All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 23, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
30:55
November 23, 2015, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And you are tuned to the most listened-to radio talk show in America hosted by me, Rush Limbaugh, your guiding light through times of trouble and confusion, messes, depressions, and even the good times, too.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, lrushbo at eibnet.com.
Another C, I told you so.
Remember the news last week from the Pew Research Center claiming they had data saying that more Mexicans were leaving the country than arriving.
And that it was therefore nothing to worry about anymore.
Illegal immigration, we have a net loss here, essentially, because yes, while there are a certain number of Mexicans and others arriving across the southern border, more are leaving.
And my extraordinary memory kicked into gear.
And I said, you know, it seems like I've heard this story before.
Like back in 2012, it seems like every presidential election year, I recall from recent times hearing news like this.
And that it turns out to be not true.
And it's just made up to limit the damage and kind of take the illegal immigration table down a notch or two so that it doesn't engender such turnout.
Well, right here I have data.
Daniel Horowitz at conservativereview.com, appallingly dishonest Pew study on immigration trend from Mexico.
If you want to know the depths of dishonesty and obfuscation that the liberal elite employ in order to distort the reality on any given issue, take a look at this Pew Research Report on immigration from Mexico.
Pew claims that migration from Mexico is down to such a point that there is net out migration.
That is to say, more Mexicans in America have died or gone back home than have returned or are coming.
Media outlets from The Hill and Politico to the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal are breathlessly promoting the headline of this report as if it reflected the truth of the moment.
Their broader message was, see, these right-wing nuts are going crazy about a border crisis when in reality there isn't one because we have zero net migration from Mexico.
The problem is that Pew was using old data from 2009 to 2014.
I was more right than I knew.
They were recycling the same news that they used in 2012.
They just repackaged it and updated it and they added a couple of years, taking us to 2014, making it look like they had brand new news which confirmed, but of course they didn't reference the same story they did back in 2012.
It was only my memory.
But obviously Horowitz here at the Conservative Review had the same memory jog.
And he says there is nothing new about this.
Pew has been reporting on a number of occasions that in light of the recession, a number of illegal immigrants in Mexico have gone home.
Now, the problem with this is, of course, that there isn't a recession if you listen to Obama.
If you listen to Obama and the Democrats, we're in a robust recovery.
Why, what's the unemployment rate now?
5%, 5.1%?
You listen to the regime, and they're hyping all these new jobs that have been created.
If you didn't know any better, you'd think that we're smoking.
And if you don't have a job, it's not because of anybody's fault than yours.
You're just not on the bandwagon.
You haven't gotten on the gravy train because, man, we're smoking out there.
Where are you?
Of course, that's not true.
We have 94 million Americans not working.
The unemployment rate really is 11 or 12% or maybe higher.
There is no economic recovery, and so there's no reason for Mexicans to be going home because the economy is so bad.
Except that it is bad and Mexicans aren't going home.
Every premise in this story is phony.
Pew has been reporting on a number of occasions that in light of the recession, a number of illegal immigrants in Mexico have returned home.
But guess what?
According to the most up-to-date census data based on the current population survey, the CPS, there has been a massive spike in net migration from Mexico.
It's actually up.
And everybody knows this.
Amidst news stories day after day about all the arrivals flooding the southern border, Pew wants to tell us that even with that, more are returning home, but there aren't any pictures of that.
You ever seen any pictures of Mexicans leaving?
Or not just Mexicans, any illegal immigrant leaving?
You don't see the pictures of it.
This isn't happening.
Some may be, but it's not mass like they're trying to point out here.
But the Census Bureau just nukes the Pew research-centered data.
That's right.
There's been a massive spike in net migration from Mayco since 2014, precisely after Obama and the Gang of Eight began encouraging illegal immigration in a number of ways.
The fact that 80% of illegal immigrants are now officially shielded from deportation, and most others are likely to ever, unlikely to ever encounter resistance, has clearly contributed to the surge of new migrants.
Intelligence reports based on interviews of illegal aliens bear out the growing perception that our policies incentivize illegal immigration, yet the Pew people were dishonest enough to report this data as if it reflects the current reality, even though the current trend portends a political dynamic completely the opposite of that which they are trying to implant in this media cycle.
And they'll succeed.
With the Post having picked it up and the New York Times shortly and Politico, just like this phony Trump story, it's not going to be long before ever you'll look that more Mexicans are leaving than arriving.
And there's nothing to see here, and it's any big deal.
And so you don't even need to worry about electing somebody.
It's going to deport them because they're deporting themselves.
Don't sweat it.
They're trying to take it off the table because they know it's a big turnout issue.
So it's an effort to suppress Republican turnout and a number of other things.
But as Mr. Horowitz writes here, the Pew Report actually proves every premise of the border hawks.
The fact that some illegal aliens returned home following the recession demonstrates how the false choice between amnesty and mass deportation is a straw man argument.
Mere passive economic disincentives from a recession were strong enough to entice illegal immigrants to go home.
Imagine the effects of cutting off welfare and education benefits or jobs and unqualified birthright citizenship.
This has been the point that we've been making.
You don't need to deport a whole bunch of people.
They'll go home on their own once you start enforcing current immigration law.
This is the big point I think that's overlooked in this immigration debate every time it's brought up.
There is this incessant need for Washington to do something.
We've got to do something.
It's a crisis.
We've got to do something.
We need comprehensive immigration reform.
No.
All we need to do is enforce the laws already on the books.
It's already illegal to immigrate here illegally.
Enforce every other law attached, and you won't have to deport anybody because then you really will have a net reduction in immigration.
You eliminate the reasons, you know, all of them.
Those that want to come for work, not allowed to be hired.
Those that want to come get in a safety net of the hammock, not going to have the payments for it.
It's simple.
The law is already there, or I should say the laws are already there.
And the fact that they're there and being ignored proves that all of this is nothing more than a political issue for both parties in their own ways trying to increase their own power at the ballot box.
And for the Republican side, find a way to get cheaper employees in certain kinds of work.
Anyway, I just wanted to point it out, folks, because it's just all BS.
There is not a net loss of immigrants into the United States.
They're coming here in numbers continually greater than those who are deporting.
There's a little dissension on the Democrat side about ISIS.
This is actually from late last week, although Diane Feinstein showed up again on Sunday on Face the Nation talk about it.
She is adamantly opposed to Obama's ISIS strategy because she doesn't think there is one.
She doesn't believe Obama's ISIS strategy will solve the problem, and she is through being silent about it.
John Dickerson had her on the TV on Sunday, said, look, you've been skeptical of the regime's approach to handling ISIS.
Did the briefing from Secretary Kerry make you think that that approach is sufficient to the job at the moment?
I don't think the approach is sufficient to the job.
I think there are general principles and their general principles in terms of the administration strategy, too.
But I'm concerned that we don't have the time and we don't have years.
We need to be aggressive now because ISIL is a quasi-state.
ISIL has 30,000 fighters.
It's got a civil infrastructure.
It's got funding.
It's spreading in other countries.
And it's a big, big problem.
Hey, hey, and don't forget the big news we had on Friday, folks.
ISIS now has health care.
Remember?
And ISIS also has sanitary restaurants with ISIS-regulated food inspectors so that when you go to an ISIS-run restaurant or a restaurant in an ISIS-run town, you can be confident the food is hygienic and the establishment is clean because ISIS is great.
They understand regulatory reform and regulatory systems.
And in addition to that, if you're a member of ISIS, you get health care.
And that means ISIS, they're really great and they're entrenching.
And they have become a state, for all intents and purposes, a quasi-nation state, is what she means.
And this civil infrastructure, meaning they've got sanitation.
I mean, don't even have that in half of Gaza.
They've got clean water, running water, all this stuff.
I mean, these are great guys.
They really care for their supporters, folks.
This is the message.
ISIS is a compassionate bunch of people.
The only problem you have with ISIS is if you disagree with them.
Then they'll cut your head off.
But at least they don't waterboard.
At least they haven't sunk to that depth.
They may behead you, but they won't waterboard you first.
They're not nearly as bad as George W. Bush.
Well, Dickerson then said to Die Fi, so does all that suggest that you think the regime has been too cautious about ISIS lacks a sense of urgency about them?
What I'm saying is this has gone on too long now, and it has not gotten better.
It's gotten worse.
There may be some land held by ISIL in Iraq and Syria that's been taken back.
But for all of that, there's much more they have gained in other countries.
So I think we need a specific, larger special operations plan.
One, a group of 50 is fine for what they're doing so far, but it's not going to solve the problem.
So Die Phi severing ties with the regime on how to deal with ISIS, which, according to Obama, they're just a bunch of killers with good social media skills.
I guess what he means by that is they're just a bunch of killers, but because they're so good on social media, they make themselves look bigger than they really are.
Because he said they're still the JV team.
And he's still maintaining that they're contained.
I mean, he's living in full denial over this as he continues to rely on the drive-bys to promote whatever position he takes.
Back to the phone, Shigota Paul.
It's in Raleigh, North Carolina.
It's great to have you, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
I loved your interview there with Chris Wallace, especially with the cigar in the backdrop.
But my question is: when do you think we'll see the ratings from your appearance?
I haven't watched Chris Wallace on the Fox News Sunday show in years.
I actually, I don't know.
You know, there's something interesting happening with TV ratings.
This is something I saw sometime over the weekend.
Because there has been so much time shifting and there's so much viewing now via streaming and more and more people not actually watching television, which is how TV ratings are checked.
1,1,200 people have black boxes on their TVs and they get metered, they get measured.
Supposedly, Nielsen and others, well, not Nielsen, but some of the cable companies and others are backing out of this because they don't think the numbers are realistic anymore.
And everybody's trying to come up with a new system designed to measure accurately viewing because they don't think they can do it in one night anymore.
It used to be overnights consisted of, the ratings consisted of two phases.
You'd have the overnights, which would be the top 20 markets, and then they'd do the whole nation later that same day or the next day, and then they'd give you the report.
And the overnights are in pressure, under pressure now, because there may not be enough data to accurately measure.
But I don't think they're over yet.
So there still are overnights.
Just on a Sunday day, I don't know when those overnights, I don't know if there are overnights, for example, today on a on a Sunday show.
I have never, I've actually never been told, but you can count on the fact that they're going to be through the roof.
Well, in full disclosure, I deviated and went 28 minutes into it.
Ticket to you.
Well, now, you've got to be careful about that because they do, you know, TiVo and DirecTV and others, they do report video time shift watching.
And that's why numbers sometimes take some days to accumulate.
So you would want, I know you're trying to get me the ratings credit by having your DVR start like minutes before I came on, and I appreciate that.
Yeah.
Well, it was great to see you on TV.
You look great.
Well, thank you.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
But if you would have seen what's involved here to do, I mean, that was 11 minutes.
Brian, what time do these people show up from Fox?
Okay, so we're taping at 3.30, 3.25.3.
These guys show up at 1 o'clock.
There's 1, 2, 3, 5, plus the husband of the makeup.
There's six people here.
They show up.
It took them two hours to set up their lights and rearrange my studio.
They cleaned everything.
They rearranged it all.
They broke my computer monitor.
They set their lights up.
They made it impossible for me to go over to the corner where I needed to get my cochlear implant, had to take the lights down to get over there and get it.
And then had to put the lights back up.
Just amazing.
And the makeup babe, that took 10 minutes for 11 minutes of TV.
Now, naturally, it's a remote.
It wouldn't have taken that long if it was in one of their studios.
But I don't know how they have the patience for it.
I just don't know.
But it was fun.
I'll admit that once it got started and all that, I enjoyed it.
You know, I guess I ought not be surprised.
I don't do television very often.
It's really rare.
And so when I do, we're overwhelmed with feedback on it.
And I've been a regular TV appearance.
Well, I had my own show for four years and all that.
I probably am the most recognized person in America that's not in the visual media.
Stop.
Well, I mean, well, I'm not on it.
Yeah, they put me on.
That's right.
That's right.
But I do not have a visual media presence myself.
I'm just a radio guy.
But anyway, the feedback of this has been over the top.
It's been, and it proves my point.
You wouldn't believe 80% of the feedback I've got is how good I looked.
The other 20% is about what I said and the people that missed what I said about Cruz.
But I do want to take a moment to thank Chris Wallace and the entire Fox team that we work with putting every time I do this together.
And Greta Vancestra, they're all, I mean, just as fair and there's no deceit whatsoever.
They do not employ typical green room tricks.
I mean, they don't give me a false list of topics that they're going to suggest.
I mean, whatever they tell me they're going to talk about, that's what they ask me about.
You'd be amazed at the number of TV shows.
There's something called a pre-interview, and they don't even subject me to that.
But most guests on most TV shows have to go through a pre-interview.
And every guest, until they learn this, makes a huge mistake when they think the pre-interview is actually designed To ascertain what the guest wants to talk about.
That's not the purpose of the pre-interview.
They want the guest to think that.
The purpose of the pre-interview is one of two things.
Either mislead the guests so the guests can end up being shocked and surprised and therefore be hit with subjects the guest has not had a chance to prepare for because it's got you.
Or the second reason is simply to have the guest look totally shocked, prepared, unprepared, or what have you, and to find out really what it is that irritates the guest.
That's the second thing.
The pre-interview, if the interviewer finds out something really or that you really don't want to talk about, they'll go through a list of possible things they're going to discuss.
And if the guest says, no, no, no, no, no, talk about that.
That's what they're going to talk to you about.
But Fox doesn't do any of that, would we?
They don't pull any of that.
Those tricks were famous on Crossfire.
I can't tell you the first time I did Crossfire on the setups.
And I called him on it, actually, during the show.
But anyway, Chris Wallace was kind enough to end the interview with a little plug for our latest book, Rush Revere and the Star-Spangled Banner.
And even that little plug survived their final airing last night on Fox.
They broke into the interview right as I was preparing to answer in the lightning round my thoughts on Ted Cruz and came back right as we were finishing on the book.
And I don't go anywhere else to promote the book, and I don't do signings and I don't appear.
I don't do the media tour and this kind of stuff.
And they were kind enough to let me mention it.
And in light of that, I just want one more time, folks, I want to urge you, if you have a moment here or there, to go to our Facebook page, the Rush Revere Facebook page.
It's Facebook/slash Rush Revere.
And that's where you will see the video entries that we run a little contest for the young readers to send us videos related to the books and their prizes that we offer them.
We offer lesson plans for teachers in schools.
They're sending us feedback pictures of themselves reading the book, opening the books as presents or whatever.
We post a lot of it there because it's our interactive page.
We have just great interactivity with all the readers.
And we've established that on our Facebook and the Rush Revere website itself, rushrevere.com and Facebook slash Rush Revere.
So if you'd like to see these young readers and how they get into these books and how their imaginations are spurred and fired up, because it's really a beautiful thing to see the impact of true stories of American history, particularly the founding, the way they impact these kids, many of whom are not learning any of this, and it happens to be the truth, in school.
Here's Jim, Jim in Grand Island, Nebraska, as we head back to the phones.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Hello.
Hi.
I've given details to Snerdley, so I won't bore you with them.
But I have proof, written proof from our local newspaper, that Arabs did cheer on 9-11 when the story broke on TV.
We had a cafe that was very popular, and my dad and uncle and their coffee clotch went there, and they were all World War II veterans.
And on 9-11, somehow the booths and the stools closest to the counter near the TV were all full of them.
When the story broke out in cheering.
In the cafe?
Yep.
Oh, I misunderstood.
I thought that you had read stories where people, well, you actually saw it.
No, my dad and my uncle did.
Oh, okay.
All right.
And their coffee clotch and the other people that were in there.
I wasn't there.
But our local newspaper, and Snerdley has the details, did print the story.
You have a printed newspaper story available.
Well, so does the Washington Post.
I mean, this is the funny thing.
They're fact-checking Trump.
They're claiming Trump is making this up.
Now, Trump, if I have this right, Trump says that he saw tens of thousands of Muslims cheering in New Jersey on 9-11.
And the media promptly went into gear and trying to prove he's lying and made it up.
So they went into every news archival database they could think of to see if there were stories about this.
And they couldn't find any.
So they've concluded that Trump was lying.
One of the fact checkers is a guy that works at the Washington Post, and for some reason, he didn't check his own papers archives because the Washington Post had a story about cheering Muslims in New Jersey on 9-11.
The difference is it wasn't thousands.
Story did not say it was thousands.
But Trump is standing by it.
But see, here again is another example.
This is where the media, once again, is illustrating the depth to which they are out of touch with people who ought to be their primary customers.
You know, average ordinary Americans ought to be the number one customers of traditional everyday news media, but they're not.
Traditional everyday news media mocks average ordinary Americans.
News media today writes what it does and broadcasts what it does for other news people.
You know, journalist A sits down and writes a story or a column or whatever, and he's writing it for other journalists to read.
He's writing it for them to be impressed.
There really isn't any media anymore in terms of journalists out there pounding the pavement looking for things to report that you and I don't know.
I mean, that's what we always think of as news, is somebody telling us what happened today that we didn't hear about.
That's what news is anyway.
News is the advancement of the Democrat Party agenda.
News is two things.
Advance the Democrat Party agenda, destroy Republicans.
That's primarily what, if you had to pare it down to the quick, that's what it is.
And so here comes Trump saying that he saw Muslims cheer on 9-11.
He adds tens or thousands there.
The bottom line is that a lot of Americans are well aware that Muslims were cheering.
Maybe not in New Jersey in great numbers, but around the world they were because we saw the video.
On 9-11 and in the aftermath, we saw video on the news, unquote, of Muslims all over the world in certain places cheering.
So regardless of the specific details, the American people and a lot of Trump supporters know.
I mean, it was militant Islamists who conducted 9-11.
It's militant Islamists that make up ISILs.
It's militant Islamists in Iran.
I mean, this is undeniable.
And to say that they are engaged in warfare designed to kill us and other infidels, it's not arguable.
So when the media comes along and tries to defend all of that by accusing people that know what's going on of being bigots, there's no way that the media is going to harm Trump by implying or even stating out and out that he's a bigot because the American people know it.
And the big disconnect here is the current administration won't even refer to it as what it is.
Obama will not even call it militant Islamic terrorism.
He will not even use the word Islam or Islamic in a discussion of terrorism.
The State Department has forbidden the use of the word terrorism.
Everybody's so steeped in political correctness.
Well, it doesn't take much to come along and profit or benefit from this if the media in their alliance with the Democrat Party is going to try to downplay this threat and downplay the danger that we face and blame us for being bigots for being aware of it.
Candidate comes along and simply validates what other people think.
I'm sorry, they're not going to think Trump's the oddball here.
The media is going to be considered the institution that is deserving of suspicion.
Why don't they want to call it what it is?
Why don't they see it?
Why don't they see that certain people have targeted this country for destruction?
Why do they go so far out of the way to protect the people who have us in the crosshairs?
That's what average ordinary people ask.
And that's how you get, well, it's Pew.
I don't know if we believe Pew anymore, given how they're fudging the immigration.
I mean, looky here.
More than six in 10 Americans believe the news media, followed by Hollywood, has a negative effect on the country.
66%.
Extensive new Pew Research Center survey.
66%, 65, I'm sorry.
65% believe a news media has a negative effect on the way things are going in the country.
And some 56% say the entertainment industry has negative effect.
Meaning, create negative attitudes, create an overall pessimism as a daily American attitude.
65% think the media is basically negative and creates this aura of pessimism that basically has dwarfed and surrounded the country.
Anyway, I'm long here.
I've got to take a break, folks.
Sit tight because there's more.
We'll be right back.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Rush Limbaugh behind the Golden EIB microphone.
Here's Gene in Hudson County, New Jersey.
Welcome.
It's great to have you with us.
Hello.
Hi, Mr. Lumbar.
I want to let you know that I live in Hudson County, like you stated.
There is a growing population of Muslims in the county, and a lot of them love our country just as you and I do.
But yes, we go back with the history.
There were Muslims involved with the first World Trade bombing.
And in Jersey City, yes, there were a few people that did demonstrate on 9-11.
There were not thousands, but they were there.
And after 9-11, every morning you would see a flood of, I hate to be what's the word, stereotyping people, but you would see the huge suitcases and families going through the path, exiting to go someplace.
And that was at 7 o'clock in the morning, and I witnessed that.
And also have a very happy Thanksgiving to you and Catherine and everybody else.
Well, thank you.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
Look, everybody knows it happened.
I mean, it's, again, the media trying to make it look like it didn't with their phony fact checks.
But like you said, there weren't tens of thousands.
There weren't giant mobs and crowds doing that.
But may I ask a question here?
It wasn't just Muslims, some Muslims cheering on 9-11.
I mean, there were a lot of people in this country who thought we were getting what we deserved.
There were a lot, not everybody was outraged.
There were a lot of different groups and individuals who thought we got what coming to us.
So it's not that outrageous a thing to say or to accuse people of because it happened.
There's no doubt about it.
Do you remember Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright?
America's chickens have come home to roost 9-11.
Anyway, folks, great to be with you today.
Look forward to tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection