All Episodes
Previous Next
June 23, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:58
June 23, 2016, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Al Obama's really, really ticked off, folks.
He can't stop talking about the court's decision blocking his executive amnesty.
He's still pontificating about it, still going on about it.
Frankly, I don't expect it to stop him.
I mean, the court has had a stay on Obama's executive amnesty program, and they've continued to issue work permits and any number of things while they'll stay.
So I don't think he's going to stop.
Who's going to make him stop?
The Republicans in the House are not going to make him stop.
This is what it boils down to rule of law.
Okay, we have had a decision with the Supreme Court, a tie decision in Obama's immigration case, which means the lower course ruling holds, which means there's a stay, in effect, a freeze on Obama's executive amnesty program.
He cannot legally continue with it, but he did continue with it even after the Fifth Circuit Court stated.
He's going to continue with it now because there's nobody there to stop him.
And if we get right to what the meaning of the rule of law is.
Greetings, great to have you.
El Rushbow here.
We've got, we are overloaded here today, folks.
It's going to be a major, major editing challenge for your host to squeeze it all in there.
The important thing today is what do I leave out?
That's going to be the toughest decision.
There's so much here.
And we've got three straight hours to start squeezing it all in.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882 and the email address, El Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
He's still speaking.
He's doing a press conference on this, the Supreme Court decision on staying his executive amnesty program.
And trust me when I tell you, if you haven't watched any of it or heard any of it, is really, really bent out of shape on this.
And he's lecturing the country on immigration, saying things like, well, now we're going to have to leave it up to the voters.
Which is the thing that ticks them off the most on the left is leaving it up to the voters.
That's what they don't like.
That's what they don't trust.
That's what they don't respect.
Obama wanted to be able to go ahead and let anybody into this country he and the Democrat Party want into this country, regardless.
And he wanted to be able to do it with the backing of the U.S. Supreme Court, and he doesn't have it.
And so now he's lecturing everybody on what it means.
And he's essentially, he said this.
Every one of you, every one of us, is a descendant of somebody.
I guarantee you, a descendant of someone that someone did not want to be in this country.
Every one of us.
So his point was, every one of us has a relative somewhere in our past that the rest of the country didn't want here.
And if that had been allowed to happen, then none of us would be here.
And where would we all be?
He's in the process of redefining what America is, what our common objectives are, what it is that sets us apart, and how we are this and that and the other thing.
It's a frustrating thing to listen to because it's a total, total reworking.
I would even go so far as to say a mischaracterization, even a bastardization of the intent of the founders of this country.
But Obama wants everybody to believe that the purpose of this country is for anybody who wants to come here to be able to come here.
And all they have to do to get here is to show up.
And if they want freedom, then we have no business keeping them out.
If they want liberty, we have no business keeping them out.
And his moral equivalence that all of us here are no different from the people that are, what did he say, making our beds, picking our fruit, washing our cars.
He went on and on down the list, stereotyping the people he believes are the victims of this highly discriminating immigration.
Oh, yeah, yeah, children can be snatched from their parents and so forth.
But he said, he said at some point, you know, no matter, the Republicans are just polarizing everybody, and the Republicans are engaging in partisan politics here.
But he said, eventually this is going to happen, whether it happens when I'm here or not.
It's going to happen.
It's going to happen.
Because that's who we are.
And that's what our values are.
It's going to happen.
Well, folks, I have to tell you, we are perilously close.
We are one vote away from losing separation of powers.
We are one vote away from the Supreme Court of the United States becoming a rubber stamp for the liberal Democrat Party in this country.
I even heard Jeffrey Toobin today, who is a well-known leftist.
He's TNN's legal analyst.
He even admitted that the four libs on Supreme Court are a voting bloc.
They're not even judges.
And he was proud of it.
That's the difference.
They're not even reviewing the law.
They are just there.
They are forever and always unified.
And they are.
You seldom see any dissent from a majority or minority leftist decision from those four leftist justices.
They vote as a bloc.
They are relied on as such.
They come through each and every one.
They're nothing more than a rubber stamp for the liberal leftist Democrat Party agenda.
And we are one vote away from them having five votes, which means the Supreme Court would simply become a branch of the executive branch.
It would branch office of the executive branch when the Democrats are running it.
It would become a giant obstacle to the Republican Party should they ever end up in the White House again.
But regardless, as a deliberative judicial body, one more vote, and that's not what the Supreme Court will be anymore.
Supreme Court's going to be the exclamation point for leftism, liberalism, social, whatever you want to call it.
The Supreme Court will not be, I mean, it'll be characterized as, it'll be reported on as a judicial deliberative body, but that's not what it will be.
The Constitution, as you know it and I know it, is now what's on the ballot in this presidential election in 2016.
And of course, the answer to this is not never Trump.
The answer to this is never Hillary.
The answer to this is never tyranny.
The answer to this is never Democrats.
That's how perilously close we are here.
We cannot afford a Hillary Clinton presidency because that's it.
That's the end of the Constitution.
You saw a preview of it.
How ironic is it?
Here's John Lewis, who is an iconic member of the 60s civil rights movement, shall we say?
You know, somebody told me he looks like a frog to them today.
They look at John Lewis, you know, a Star Wars character.
It could be a frog.
I said, please don't go there.
Don't tell me that.
I might repeat it.
Anyway, John Lewis, he's sitting there with all these other leftists in this childish little sit-in.
How ironic is it?
Here is a guy who is iconic with the civil rights movement in the 1960s sitting on the floor of wherever they were in the House, sitting on the floor of the House trying to deny the American people a constitutional right without due process.
The four gun control bills that had them all agitated had already been defeated in the Senate.
There was nothing this sit-in was going to accomplish except bullying, PR, fundraising.
Make no mistake, that's what was going on as well.
They were fundraising by doing this sit-in.
But I just find it ironic that somebody has applauded John Lewis.
He's applauded.
He's regaled.
He's heralded as a civil rights icon.
And he's participating in a sit-in yesterday that was formed for an express purpose of denying civil rights, constitutional rights to the American people.
We have a whole stack and loads of audio soundbites on this.
So somebody on TV to say, you know, we don't see that kind of stuff in this country.
We see that kind of stuff.
We see fist fights and that stuff breaking out in foreign government legislative bodies, but we don't see it here.
Oh, yes, we do.
We're on the, folks, we are trending in all the wrong directions.
I got a, I got a funny note.
It's not funny.
I have a serious note.
My cousin, who's a millennial, ran into something on fake book last night that is making him think that it's time to abandon social media.
Well, I'll tell you as the program unfolds, this is what I mean.
Today is going to be a giant editing challenge here, whether to mention it, whether to not mention it.
This is relevant, though, far beyond what the purpose of this particular post on fake book that I will describe in mere moments is all about.
We had another Supreme Court decision on affirmative action in Texas, yeah.
What, did you think I didn't know Texas?
They're shouting the answers to my own sentences here at me.
You're riled up.
Well, here you have, this is another example.
If Antonin Scalia had not died, then Obama's executive amnesty would have been defeated today.
And if Antonin Scalia had not passed away, then affirmative action would not have been upheld on the campus, University of Texas.
But that's a bunch of ifs.
And we can't deal with them, because Scalia did pass away.
These are the ramifications.
The key to this one, the key to this one, and I have been advised by legal experts, veterans of the Supreme Court.
Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion, the majority opinion in the affirmative action case.
And it's stunning.
It is stunning.
It's unbelievable.
The majority opinion in the affirmative action case actually says that we're not doing this to balance race relations.
We're not upholding affirmative action on campus for the purposes of seeing to it that all people of all races have an equal shot at an education.
No, no, no.
He said the state has a compelling interest.
Now, I am told by legal beagles that when a Supreme Court decision agrees with Congress that the state has a compelling reason, that means it's over.
A compelling reason means you can do whatever you need to satisfy the request.
If there is a compelling reason, compelling, at the bottom line, Justice Kennedy wrote, and I'm paraphrasing, the reason we are upholding affirmative action is because of the rich learning experience afforded by racial diversity on campus.
Not about access to education.
Not about spreading the goodies equally among the races.
No, it was a compelling interest.
If this, that means that this has become a new justification for quotas, and that has nothing to do with education in the classroom.
It's all about the fact that having many races and genders and whatever the hell else you're talking represented among the student body on campus provides a rich cultural learning experience for the students.
And that has become the compelling interest the state has in supporting racial quotas, which means that this absolutely vacuous argument that the left has been advancing for years,
that there is the answer to practically every solution in diversity, has now been sanctioned as a compelling interest of the state.
meaning that the United States was founded so as to provide diversity among the people.
You've heard their arguments about diversity, that the best thing we can do in a business is to make sure it's diverse, not hired qualified people.
We change the focus from merit to racial allocation.
And that's how we're going to define greatness, not on merit, not on performance.
We're going to define greatness because that's how the left defines it.
Greatness descends from diversity.
Diversity in the fire department, diversity in the police force, diversity in the military, diversity in the college campus, diversity wherever you go.
If you look at it this way, it's...
it's a huge, huge rhetorical and corrupting win for the left on a really empty philosophical belief that there is excellence simply because there is diversity.
It's absurd.
But it's that kind of thinking that led to the majority opinion in the affirmative action case with Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion.
Let me take a break.
We'll come back and continue just getting started.
Now keep in mind.
Holy smokes.
This is how they do it.
Obama's executive amnesty has been frozen via a stay by a judge on the appellate court.
You remember, this is the judge that discovered the Defense Department lawyers were lying to him in open court.
And instead of actually sanctioning them, he demanded that they go to a new ethics course to learn the proper behavior and decorum and the law in court.
That you just can't lie with impunity to a judge.
That was the extent of it.
Bill Nelson, the Democrat senator from Florida, is on CNN right now, and they're asking him what he thinks about all this.
And you ought to hear what he says is going to happen.
He's looking into that camera and he's practically crying.
He's saying, young Americans, children who only know the United States, born in a foreign country, brought here as infants by their parents illegally, are now going to be sent home to countries they have never, ever seen.
There are children in America who are going to be separated from their parents because their parents are going to be deported while the children who were born here can stay.
We are forgetting the human.
Let me, has any of that been going on during this stay?
That's not even what this is about.
This is just, this is exactly how they do it.
So this is going to show up.
What Nelson says, and he's not the only one, obviously, how they're characterizing this decision.
It's going to show up all over social media, and a bunch of ill-educated, uneducated Nimrons are going to see it, and they're going to have a totally skewed notion of what this decision means.
Let me see what the AP says about this.
Let me see, because if that's going to happen, you would think that'd be right in the front of the story, wouldn't you?
If deportation proceedings begin immediately because of this, you would think that'd be the story, right?
See if it is.
Obama immigration plan blocked by 4-4 time at Supreme Court.
A Thai vote, this is AP, Thai vote with Supreme Court blocking Obama's immigration plan that sought to shield millions living in the U.S. illegally in deportation.
The justice's one sentence opinion on Thursday effectively kills the plan for the rest of the regime of Obama.
The outcome underscores that the direction of U.S. immigration policy will be determined in large part by the presidential election.
Right?
There's no firm decision yet.
What this means is it's what Obama was complaining about.
All this is now up to the voters, which, of course, the Democrats, who the Democrats do not trust.
People who would have benefited from the programs face no imminent threat of deportation because Congress has provided money to deal with only a small percentage of people who live in the country illegally.
The president retains ample discretion to decide whom to do.
So even the AP says that there isn't going to be rampant deportation.
They face no imminent threat.
People who would have benefited with a correct decision, of course, face no imminent threat.
And yet here's Bill Nelson practically crying on TV, talking about families going to be separated this afternoon, never to see each other again.
I don't know how you deal with it.
Snerdley, you got to remind me.
I gave these guys a between commercial breaks miniature lecture on money in politics.
They asked me, Snerdley asked me, no, no.
Some Trumpists in there asked me if it was really a problem that Trump doesn't have money to run commercials right now.
And I said, he doesn't have the money.
He just doesn't have the money.
That's not good.
That's not good.
He needs to be running commercials.
He doesn't have the money to run commercials.
And I launched into a tirade on money in politics.
No, I remember it.
Just remind me at some point.
I can't do it now.
I'm dangerously close already to losing control of content of the program here today, folks.
I mean, I haven't got to Freddie Gray.
I haven't got to the note that my cousin sent me about what he saw on FakeBook that's coming up.
We haven't got to the sit-in yet.
We're going to get to all this.
But I got Obama here.
I want you to actually hear what Obama said.
We got two soundbites of Obama's little press conference after the Supreme Court did not go his way on his executive amnesty.
Here's the first of two of them.
It is important to understand what today means.
The deferred action policy that has been in place for the last four years is not affected by this rule.
Enforcement priorities developed by my administration are not affected by this ruling.
This means that the people who might have benefited from the expanded deferred action policies, long-term residents, raising children who are Americans or illegal residents, they will remain low priorities for enforcement as long as you have not committed a crime.
Our limited immigration enforcement resources are not focused on you.
So he's basically, as you'll hear in the two soundbites, he's essentially assuring illegals.
Don't sweat it.
I'm not going to enforce the law.
Don't sweat it.
Everything's, I'm not, everything's fine.
Now, contrast this.
Here he just said, children who are Americans or legal residents, they will remain low priorities for enforcement, meaning deportation, as long as they've not contrasted to what Bill Nelson just said, the Florida senator, he really went on TV and tried to convey that deportation proceedings of children are going to be starting this afternoon.
And it was just sad.
It's just unfortunate.
Oh my God, what kind of country are we?
It isn't the case.
No, I'm not weighing whether it should or shouldn't be.
I'm just, this is how this stuff all happens.
And this is, you know, the internet.
I was thinking about something last night when I got my cousin's email about what he felt FakeBook.
Nope, I'm going to wait on that because if I start jumping into that tangent, I'm going to lose control of this one.
Let me just stick with this and I'll get to that as one segment whenever we get to it.
Here's the next Obama soundbite.
Now we've got a choice about who we're going to be as a country, what we want to teach our kids, and how we want to be represented in Congress and in the White House.
In November, Americans are going to have to make a decision about what we care about and who we are.
We get these spasms of politics around immigration and fear-mongering, and then our traditions and our history and our better impulses kick in.
That's how we all ended up here.
Because I guarantee you, at some point, every one of us has somebody in our background who people didn't want coming here.
And yet here we are.
That is so disingenuous.
That is the effort to combine the general population of this country with the current burgeoning numbers of illegal immigrants is outrageous.
Simply outrageous.
For Obama to try to tell people that you and I are no different than the current crop of illegals.
Well, the difference is back then, people obeyed the law, for the most part, people always break the law, but for the most part, the rule of law triumphed, and illegal immigrants were found and deported.
The case was not made for them to stay.
But the idea, that's not even the worst of it, the idea that all of us here are no different.
We were all illegal at one point, and we were all unwanted at one point.
Somebody in our family, if not us, was undesirable, and yet here we are.
And this moral equivalence that this president makes is part and parcel of his effort to tear down the greatness and the uniqueness of this country.
Make no mistake.
You know, I still am amazed by the reaction I get from people when I tell them that there was zero immigration in this country from 1924 to 1965.
And the reason that people don't know that, A, they just don't know it.
It's not reported.
It's never been part of history, class, history, education.
But it's also hard to believe because people alive today, immigration's been a daily event and a daily topic for their whole lives.
They can't conceive of a period of time where there was no immigration.
Because most people grow up thinking everybody wants to come to America because America is the sweet spot of the planet.
America is the greatest place in the world, which it is.
And everybody wants to be here.
Stop and think of this.
From 1924 to 1965, 41 years essentially, there was no immigration.
Try telling people that in the midst of this debate and they won't believe you.
They'll think you're making it up.
They'll think you're lying about it.
And then what you tell them is the reason.
The reason is that we had had mass immigration from the late 1800s all the way through the early 1900s through the 1900s.
And we had to pause the immigration in order for the new arrivals to assimilate, to become Americans, to learn English, for one thing.
The one thing that's, well, not the one, there are many different things, but one of the difference or defining characteristics or difference between today's illegal immigration and the immigration of old is the immigrants of the late 1800s through the early 1920s came here desiring to become Americans.
They wanted to become part of what was a unique and distinct American culture.
They were all coming from tyranny of one kind or another.
They were all coming from poverty of one kind or political prisoners.
The human condition, the vast majority of people on this planet for the entire time of what humanity has been here has been bondage and tyranny, dictatorship, pestilence.
That's really what American exceptionalism is.
When you get right down to it, America has become and was the exception to the way most of the people in the world were forced to live.
Because America was the first formally built, structured country on the premise that the people ran the show based on their liberty, based on their natural God-given rights to pursue happiness.
The right to life, the right to freedom, and to pursue happiness.
There was no other country in the history of the world had ever been formed or founded on such premises.
This one was.
That was the exception.
American exceptionalism, in the broad sense, is not a bunch of braggadocious words, people saying, you know, we're better people.
We have a better country.
We are higher class people.
That's not what it is.
America was the exception to the way human beings prior to America, most of which lived.
It was not pretty.
And liberty and freedom were the primary reason that people wanted to come here.
They wanted to escape bondage, slavery, tyranny, poverty, whatever where they lived.
It was America that promised a much better life.
And so when they got here, when they successfully immigrated, and not everybody came through Ellis Island was accepted.
If you were sick, you were not allowed in.
If you had any kind of a disease, we were in the process trying to wipe out all these diseases.
We did that by keeping people who had them out of the country.
You might look at it today as, wow, that was really mean.
No, it was putting America first.
It was putting the American people first, and it was a realization that we can't take everybody.
Well, that's not what immigration is today.
Immigration, as promoted by the Democrat Party, really is a voter registration drive.
Pure and simple.
It is a desire by the Democrat Party to find another way to remain in perpetual power by creating as many dependent voters as they can.
And the best way to create and bring dependent voters in is to bring people that don't have much education and therefore do not have many skills and therefore are not as capable of others as providing for themselves.
That's the gold standard in immigration if you're a Democrat in 2016, 2002, 2000, as long as this current debate has been raging.
That's their objective.
There are even some radical leftists who look at it as that, but then go further and say, because we have been so exclusionary and because it's been so unfair that America has been so rich, it's so unfair that America has been this one place in the world.
It's not because of us, and we deserve to pay a price.
There are people who want to import the dregs of the world into this country in order to cut this country down to size.
Do not doubt me on this.
I know it sounds hard to believe.
Those people will be found somewhere on the political spectrum and they vote Democrat.
It is not about promoting a distinct and great American culture because today's Democrat Party does not believe in one.
Today's Democrat Party believes that distinct American culture is corrupt, biased, racist, sexist, prejudicial, homophobic.
There is nothing about it they want to preserve.
They would love nothing better than to water it down.
You're asking obvious questions.
Well, how can they rush?
Why would they want to ruin the country?
Because they're going to continue to live here.
Why would they want to ruin the country?
Well, some of them, folks, are really just genuinely stupid and do not have that kind of foresight.
They believe that there's going to be mass appreciation and love and everybody's going to be getting along.
Others, the leaders of these movements, know full well they're never going to live next to these newly arriving immigrants.
They're going to live in gated communities.
They're going to continue to be rich.
They're not going, like Washington, D.C. right now does not have to live with much of what they produce legislatively for us.
Why did we start immigration in 1965?
Guess whose idea it was?
Ted Kennedy.
Ted Kennedy in 1965, we needed to reinstitute the immigration laws.
It wasn't based in humanity, although that's the way it was sold.
It was rooted in registering voters.
It really is.
I know that sounds rushed.
That's cheapening them so much.
That's all it is, folks.
Just like the sit-in on the floor of the House yesterday was about fundraising.
Maybe a couple other ancillary things.
But it was not about really.
I mean, the legislation had been defeated in the Senate.
There was no way that sit-in was going to accomplish anything legislatively.
It was for somebody get their own vote in the House, but if they don't have a corresponding vote in the Senate, it's still going to become law.
So they're fundraising.
Even if they get their own vote in the House, it's not going to change anything until they change the vote in the Senate, which isn't going to happen.
So what are they doing?
They're fundraising and they're campaigning.
No, no, if they could take your gun away from you tomorrow, they'd do it.
No, Miss.
I'm not saying that's not what this is.
They would do it.
But for the moment, they're fun.
Remember, these people are patient.
If they can't take your gun away from you today, they'll do it tomorrow.
If they can't do it tomorrow, next week, next week, they can't do it.
They'll go for next month.
If they can't do it next month, they'll do it next year.
If next year doesn't work, the year after that.
It's the way they look at it.
Obama said as much today talking about immigration.
I don't care what happens today.
It is going to happen.
We are going to have comprehensive immigration reform where we're going to have amnesty for these 11 or 12 months.
It's going to happen.
You just wait.
And that's the way they go.
They never.
Defeat is not something that, in their minds, is lasting.
I got to take a break here, folks.
We will be back and continue after this.
Here's Bill Nelson.
Don't have to quote him now.
This is him on CNN a half hour ago.
Remember the human factor here.
This is a great blow to the children that came here as infants.
They only know that they're Americans.
They've grown up.
Many of them, like the ones in Miami, they were valedictorians of their high school classes.
And now, because they were born in another country and are here illegally, these dreamers are going to have to return to a country they don't know along with their parents.
Now, that is what is sad.
And additionally, that the children that are born in America, their parents are not going to be able to remain with the children.
So now we are splitting families apart as a result of this decision.
It's just not true, folks, but that's their talking point.
That's what's going to get ballyhooed all over social media.
That's what low information people are going to pick up all day.
Nelson won't be the only one saying so.
It's going to be out there.
Media will not challenge it whatsoever because the only thing they'll focus on is what do the Democrats want?
What do they want?
Will the Democrats get what they want?
How well will Nelson's message play?
Not is he lying?
Not is it factual?
None of that.
They won't fact-check Bill Nelson.
They'll just report this and anybody else who says it.
To the phones, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
CJ, great to have you up first today.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush, I have a question.
Yes.
I want to know why it is that President Obama is such an advocate of this illegal immigration gauntlet system and not legal immigration precisely because legal immigration is a much tougher group of people to stereotype and to identify as potential new Democrat voters.
Illegal immigrants, you know who they are.
They are people that have very little education.
They are mostly people very poor.
They arrive needing government assistance from the get-go.
And the Democrat Party is right there to provide it while telling them that the Republican Party wants to kick them out.
Legal immigration is a process.
You learn everything about the people coming in.
You find out how many of them are prone to vote Republican.
You don't ask them this.
You just learn.
You find out how many of them are educated to what degree.
The pool of illegal immigrants is like a qualified bunch of people.
You don't have to two surveys.
You don't have to interview them.
You know they are ready-made Democrat voters.
Not only they are ready-made Democrat constituents.
Marilyn Mosby is 0 for 3.
Third Baltimore cop found not guilty of murder in the Freddie Gray case.
This was Officer Cesar Goodson, who Mosby told us was the most likely to be convicted.
She's being humiliated here and is being shown to be an incompetent, unqualified prosecutor.
▲
Export Selection