All Episodes
Previous Next
May 9, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
30:39
May 9, 2016, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, folks, welcome back.
As always, great to have you here.
Thrill to be able to do this each and every day.
Just nothing but luck here, as the president said.
Happy to have you.
800 282-2882, if you want to be on the program, the email address Lrushbow at EIB net.com.
Paul Ryan, just a review, says that he will gladly step down as convention chairman if that's what Trump wants.
Trump was asked about us.
Yeah, I might kick him out of there.
Put somebody else in.
Ryan said, hey, if he wants me gone, I'll be gone.
We'll see how that unfolds.
Which, by the way, one of the I've had a little bit more time here to study the Victor Davis Hansen piece that I admittedly lauded prior to having read all of it, uh, started out, had some brilliant premises.
Here's the nut of it.
The nut of it is that we're already in dire straits, and we've been in dire straits for seven and a half years, and all this talk about what dire straits are yet to come kind of misses the point.
There's a sense of proportion here that's missing, and all this panic and fatalism over Trump.
Where is it with what is being done to us right now and for the last seven and a half years?
But his point is we know what we're gonna get with Hillary, and there's nothing redeeming about it, and there's no way it's gonna change.
There's literally no way who she is is going to change.
We can make book on what we're gonna get if she wins the election.
His point is with Trump, there's still six months or some months, a few months to go here before the election.
Um he mentions that there are opportunities here to um for those who want to try to take Trump in different directions that he might instinctively go or what have you.
Look, he's trying to be positive.
I appreciate that.
Uh I don't think uh being positive is necessarily absent reality.
A lot of people do, but I don't.
I mean, there's some lost causes, otherwise we wouldn't have St. Jude.
But uh still I I also think that one of the things Mr. Hanson is attempting to do with his piece here is to talk some people off the ledge and say, just back back off a minute here.
It's uh it we we've got little time here before.
I mean, you you're writing about all this as though everything is etched in stone, nothing's gonna change, it's only gonna get worse, and that doesn't necessarily have to be the uh the case.
And I as I say, some are gonna say that that's unrealistic, that that's this phony.
Uh optimism, and it has no place because we've got to be brutally honest with ourselves about who Trump is and what we face.
And his point is no, not yet.
It's not, we we there's still lots of time here left.
And I I think it's admirable trying to talk people off of a ledge if you want to put it that way.
But but being fatalistic, I mean nobody knows what's going to happen in this election today.
The idea that we're gonna lose and lose a big, and a lot of people think so, and it's not totally fatalism.
I mean, they're looking at polling data and they're looking at at other data which suggests that Trump's wildly unpopular, with a bunch of different groups of people, wildly unpopular among some Republicans.
You've got this push for the third party out there among establishment types, and if they succeed, and all the rest of it's academic.
So, I mean, there's some genuine challenges out there, but I would side with Mr. Hanson here, at least on his intentions, and his uh his motivations.
Let's see, what do I want to do now?
Let me let's take a break from this for just a minute.
I have a whole stack of things here.
And I have this stacked because when I was prepping the show, these are things I was very interested in talking about.
So let's get into that because we'll have all kinds of time later to get back to the campaign and things involved in it.
Do you remember the name Stanley Kurtz?
Stanley Kurtz, writer of books, writer of columns and essays at National Reviews.
Stanley Kurtz is a a guy who has he's not been monolithic, but he's had one focus point above all others when it comes to Obama that he has attempted to alert people to.
And that is Obama's intention to destroy the suburbs.
He's written a book about it, I think maybe even two, a number of different articles.
We've quoted from some of them here.
His belief is that this is one of the things that Obama is doing, and it's under the radar.
Nobody else is really talking about it, uh, other than Kurtz and those citing his work.
But it's one of these things Obama's doing that'll be a legacy thing that'll survive long after Obama's gone and it's happening under the radar, nobody even knows.
And it is a fundamental ingredient to Obama's transformation of America.
Now, you one thing you have to understand about liberals is they hate suburbia.
They despise it.
They despise suburbia because who lives there.
They despise suburbia because it exists.
They despise suburbia because there's no mass transit.
They despise suburbia because it's a lot of cars and SUVs and soccer moms, destroying the planet with climate change, but mostly they despise it because it's liberty and freedom.
And then the third reason they despise it is it's people that used to live in the cities.
But they grew tired of living in the cities because they became jungles and hell holes and whatever else, so they decamped.
This has taken over generations, and people have moved to the suburbs, and they have established communities out there to get away from what they thought were deteriorating cities.
And people like Obama think that's not fair.
It's not fair.
Some people should be able to leave and go to wealthy suburbs, and meanwhile, the city dwellers, the urbanites, have to stay there.
Not fear.
Not fear.
So what Obama's doing with housing and urban development and all kinds of regulations is basically allowing, well, demanding that developers in suburbia build housing for people that can't afford it right next door to people who can obviously afford it and have afforded and have built houses and have built developments, retail and residential.
And Obama's plan is to make any future development, and even current ones, if they want to make any changes whatsoever, they have to also build affordable housing, no-income housing, low-income housing, and therefore move some inner city dwellers out to suburbia who can't afford it.
It's a form of payback.
And there is a story about this in the New York Post today, not Victor, I'm sorry, not Stanley Kurtz, but Paul Sperry, writing in the New York Post has uh has picked up on this.
Obama's last act is to force suburbs to be less white and less wealthy.
Hillary's rumored running mate, Housing Secretary Julian Castro, is cooking up a scheme to reallocate funding for Section 8 housing to punish suburbs for being too white and too wealthy.
Now, this may be Julian Castro, but this all started with Obama.
The scheme involves supersizing vouchers to help the urban poor afford higher rents in pricey areas such as Westchester County in New York, while assigning them government real estate agents called mobility counselors to secure housing in the exurbs.
Julian Castro plans to launch the Section 8 reboot this fall, even though a similar program tested a few years ago in Dallas has been blamed for shifting violent crime to affluent neighbors.
Exactly what happens.
It's by design.
It's payback for people that move to the suburbs from the city.
It basically is transferring that which they left to where they now live.
So It is all part of a grand scheme to forcibly desegregate inner cities and integrate the outer suburbs.
Castro, Julian Castro, last month threatened to sue suburban landlords for discrimination if they refuse Section 8 tenants with criminal records.
This is no different.
Except it's it's actually a deeper scale.
It's no different than you better believe it.
It's already happening.
Dallas was a proving ground.
It was judged to have worked by virtue of the you have to hire, you have to bring them into your neighborhood.
You have to make a you have to build housing that's so-called affordable for them to live in right next to people in whatever neighborhoods, however you want to describe them, affluent or whatever.
Yeah, it's by design and not such a purpose.
And they tried it in Dallas, and the crime rate skyrocketed with the introduction of people with no jobs.
And it was judged to be a success.
So now they're doing it in Westchester County, which has long been a test market.
It's not nude.
It's just being written about here for the first time in the New York Post.
Castro last month threatened to sue suburban landlords for discrimination if they refuse Section 8 tenants with criminal records.
We told you about this last week.
You have to rent to somebody.
We're going to get rid of, in fact, the term criminal, and we're going to get rid of the term felon.
This will facilitate them being hired by mandate or given affordable so-called places to live by mandate.
And this is going to survive long after Obama's out of office, unless somebody does something about it.
It's happening under the radar.
Look, on a deeper scale, it's no different than you run a bakery and somebody walks in, I'm getting married, I'm gay, I want you to make a cake, sorry, not our values.
Okay, fine, we're going to sue you and put you out of business.
Same thing.
We're having a gay wedding, why don't you take pictures?
Sorry.
Religious beliefs say, I can't do that.
Well, you're going to pay, we're going to sue you out of existence.
Same thing here.
If you will not permit Section 8 tenants, felons, and so forth, with criminal records to move into your neighborhood, we're going to sue you.
What this is, I hope he fails.
I don't this is the chip on his shoulder.
Everything I've said here, America as the problem, America as flawed, morality flawed since the founding, payback time.
Folks, here when statists are in control, there's something that it's a universal truth, undeniable truth.
Statists, socialists, communists, what have you.
When they are in control, one of the first orders of business is always to punish those who have done well without government.
They must be made examples of.
They have to be stigmatized so that others don't try it.
And favors are bestowed upon those who are dependent on government.
This is exactly what I said last week.
This is the regime getting all their ducks in a row before Obama leaves office.
This is how I'll use the word pollute.
Others might say corrupt.
This is how Obama is going to leave his fingerprints on America after he's out of office.
They're getting all their ducks in a row.
This is going to add up to economic damage.
It's going to add up to the declining property values.
It's a it stigmatizes successful people.
But more importantly, it conditions people.
If if you are dependent, and if you have what you have because the government has helped you, you're fine.
You're great.
You're a model citizen.
But if you've gone outside that, if you are a success independently, then you're going to be targeted, and you are going to be stigmatized.
You're going to be punished.
You're going to pay a price for it.
The Democrat Party today wants to punish people who have prospered under capitalism, under the premise it's unfair, and they got lucky, as Obama told the people at Howard University.
They didn't do nothing.
They got lucky.
And there's no reason.
This is the flaw with capitalism, you see.
It's not because of merit or success.
It's luck, it's connections, and since not everybody has luck and connections, the people who do are going to pay a price for it.
People who prospered under capitalism are corrupt.
People who've prospered under capitalism have done so unfairly, and it's time to level the playing field, so to speak.
This is what the Democrat Party of today is.
This is what progressivism is about.
And the plan here is meant.
This plan for Westchester County in Dallas, this plan is meant to trickle down so that most everybody is in a state of poverty or just north of it.
And the largest asset that most people have, their home, falling in value under threat or fear of violent crime in the neighborhood.
It is a targeted punishment of capitalist success stories.
The only ones exempt are those that donate to the Democrat Party.
There will be obvious exceptions for certain neighborhoods, say in Southern California, or certain neighborhoods, but Westchester County elected a Republican county executive, remember.
So this story in the New York Post, which Stanley Kurtz has been warning about for years now, is all about how Obama and Hillary's rumored vice president Julian Castro are going to force.
By the way, this is more regulation from housing and urban development.
Faceless, nameless bureaucrats, bringing inner city dwellers into your suburban neighborhood.
It's already been established by government's own studies to be disastrous for everybody.
What happened in Dallas.
But that's not going to stop them from doing it anyway, because that's the objective when you get right down to it.
They don't care.
They don't care about circumstances of people.
They care about having power over people.
So I wanted to make sure.
We'll link to this story at Rush Limbaugh.com.
Coco, put all the other things by Kurtz, Stanley Kurtz, K-U-R-T-Z that we have mentioned on previous broadcast link to those in a in the segment here over what Obama intends for the suburbs or for suburbia or the suburbs.
And a quick timeout here, my friends, and we will be back.
Don't go away.
The guy who wrote this New York Post piece, I just quoted from Paul Sperry.
Paul Sperry is author of a book called A Great American Bank Robbery, which exposes the racial politics behind the subprime mortgage crisis.
This is where the government mandated that banks lend money, mortgage money to people that they knew couldn't pay it back.
Because it was the American dream.
And homeownership, the Democrat Party wanted to make sure everybody had a home.
Even those who couldn't afford it.
It's been so much.
The assault on this country has been so steady and so consistent that nobody's been able to get their hands on it because every day it's something new to react to.
The outrage just recycles everything.
But it never focuses on anything because it never stops.
But it should have.
The last seven and a half years, there should have been exactly the kind of anger and outrage that's being directed at the Republicans and at Trump should have been every day directed Obama and Hillary.
I know media.
We did.
We expressed it here.
Could be done.
Any meantime, Brad in uh Lyndon, Washington.
We head back to the phones.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Great to have you.
You're next.
Hey, Rush, love you.
Thank you, sir.
Uh also like to thank AGMI for uh having you on all these years, ever since uh I was 18 back in 89.
And uh also like to uh put a shout out to my beautiful wife who puts up with my political uh rantings.
So anyway, yeah, I'm uh with the never Trump guy.
Now I'm all for Trump.
And I went to the big rally in uh Linden on Saturday, and I was a Trump supporter before I even saw him.
And it all has to do with the people I talked to.
Wait a minute now you you're never Trump and then you go to the Trump rally?
Why did you go?
Well my son Brandon who's uh sixteen asked uh hey Dad I want to go will you take me and I said uh you know what chance and a lot why did why did you why did your sixteen year old son want to go because it's big enough on TV and it's exciting once you see what's all about oh yeah he's into politics big time and uh he's a he's into Trump.
So your sixteen year old son dragged you there.
You're never Trump and you're thinking oh God I gotta put up with this and then even before Trump shows up exactly.
So what was it about Trump supporters that converted you?
Okay one lady in line her uh her son was kidnapped by a an illegal alien and uh but it wasn't till Michael that I talked to and he's an Amer Asian.
He was born in Vietnam in nineteen sixty six.
Uh his mother was killed in sixty eight and he was an orphan uh in South Vietnam uh an orphanage till nineteen seventy five so you didn't feel like you were gonna get beat up at the Trump rally no.
But uh anyway, this fellow he was in a after Saigon fell he was in a concentration camp for kids who are half Vietnamese half American and he finally was able to get here because of Ronald Reagan and he says we l I lost my first home,
I can't lose my second and this is it well we'll have to extrapolate for there 'cause we're out of time Jim in Richmond, Virginia I'm glad you called sir.
Great to have you here.
Good afternoon.
Uh Mr Limbaugh for five or six years I've been hearing you admonish the Republicans for failure to use their voter mandate to stand up to liberalism and isn't that exactly what Trump is doing using his mandate from the Republican voters to stand up to the Republican establishment isn't that exactly what you've been saying that they've had lack the backbone to do isn't that exactly what Trump is doing?
Well I'm uh uh maybe but I want to make sure I understand what what the first part of your thing the thing that I have been suggesting people do is what you've been suggesting that the Republicans have used these they've done nothing with the landslide victories they've achieved over the past several election cycles to stand up to liberalism.
They've uh I've I've heard you mention many times that they've basically given in to uh okay the democracy you're talking about elected Republicans have gone out they've campaigned on XY and Z they get elected they do A B and C and not XYZ and I've been urging those people to oppose Obama stand up and stop that's what th those are the people you're talking about.
Those are the exact people now Trump has done that with the Republican voters.
The Republicans have have voted and said that they want Trump to represent their the interests of the country and now he's doing exactly that by standing up using the mandate that he's just been given to stand up to the Republican establishment isn't it the exact same thing well not entirely but I mean I uh because I've been asking the Republican establishment to stop Obama to stop the Democrats.
If that would have been you know Trump would not have been necessary if they'd have just done that Trump wouldn't have gotten a first base if there'd been an official response in opposition to everything Obama's done but we haven't had that.
We've had cooperation uh so the what what what Trump is doing doesn't Donald Trump have to have to stop the republicing the re uh publican establishment first doesn't he have to do that first because they've been effective so doesn't he have to to basically destroy the status quo that they're actually trying to put put upon him before he can even do anything about the Democrats?
I mean and isn't that exactly what he's doing?
Uh I'm what I I'm trying to understand what it is that made you call today.
What have I said that you think I'm wrong about that you think you've proven I've been wrong about?
I I'm not sure, believe me, I'm not trying to prove I don't always agree with you, but I'm not trying to prove that you're wrong.
What I'm trying to say is is uh for years uh he you say, oh my gosh, you know, the Republicans they've been giving this given this uh uh voter mandate to stand up against liberalism whip it.
Well, is it uh pretty much Trump is encountering the same thing from the uh Republican establishment, and so he's gotta stomp on that first before he can do anything about liberalism.
Uh oh, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Are you suggesting?
Are you suggesting that the reason Trump has not moved on and really hit the Democrats yet, which is what we all want, is because he's first got to take care of the Republicans.
Exactly.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Well, okay, but who's complaining that Trump isn't hitting the Democrats?
Well, he's gotta do both.
He's fighting a war on two fronts there.
But you know, if you just listen to what Ryan said, uh Ryan infuriated me last week.
If he'd have said nothing, I would have been fine with that.
If they wanted to get behind closed doors and do as you suggested and start talking about Supreme Court nominations and what he would actually do with the the presidency if if uh he was fortunate enough to win, that would have been one thing.
But for the establishment of Ryan and the Romneys and and that whole group to continue to uh play the part of they're relevant, the Republican voters have shown that they're not relevant.
And for and for Ryan and the rest of the establishment Republicans to actually put forth the premise that no, okay, well, we're gonna take Trump and we're gonna we're gonna mold him like we want him to do.
And uh to me, just in watching the news over the over the weekend.
Well, all I'll tell you about Trump better not do that.
He if if there's any compromise in here, it better be Ryan moving in Trump's direction, not to get away.
Oh, absolutely.
And that's exactly what I'm that's exactly what I'm saying.
I mean, his original estate were I reject your agenda too, Mr. Ryan.
You're a non-winner.
I mean, the object is to win.
I mean, the absolute object is to win.
Joe Gidd's won three different things.
Ryan is um it's it's it's interesting.
Ryan, by doing what he did, by the way, some people are theorizing, speculating, uh, that Ryan actually did a smart thing by giving other House members cover uh to to join up with uh with Trump uh and and so forth.
But he's gotta play it, you know.
Ryan's Ryan's camp is the donor class.
I mean, that's that's that's who the establishment listens to now.
So he's he he was a lot of people got mad that he said what he said.
Um but Trump reacted to it the right way.
Everything was fine, and Trump is out there, he's he's launching into Jeb.
You know, Trump has a point about this.
I I know pointing these things out makes some of you uh never Trumpers upset, but I take you back to the first debate, and it was Brett Baer of the Fox News Channel back on August 6th, and the first question, even before Meghan Kelly got to Trump and the women question, Brett Bear asked from to raise their hands and take the pledge.
You know, I'm not a big fan of raising your hands stuff at debates, but it I it was this this was worthwhile.
I said, I want to show a hands.
How many of you will pledge tonight, August 6, 2015, to support whoever wins the nominee?
And Trump's the only guy said he wouldn't take the pledge.
All their hands shot up.
Trump said, nope, I'm not taking the pledge.
Everybody was stunned.
Everybody was shocked.
They figured, well, there he's done it, he stepped in it now.
He's officially imploded, he's finished after this.
And Trump gave his reasons for not doing so.
He said, look, the Republican Party's already waiting for me to step in it.
They're not being fair to me.
Why should I take this pledge?
If they're not gonna help me, if they're not gonna be supportive, why should I do this?
But every other one did.
Including Lindsey Graham, they all did.
And now that Trump's the nominee, who is it that's backing out on their pledge?
And Jeb Bush has won, and Trump's going after him.
Trump went after Jeb.
He says, Yeah, this is dishonorable.
Jeb Bush signed a pledge, basically, it says I'm going to support the person who wins in the primaries, and it said that very strongly, and he signed the pledge, and now he says he's not going to honor the pledge.
That's dishonorable.
Trump says I think he should honor it, even if he doesn't love me.
And it's hard for him to like me.
I understand that.
But remember, look, I hit him hard.
Do we agree?
All right.
Who cares?
I mean, I hit a lot of people hard.
And they're like my friends now.
They hit me hard.
But Bush posted to Fake Book on Friday a message that included the statement in November.
I will not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but I will support principled conservatives at the state and federal levels, just as I've done my entire life.
You know, we mentioned this last week.
Dick Cheney.
It didn't take long when George W. Bush, 43, and George H.W. Bush, 41, both came out and said they're never endorsing Trump, and they're not going to go to the convention.
It was not very long, it was hours, and Cheney came out and said, I'm all in.
He's the nominee of my party.
Something going on there, in addition to just the Trump uh endorsement.
But look, I'll tell you something else out there, Jim.
It's good for Trump that these guys are not endorsing him.
It helps him.
If the Republican establishment, the Bushes immediately get on board, some of the Trumpists are going to say, wait a minute.
What's going on behind closed doors that we're not hearing about?
They're so distrustful.
If the Bushes get on board, that's the establishment getting on board behind Trump.
That's not good.
I'm just saying it's it doesn't hurt Trump that they're not endorsing him.
Only point.
Doesn't hurt him at all.
Back after this.
Trump has found himself in the midst of a little controversy here over what he has said about taxes and whether or not they will go up on the wealthiest Americans.
He said, was on ABC with George Stephanopoulos, that he believed taxes would go up on the wealthiest Americans under his administration.
But he's talking about not brand new taxes, but rather for where people are paying right now.
It's not clear whether he's saying taxes on the wealthy will go up from the floor in his plan, or whether he means they'll go up from where they are now.
But he expects them to.
On the rich, on the wealthy.
Got to take a break back after this.
Don't go away.
Now, the time is gone.
It's a sad thing, folks.
The end of the program each and every day, but it's mitigated somewhat by the realization it's not really over.
It's a continuum.
We just pick up maybe right where we left off in 21 hours.
Thank you so much for being with us each and every day.
And look forward to starting again tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection