Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Do you know how hard that is?
Have you ever tried it?
Meeting and surpassing.
20-plus million people in this audience, and they're all expecting greater.
You know, you ever stop and think about what's surpassing all those really is.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
I've heard that.
I've heard that.
Well, it's predictable.
Now, the elites in the media are saying that, you know what?
I've even seen this on my tech blogs.
The ballot was very confusing.
It was above the ability of most Britons to understand what they were voting for, really.
Have you seen that?
Oh, get ready for it.
There's more to come in addition to that.
They, yeah, like they voted for Buchanan by accident out here in Florida.
Remember that?
The hanging Chads.
They didn't know what the Buchanan.
They didn't know what they were voting for.
It was so confusing.
We can't really trust the result because, which is what they always say here in this country when the vote goes against them.
Greetings, my friends.
Great to have you.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
It's Openline Friday, so it means that pretty much whatever you wish to talk about, we will talk about.
It doesn't have to be anything I'm talking about.
It can be something totally unrelated.
You know, I don't know how you do this.
I'm holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers a politico story.
And I'm probably going to be the one to catch hell for pointing it out.
But I don't know how you do this.
I'm looking here at a photo of many of the Democrats who conducted that childish little sit-in on the floor of the House this week to try to deny the American people a constitutional right in the Second Amendment.
And by the way, speaking of that, Professor Dershowitz at Harvard thinks it was a bonehead move.
He thinks that it has the potential of redounding profoundly negatively.
You know what?
I went back and I looked a little of it.
I actually watched some of it, and I tried to watch it the way anybody else would watch it.
You know what I saw?
I saw the Wellstone Memorial.
I saw what I thought was a repeat of the same kind of attitudinal arrogance, the Wellstone Memorial.
And then I went and I specifically looked at media reaction to it.
And folks, they were having public orgasms over it.
It was one of the most embarrassing displays.
And that's saying something.
I mean, from Luke Russert to people over at PMSNBC, well, that's where he is.
People on CNN, they were just so, so excited that these Democrats had done this.
It was, oh my, it was Nirvana.
It was Nirvana.
They couldn't be happier that the Democrats had commandeered the floor of the Hassan, sat down there to protest the Second Amendment.
It was the greatest thing.
And I don't think, and just like the Wellstone Memorial, I don't think these people have the ability whatsoever to realize how it looks to people outside their partisans.
And Professor Dershowitz is a liberal Democrat partisan.
And Professor Dershowitz said that this stunt, the sit-in at the House, could hurt Hillary's chances to win the presidency.
He said, I'm a liberal Democrat.
I'm a supporter of Hillary Clinton.
He told us of Don Lemon.
Don Lemon was one of these guys that was going nuts, deliriously, over this.
And Professor Dershowitz, they hurt her, he said.
They hurt Hillary Clinton by making fools of themselves, sitting in on Congress and pulling this kind of stunt.
If Hillary Clinton's going to win, she's going to win because she has gravitas and because the Republicans are a bunch of buffoons, but now it's the Democrats that look like the buffoons sitting on the House floor.
This can't help.
They have to be serious.
They have to show gravitas if they're going to win this election against Trump.
Passion and anger determine votes, and passion and anger could bring Trump to the presidency.
Now, there's one thing about this.
I have a lot of respect for Professor Dershowitz.
I've actually met him in the halls of the old affiliated New York back on Tupe Plaza next to Madison Square Garden.
He was eyeing me suspiciously.
I mean, he knew who I was, but he was eyeing me suspiciously.
He had just finished a rant on the radio about John Samunu being untrustworthy because he was Arab or some such thing.
But I introduced myself to Professor Dershowitz.
Oh, I know who you are, as he eyed me suspiciously.
I know who you are.
Anyway, I think what Professor Dershowitz, ensconced there in the ivory-colored halls of Harvard, may not realize that your average ordinary liberal Democrat, as epitomized by your average ordinary commenter or poster on social media, might not look at that sit-in as childish.
They might look at it as brilliant tactics.
I don't know.
But in his circle, clearly it was an embarrassing thing.
But over here on the politico, this is what I don't believe.
And I'm just saying, if I did this on my website, folks, oh, there would be a controversial storm that would cancel out whatever news there is on Brexit.
I have here a picture of James Clyburn and Pelosi and John Lewis, and there are a couple other Democrats here, but front and center is John Lewis with a pained look on his face.
And the other Democrats are surrounding him.
And it looks like the, I don't know what's, yeah, it's the House chamber behind them, the House chamber.
And they're quite a ways away from it.
But it's out of folks in the background.
But the focus center of the photo is John Lewis.
And the headline of this story, should I even, I'm running a risk reading the headline, am I not?
That's it.
It's a politico headline.
Democrats, colon, guns sit in just a taste of guerrilla tactics to come.
Now, not with this picture.
They didn't.
They didn't do that.
Guerrilla is spelled differently than that of the beast in the Cincinnati's.
I understand it.
Guerrilla tactics happen to be third world banana public tactics.
But if I had done this on my website, Politico would want me gone.
They would be using this as an example to suggest that I am unfit for the public airwaves.
I mean, even after Muhammad Ali died, they gave him a little grief for having used that word to describe Joe Frazier.
Guns sit in just a taste of guerrilla tactics to come.
The floor rebellion could mark a turning point for the House and set a risky precedent for future fights.
I'll tell you what, the precedent that's been said is that the C-SPAN cameras are now irrelevant.
We don't need C-SPAN anymore.
You just need the Facebook app or the Periscope app, and you can video broadcast anything that your camera, your phone can see.
But I hope they do keep this up.
It's Wellstone Memorial type stuff.
It really is.
And Dershowitz is right.
It's going to come back and bite them.
To the audio soundbites, here's Art Laffer.
Art Laffer was largely responsible for the Reagan tax cut plans in the 1980s.
He was on Fox News Live very early this morning.
And the host, the fill-in co-host was Leland Vittert.
And Leland Vittert said, look, you had Margaret Thatcher come in a real conservative revolution in the United Kingdom, shortly followed by Ronald Reagan's election.
Mr. Laffer, give us a sense.
Are we seeing this populist revolution there in the UK with this leave the EU vote?
How did that factor into a Trump candidacy with so much staked on his platform, the immigration issue that was a big part of the Brexit campaign?
How do you see all this?
The two are very similar.
It's a very similar type of political movement, both here and in the United States.
You had Thatcher and then you had Tony Blair, both of them very conservative, one equivalent of a Republican, the other one equivalent of a Democrat, just like you had in the U.S. with Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, both of them very pro-growth.
And you know, you had this experiment done with W and with Obama.
It hasn't worked here.
And with Gordon Brown and with Cameron, it just hasn't worked there either.
We need tax cuts, pro-growth agenda, and we need spending cuts.
And that's, I think, exactly where the world's going right now.
And I'm very elated by what's happening.
It's the exact same thing.
And it's a very exciting new era going back to Thatcher and to Reagan, which portends very well for the world economy.
And let's go back and listen to Obama back on April 22nd.
He went over to London and a joint press conference there with the Prime Minister David Cameron.
I think it's fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-U.S.
trade agreement, but it's not going to happen anytime soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done.
And U.K. is going to be in the back of the queue.
Not because we don't have a special relationship, but because given the heavy lift on any trade agreement, us having access to a big market with a lot of countries rather than trying to do piecemeal trade agreements is hugely inefficient.
So the UK is going to be back in the end of the queue and Obama's this, he's threatening them.
This is all about the Brexit vote.
It was not mentioned in the bike.
But he's over there campaigning and he's warning the people of the UK, hey, you know what?
If you like trade with the U.S. and if you benefit from it, you better realize that if you branch off and you leave the European Union, you're going to be at the back end of our queue, meaning you're going to be the end of our line.
We're not going to have any interest in making a trade deal with you.
You big little podunk nation.
We want to make deals with the entire European Union.
This whole concept, and by the way, Obama doesn't carry weight, and this is another evidence.
I mean, Obama does not have endorsement coattails.
And I think this was all part of what led to the vote yesterday.
I think Obama is the American representation or representative of the European Union elites at the people of the UK, and not just the UK, France, any number of UK nations have now developed a big resentment for.
They've lost any affection or trust because they've seen, it's no longer opinion.
The European Union is not about the economic advancement for everyone.
These trade deals, I've often asked people, why do they need to be so complicated?
What is free trade?
Why do you need this trans-Pacific partnership?
Why do you need thousands of pages so secretive that even members of Congress are not allowed to have a copy?
They have to go over to some private room, go down in the basement, read it.
They can't take notes.
They can only read it and chalk it up to memory and then leave.
What in the world could possibly be free in that?
And why does anything called free trade require any more than one page?
Well, I know the question answers itself.
I'm trying to illustrate that genuine free trade would take one sentence.
Nation A will have no tariffs on the imports of goods and services from nation B. Nation B will not charge Nation A any tariff or additional tax.
You want to trade with us?
But no, they don't end up that way.
Because free trade deals don't end up being trade between nations.
They end up being trade deals between cronies.
And that's how you end up having middle-class people lose their jobs because the whole concept of nationhood vanishes.
The European Union doesn't have any concept of nationhood.
And by the way, having a concept of nationhood, now that's under assault.
You know, being an American, wanting to be an American, wanting your country to do well, wanting your country to win, somehow that's not good.
That's not modern thinking.
That's not mature thinking.
We can't think that way anymore in this year.
We can't think of ourselves as a nation competing against other nations.
We are globalists now.
And we are all intertwined.
We are all intermingled.
And the benefit for one benefits the all and all this rotgut.
That's not how we became a superpower.
It's not how the British Empire came to be.
And by the way, the British Empire was, you know, aside from people and their attitudes of colonialism, the British Empire was good for everybody that benefited from it.
And the same thing with the United States as a superpower, became the solution to the world's problems.
Now cutting us down to size and making us no different than any other nation in the world, which is what Obama and his cronies want to do, is what is harming and proving detrimental.
And they do it with the belief that a powerful United States, a super powerful United States, was a problem in the world.
And it was because they didn't control it.
It's really insidious, this attack on people.
They call it nationalism.
They link it to populism.
And it's supposed to be automatically bad.
It's supposed to be represented small thinking, selfish thinking, exclusionary thinking.
And it's nothing of the sort.
It's just pride in where you live.
I've never understood this.
Well, I understand it, intellectually, but I don't understand it economically or in a common sense way.
There's nothing wrong with being an American.
There's nothing wrong with wanting America to be great.
But look at the way Trump's campaign is even impugned and maligned.
Make America great again.
Well, they just laugh at a mock it.
Who could possibly think in those old antiquated terms?
Well, a hell of a lot of Americans do, and they're going to find out in November how many.
It's Open Line Friday here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Joel and Fort Lauderdale, great to have you.
You're next.
Russia, thank you very much.
First of all, let me wish you and Mr. Snurdy and the remainder of your staff both a very happy, healthy, and safe weekend and week to follow.
And thank you for being there for all of us who still live in Rioville.
Thank you every day.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that, sir.
Question I do have for you.
In light of what's happening now because of the Brexit and Britain breaking away from the EU, what effect do you think that might have on the Muslim population that's currently burgeoning within Britain?
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by what effect.
Now, I can tell you the vote.
I've had some intel from people in the UK, and I can't vouch for this 100% because I've not seen it anywhere else.
But apparently some people have some exit poll data that show the vast majority of Muslim residents of the United Kingdom voted to stay in the UK.
And the balance of the British population voted to leave the European Union, not UK, European Union.
Right.
But with the number of people that are currently within Britain itself that are of Muslim ethnicity, do you feel that the fact that the British had been basically pushed by the EU to take more Muslims into their country, will this then update that?
Or what might that have?
Wait a minute.
Now, this immigration business has been going on in the UK much, much in advance of the European Union making an issue of it.
I have traveled to the UK quite extensively from the early 90s on, and I noticed it myself.
And I have to tell you here, Joel, even without the European Union, the people that ran the UK thought it was great.
They were all for it.
They opened their borders.
The European Union is not the instigator.
They may have crossed the T's and dotted the I's, but the UK, they had plenty of people in their country, just like we have here, who had the same attitudes about immigration that you find on the American left and the Democrat Party here, that the Brits, because of colonialism and because of the British Empire, have been so unfair to people all over the world that it was time to pay the price.
And you had liberals who thought that all of this was making a grand, diverse society and population, which would improve things in the UK.
So they brought this on themselves long before the UK really started emphasizing it.
The EU.
Now, let me add one more thing to the discussion of the impact of this vote on Muslims in the United Kingdom.
It is true that Great Britain, the United Kingdom, did not need any help from the European Union to increase immigration from all over the world.
And the vast majority of it came from Islamic areas.
And when it first started, it was the same exact thing you hear in this country from the pro-immigration activists.
It's going to make our country better.
It's going to expand diversity.
It's going to show that we are all one people.
And they were willing to open our country to the nations in the world less fortunate so that everybody can have an opportunity.
Blah, blah, blah.
Of the ringing, wonderful reasons to do it.
They did it.
They did it long before this current wave began.
Here's what happened.
And by current wave, I mean that instigated by the European Union, the combination of immigration and these refugees that are flooding in.
And it happened long before Angela Merkel came along and started bragging about bringing 800,000 a year in.
And she needs it because they don't have a replacement birth rate there.
German birth rate is below replacement levels, meaning their population is shrinking, meaning fewer and fewer people of age to join the labor force.
So she needs to import them.
She's doing it via immigration.
And that number 800,000, and just the whole flood here since ISIS got into gear in the Middle East.
But the UK and their own immigration preceded.
What happened that they didn't count on or that the British people relied about is that there wasn't any assimilation.
And the UK population became, for lack of a better term, Balkanized.
And then all of a sudden, Sharia mosques started popping up all over the place.
And before you knew it, the most popular or frequent male baby name was Muhammad.
Now, I will probably take some arrows for saying this, but I first went to the UK, to London.
I don't remember the exact year.
It was for a cigar dinner.
It was 92 or 93.
And my first trip, I was amazed.
I lived in New York at the time.
I was amazed at how pristine and clean it was.
And the word that came to mind, no matter where I went and no matter who I interacted with, was civilized.
That was my impression.
And I didn't go often, but I've been enough times to be able to note the changes in the same areas that I used to visit and the same regions where the hotels that I always have stayed were.
I couldn't help but notice the change.
I wasn't fully aware of the immigration policies at the time.
This is, again, before this became the gigantic issue that it is.
And in fact, the gigantic issue of the day when I was making my first trips over to the UK was health care in this country at Clinton Care or Hillary Care.
That was what was dominating things.
Immigration was not a backburner issue, but it certainly wasn't forefront like it is now.
But you just began to notice the, it looked different.
It seemed different.
I couldn't pinpoint it.
I didn't, because I wasn't looking for the differences.
But what happened was that this massive influx of immigration, the Muslim or Islamic aspect of it, they set up their own neighborhoods.
The same thing in France.
France, it's not been pretty.
France, it's even worse.
But the mosques started going up and then the practice of Sharia in certain elements.
And I don't think the British people had, I think they were surprised.
When your leaders lie to you about, I mean, our leaders today cannot be honest about Islam with us.
They will not even use the term Islamic terrorism, radical Islam.
And the same thing happened in the UK.
And it just kept happening slowly.
And it was all portrayed as wonderful and nice.
And look what great people we Brits are.
Look how lacking in prejudice we are.
Look how open we are.
Look how tolerant we are.
All it was just such a wonderful, beautiful thing.
And then finally, it began to dawn on everybody that these people were not coming to become Brits, which has been dawning on people in this country for a while now.
This is why I was talking earlier.
All of this is cumulative.
It didn't happen overnight.
And when it first began, there's all these wonderful intentions associated with it.
And everybody was applauding everybody else about how wonderful they were for opening their country up to the less fortunate or the oppressed or whatever it might have been, when in fact that's not what was happening.
It was more like a well, like I characterize what's happening here.
I don't think immigration is what's happening in our country now.
I think invasion is what is happening, particularly southern border.
You had these minors that are coming from Central America without their parents two years in a row now by the tens of thousands, and there's no stopping it.
That, in addition to all the other illegal immigration, it's an invasion.
It isn't immigration.
These are illegal by definition.
Our immigration law is not responsible for this.
There is no immigration policy in the U.S. that is permitting what's happening.
What's happening here is happening outside the law that our leaders do not wish to enforce or acknowledge.
And the same thing happened in the U.K. But I think because it's the central issue of what happened to Brexit vote, then what happened was, if you want to lose the term the icing on the cake,
the dotting of the I's across the T's, was this most recent invasion UK-wide, this never-ending line, literally lining up at the borders, coming through Greece, coming through Italy, aiming for Scandinavian countries, aiming for Sweden, aiming for it became clear what was going on.
And Angela Merkel, blind as a bat to what was going on, applauded it, opened her borders, welcomed as many as wanted to come.
And that, as much as anything, I think is what awakened people.
Even though the Brexit movement precedes this most recent influx, the reasons for the vote being as decisive as it were are, I think, tied to this most recent, massive influx.
But all of this is to explain.
You know, the caller said, what's the effect going to be on the Muslim population?
The UK had been permitting this immigration long before this most recent bout of it.
That was their own policy that did it, just like us.
Even though it's not policy, it's extra legal behavior, the ignoring of the law that's permitting it here.
The UK was the exact opposite.
For them, it was all legal.
At least most of it was.
Here's Scott in Greeley, Colorado.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Praise the Lord, Rush.
Limbaugh's on.
Been with you from the beginning, Rush.
Yes, thank you.
Thank you so much.
What's a great day as a lifelong conservative and Trump supporter?
I finally have something in common with most of the UK voters.
It is wonderful to be in solidarity with another big group of people, isn't it?
Well, you know, conservatives like me for years and years have been too stupid to understand the experts, and we keep voting the wrong way.
I just feel great to be, you know, have more people in my camp as stupid as I am.
Yeah, you feel like you're on a winning side here.
I understand that.
So hopefully I have enough sense to keep on being stupid.
Whatever works, man.
Well, thanks again, Rush.
Is that it?
I just wanted to point out how not listening to the experts might change the country.
So you wanted to revel in your stupidity and marvel at how it's triumphing.
Yeah, I didn't let education interfere with my learning.
There you go.
All right.
Well, I appreciate the call.
Thanks much, Scott.
We'll take a brief time out on that and be back.
A couple of days, maybe three days ago in this program, days run together, I forget exactly when, we were discussing campaigns and expenditures, buying commercials and so forth.
And it was around the time that Hillary had, she still does, she's running a million-dollar ad campaign trying to define Trump as temperamentally unfit for the office and intellectually unfit, no experience, dangerous to let Trump anywhere near the nuclear codes and the push-button and so forth.
And it became obvious that Trump was not responding to any of it because he didn't have any money.
He didn't have much in the bank at all, to the tune of $3.7 odd million dollars.
Whereas Hillary has something like, I don't know, I forget the number, 35 or 40 million that she can legally spend now.
The point was made that the Democrats did the same thing to Mitt Romney back in 2012.
Before Romney could spend the money that he had raised, the money they raised was only spendable post-convention.
So that's when they're running all these ads that are characterizing Romney as a rich, insensitive, Out of touch, aloof nerd who loved having his dog on the station wagon during the family vacation, on the roof of the station wagon, who didn't care when the wife of an employee died with cancer.
And so the media theme was: June is when you win the presidency, because that's what they thought Hillary was doing.
Hillary was running ads, condemning Trump, characterizing Trump, marginalizing Trump.
Trump was not responding to it, didn't have the money to respond to it.
And so they're thinking, it's over, it's over, and they're doing it again.
They're just doing to Hillary, and Hillary's doing to Trump what they did to Romney.
And they thought it was over.
They're ecstatic.
And there were some Trump people to whom all of this came as a surprise.
I mean, I think Trump's endless money.
He's self-funding his campaign.
He has not spent a lot of time fundraising, but he has begun to do some joint fundraising efforts with the RNC, which is its own subject, and I'm not going to touch on that now.
Here's the point: I had people saying, Is this going to hurt Trump?
Is it going to hurt?
He's got to run commercials.
He's got to run commercials.
He's not running commercials.
Hillary's not running.
I said, it may.
But in this campaign, and I may be falling back on it too much, folks, I'll admit, but I still maintain that you cannot treat Trump, analyze Trump, destroy Trump the way politics says you destroy people that are running for office.
I don't think the standard ordinary operating procedures work.
And the reason they don't, why did it work on Romney?
Why would they, when they ran ads for you?
Stop and think about this for a second.
Here's a guy, Mitt Romney, who may be the nicest gentleman in the entire political realm in 2012, just as a man, in terms of character, in terms of how you define nice, how you define polite, how you define respectful.
There's no better example of any of that than Mitt Romney.
So you ask the question: well, why does that stuff work then?
And on whom does it work?
So you run an ad claiming that Romney is an absolute unfeeling, mean-spirited animal hater because in the example they gave, he put his dog on the roof of the station wagon during the family vacation.
Why does it work?
Why did it stick?
Well, there is an answer.
And then, why when they ran the ads about the guy's wife dying with cancer?
Remember this?
This is the serious series of ads, and it was deadly effective.
They had this guy angry, used to work for Romney, talking about how his wife got cancer, his wife died, and this guy supposedly went to Romney and Romney didn't care.
And that just fit the Democrat mold of a Republican conservative doing T. They're rich and they don't care about the little guy.
Well, why did it stick?
Why does any of that stuff stick?
And I maintain that it stuck because Romney did not have and never did have a large group of supporters that were personally attached, connected, and loyal to him.
What he had was a bunch of people voting Republican who were also opposed to Hillary or Obama or anybody with a D next to their name.
But he didn't have this deep, connected band, huge band of supporters who were never going to abandon him no matter what anybody said about him.
And the more outlandish they said, the deeper the connection.
Well, Trump has that.
I don't think they can destroy Trump the way that, like, they're trying to destroy Trump over this thing in Scotland today.
This is a perfect example.
Trump, whether he designed it or not, happens to be the first thing in the news on UK soil the day after the Brexit vote.
He just happened to be there.
Did he design this or just the fate of luck?
Well, doesn't matter the answer.
He's there.
He's in Scotland and he's doing a big deal, long planned, to tout his new golf course in Turnbury opening up.
And because Trump sticks to his script and was there to open his golf course, that's what he first began talking about.
He didn't open with a statement on the Brexit vote.
And so here comes the media right on queue and any allies they have once again lashing out at Trump as incompetent, unaware, insensitive, didn't even have the presence of mind to realize that he's right there after the Brexit vote.
The first words out of his mouth should have been about that instead about his project.
And then they're saying, the next thing you don't do, boy, what a big mistake.
The next thing you don't do is you don't applaud economic calamity in the country where you happen to be because it'll benefit you, which Trump did by saying, hey, you know what?
The falling pound is going to help my business.
Any other candidate, that stuff might work.
It's not going to cause a single Trump supporter to abandon him.
Not a single Trump.
There may be some who wish that he would have taken the occasion to first comment on the Brexit vote, but they're not going to abandon him.
They're not going to let the media do it.
Romney people, the media could separate his supporters from him, but they can't from Trump.
And this, they don't understand this yet.
They think one of these times when they do a trick like this, it's going to work and they're going to be able to really harm Trump.
Now, I know I started out talking about money on this, and I've got to take a break because we make our own here in these obscene profit timeouts.
But I will continue this because I'm going to close the loop on it.
You'll see.
Don't go away.
Now, here's the upshot.
Let me give you the close and I'll get back to it.
I have wanted for the longest time for somebody to be elected president without needing a whole lot of money for it.
I think that'd be one of the greatest things to ever happen if somebody could get elected president without having to spend tens of millions of dollars or raise that much.