wonder where he learned terrorist activity.
You think his mother might have taught him?
Think she might have shown him videos.
Or was he inspired by ISIS?
Was he inspired by Al-Qaeda?
Or was he mad that we started Club Gitmore, mad that we had uh photos taken of Abu Grab.
I'm telling you, Obama has become dangerous.
Yeah, well, too scared of the press, now they're scared of three-year-old orphans.
Where do you think the modern-day 1920-year-old terrorist comes from, Mr. President?
How about these three-year-old orphans, five-year-old orphans, whoever children that might be entering America.
And they end up learning how to become advocates and practitioners of jihad while on the American welfare system.
It's not irrational to oppose that.
It's not irrational want to shut that down.
Folks, keep your heads up and don't buy any of this stuff.
You are not even close to what the president or the media, any of his other allies are attempting to accuse you of.
There is precedent for every instinctive attitude you've got.
Our instinct is right on the money with all this.
We know this isn't right.
We know this isn't sensible.
We are not a nation of bigots.
We are not a nation of racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes, or what have you.
As far as Barack Obama is concerned, you and me and every other Republican conservative is a bigger reprobate, a bigger threat than ISIS.
And that, sadly, is not even arguable.
We'll be back after this.
Don't go away.
Let me grab a quick phone call before going back and attempting to deal with this latest allegation that we're about like the Eries makes that we're about to replicate the sins and we committed against the Jews and the Japanese in World War II.
Here's Victoria Kingsford, Michigan.
Victoria, thank you for calling.
It's great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hi, Russ.
Um, okay, so my problem is that I'm a liberal, but when I hear things like the Republicans don't care about the Syrian refugees, and they're not compassionate and all this stuff.
I feel like I'm really suspicious of whether or not these people really actually care about the Syrian refugees.
Because calling names and making accusations that are just completely unfounded, um, doesn't do anything to further the conversation.
It doesn't do anything to help us figure out how to help these people.
You know, it's just making enemies of Republicans.
You know, Vic Victoria, I have to I have to applaud you here.
You have uh chosen to look at this in a in a very, very reasonable way.
What you're essentially doing, folks, what she's essentially asking yourself is how in the world does this become political?
How in the world do they turn this in?
I mean, how is this another issue where I have to sit here as a liberal and listen to what the Democrats say a bunch of Republicans are?
That's basically what you're asking yourself, right?
So you got to refugee problem.
Why are my people calling these Republicans names again?
The same thing on the war on women, the same thing on the budget, the same thing on taxes, the same thing in any issue, it's the same litany of complaints, and you're thinking, wait a minute now.
This doesn't jive.
It's not making sense to you.
Really?
That's that's that's quite forthcoming of you, Victoria.
I applaud you.
Well, thank you.
I just find it hard to believe that my dad and all of these good people that I know don't care about, they're not just as brokenhearted as I am about all of these people.
Well, what do you think should be done?
You admit you you say you're a liberal.
Um I I I could ask you some leading questions, but I don't want to do that.
What do you what do you think uh needs to be done?
Do you do you Yeah, I'll I'll leave it at that.
Let's not get any more confusing in that for now.
What do you think should be done?
Well, I understand that I tend to be too trusty and too so I want to just like let's bring them all here.
Let's just, you know, we'll take care of them, we'll protect them.
I understand that that gets me in trouble.
It's gotten me in trouble in my life before.
So I know that that's not just the answer, just to, you know, let uh all the straight cats in and let you know what I mean?
But so I feel like maybe there's some there's places that we can like.
See, this is this is interesting.
You so you have your father and some people you know are conservative Republicans, and you're listening to Obama and the other Democrats tell you that people you know have no heart, have no compassion, they're mean-spirited, cowards, bigots, whatever, and you know that they're not, and it bothers you.
You don't quite understand why, but you know it bothers you.
Your instinct, because of your humanity, is say, come on in, there's suffering, we've got to take them in.
But yet you know somewhere you know we can't.
We can't we can't take the world here.
There is no right to immigrate.
We just can't accept every human being suffering in this world in the United States.
You know that's not the solution to suffering in the world.
You may not know what the answer is, but you know that that's not the solution.
Yeah.
You ask yourself, by the way, and I bet you don't, there's no wrong answer here, Victoria.
I'm just querying you.
Do you ask yourself ever, where did this all start?
Why are we all of a sudden out of nowhere, all of a sudden dealing with all these refugees all over Europe and now in the United States?
Why?
How?
Where did this come from?
Do you ever ask yourself that?
Yeah, I don't see why it didn't happen before with like even the first war in Iraq, you know.
Well, let me help you.
Because you identified it with your very first observation, and that is it's politics.
You will go a long way to understanding, I mean you admitted liberal, and I appreciate your you're the first in a long time that's not started calling me names inside of 30 seconds.
We've had a really nice conversation here.
But if you could just you watch this stuff, you observe it as you consume the news, if you could understand that everything you're watching, everything you're consuming that you hear in the American media is political in nature and is being reported to you because of the political opportunity the issue has.
So what's the political Opportunity for all of these Syrian refugees.
Why is it that every Democrat well, not every in this game, why is it so many Democrats don't even want to ask questions?
Don't even care to find out who they are.
They just want them here.
That's what you need to be asking, Victoria.
You ask that question yourself, if you spend enough time to answer it, the answer is political.
It's not humanitarian.
It's not rooted in compassion.
The answer is politics.
Folks, the way the Democrats are talking about this and going on, you know what this is?
It's gonna be one of those days, one of these issues.
On the day after the election, 2016, the media is gonna say, I wonder why the Democrats lost so big.
And they're gonna go back and maybe consider this.
▲
Export Selection