All Episodes
Previous Next
June 27, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:03
June 27, 2016, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying.
You know, I just I just got a note, Mr. Snerdley.
Somebody up at the website Dean said, you know what?
Every time you play a Hillary bite, you might lose as much audience as most other shows have.
Uh meaning she really grates on people.
She just really greats on people.
I already got a note today.
Please, would you not play any more Obama sound?
We don't need to hear the guy.
And I understand the sediment, folks.
I uh I totally understand the settlement.
The problem is that sometimes you actually need to hear it rather than me, even if I'm quoting, even if I'm reading verbatim, it's it's more effective if you actually hear it.
I understand the pain.
I understand the particularly Hillary.
I mean, that's fingernails on a chalkboard.
I mean, even when she's making a conscious effort to sound sane, you know, reasonable, it's still it's nothing natural.
There's never anything natural about.
I know she can't help it.
They've they've been coaching her, but she's back to screeching.
She loses it.
You know, depending on how long the sentence is, depending on where the sentence falls, she'll she'll she'll revert to screeching, and no matter how many coaching sessions they've had, they just can't get her to uh to forget about it.
They can't get her to drop it.
And I know it's grating, folks.
I realize it.
Anyway, great to have you back.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program's 800-282-2882, the email address, Lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
Mr. Snerdley, grab audio soundbite number five, or uh Mr. Broadcast Engineer.
Um I often don't do this, but as a prelude to delving into the stack of stuff I have here from the Brexit vote, and it's from all over.
It's from many people in America, like CNN's Christian poor.
By the way, do you know her real name is Christian Amenpore?
But it's it's like Joe Montana's name was not Joe Montana, Joe Montana.
Just one, it's Christianamanpoor.
And it takes a highly trained broadcast specialist to be able to say that.
That's why when you watch CNN, you'll just call them, you'll hear them refer to her as Christian.
Because you add the Amon Poor on there as one name, Christianoman poor, just putting a bunch of syllables together.
Anyway, she's out there saying that the Brexit vote was a victory for xenophobia and a blow to the liberal world order.
Just making no bones about it.
Well, what I want to do, I want to go back and replay a somewhat lengthy portion of a monologue of mine.
It was, and I know you know I play sound bites of myself in the past, but rarely of such length, because I think it's in some cases it's a cop-out.
Many cases just say it again.
But in this case, I was quoting from a piece I'd found in the American Spectator by Professor Angelo Codvia, and it was called The Ruling Class, America's Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution.
It was July 19th, 2010.
So about seven years ago.
Seven years ago.
I remember reading this piece and being so jazzed after I had read one of these pieces that every sentence of it, you're going, yep, right on.
Every sentence is exactly what I think.
I've just never put it into these kinds of words.
The whole piece.
Professor Cotvia eventually made a book out of this for For which I was asked to contribute a forward, which I graciously did, eagerly so.
This is the entire political establishment around the world, the drive-by media, all of the smart people have just this weekend been awakened by the Brexit vote.
Again, one of the themes of the whole stack I have today is how shocked, how Stunned the establishment, the ruling class around the world was at this vote.
They really didn't have any idea.
So in advance of getting into that and setting it up, I want to read, and I I spent 25 minutes on this.
I'm not going to do the whole thing.
This is about two and a half minutes, maybe 245.
Again, from July 19th, 2010.
We, in what Mr. Codvilla calls the country class, meaning not the Hick class, but the country.
We're the country.
The ruling class is a minority.
And I have touched on this.
We are being ruled, i.e., governed by a minority.
Less than 10, 15% of Americans agree with the thought process, the philosophies, the goals and objectives of the ruling class.
And we in the country class, we believe in merit.
We rise or fall based on merit.
We believe that a good GPA is what's necessary to get you into college.
We believe that performing well on the job is how you get promoted and how you get paid well.
Not true in the ruling class.
In fact, that is looked down upon.
It's sort of like the old money versus new money business.
The old money inherited from robber barons of the past, great wealth.
The people who inherited it don't do anything for it, but it has great lineage.
People who have earned great wealth rather than have inherited it, are shunned by the old money people because it's working class to have earned money.
It's just not done.
It's considered gauche.
It's considered filthy.
And it's much the same way with merit throughout the ruling class.
You don't have to be the best.
In fact, if you do the right things and say the right things, you can be an abject failure meritocracy-wise, and still be promoted.
This resonated with me in so many ways.
I grew up wanting to be in radio.
When I moved to New York in 1988, my objective was to become the most listened to person on radio.
Not top five, not top ten, but the most listened to.
And I did it.
And it didn't mean anything.
It didn't count for anything with those people.
And yet there are people who never have had any audience, who still don't have any audience, who are widely accepted, members of the ruling class, who are considered very powerful simply because they walk the walk, they talk the talk, they kiss the right rear ends and do all of this.
But the point is these people are a minority and they have no relationship to the rest of us in the country class.
And somehow we are now being ruled by these people.
We're not being governed.
We're being ruled by them.
And they have certain beliefs right now.
Among them is that the United States is the problem in the world.
Among them is that those of us not in the ruling class haven't the smarts, haven't the ability to know what's best for ourselves.
They have to do it for us.
I take it back.
I I misunderstood what this was.
I um I read the headline here in my own transcript.
I thought it was going to be reading from Code V. It wasn't.
It was the way I set it up.
This was the monologue I started before reading from Code V's piece in the uh in the uh American Spectator back in July of 2010.
And that went on for a while before I even got around to reading it.
I mean, it it resonated so much.
I could do my own monologue on this piece that he did that was every bit as long as the piece that he wrote.
It was it was that powerful.
It was that right on the money.
It won't.
It's the same thing.
I know it's exactly the same thing.
Brexit is the same thing.
Well, it's not just Brexit.
Brexit is just the latest example of what we are all up against when we consider ourselves to be the country class.
That's Cod Villa's term, by the way, uh, versus the ruling class, elites versus commoners, the establishment versus non-establishment, what have you.
And it's it's like uh anything else.
Now that it's been discovered and has well, it was not discovers the wrong.
Now that it has been illuminated, there's a parallel.
Back when this program Started in 1988.
I'm going to be brazenly honest here, folks.
Well, I always am, but I mean I'm I'm gonna say something here that I haven't said very often.
I've said it before, but not very often.
1988, everything was fine.
There were three networks, ABC, NBCBS.
There was over the PBS over there, too.
There was one cable news network, and that was CNN, and that was it.
That was the broadcast media.
You add to that the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, USA Today, and all the other big city dailies, and that was the media, and it, every bit of it was left wing.
Every bit, every plate, at one exception, the the uh Washington Times, National Review Magazine, but I mean, these paled in comparison to this monolith.
It was all leftist, it was all liberal, but they never said so.
They were just what was.
They were the media.
Now don't misunderstand everybody knew the media was left, and everybody talked about liberal media.
Don't misunderstand what my point is that they themselves always denied it, said they were objective, said they were fair.
There was no liberal media, there's no bias, you you're just a bunch of conservative crackpots or however they decided to characterize it.
The point is, 1988, there wasn't any national alternative media.
Then my program started in August.
And in a few short years, there were other first local conservative shows.
And then a couple of my guest hosts got their own national conservative talk shows.
And about early 90s, the internet exploded with websites to be followed by blogs and a rash of new websites that were decidedly conservative, uh libertarian, but alternative.
And then in 1997, Fox News came along.
So some nine years after I started Fox News came, then MSNBC got going, and so we had an alternative media.
And my point is that with the invention, discovery, appearance of an alternative media, the existing left-wing or dominant media, mainstream media, all of a sudden began to acknowledge who and what they were and entered into an open competition with us.
They began losing audience, obviously, it became bifurcated.
They began shedding advertiser dollars because some advertisers fled and joined the new media.
They all of a sudden had to compete, whereas before they had a monopoly.
They were it.
If you wanted news, you got one interpreter.
If you didn't see CBS, doesn't matter, watch NBC.
If you missed that, doesn't matter, watch ABC.
If you miss that, no big deal.
New York Times and Washington Post will catch you up.
The point is it was all the same.
Not only what they reported and covered, but what they didn't.
All of that changed.
And I think it ushered in a new partisanship that was made possible, not by us, but by the left responding to us.
The media entered the battle, and as such, became even more left-wing, became even more biased, became even more partisan.
And but but beyond all of that, they dropped the illusion that they were objective.
And they came to join us in open battle against us.
Well, I think, and this is this has created its own new kind of partisanship.
It's undeniable.
Same thing's happening now with the ruling class.
For the longest time they were there, they have always been there.
They have always been the establishment.
It's always been a bunch of elites.
It's always been a bunch of people that probably were nowhere near the best at what they did, but they went to the right schools, they had the right family lineage, they came from old money, which made them special.
And they had all been trained by the various educations they had had to join government at various levels and to maintain the unique position of power that the elites in the establishment had, even though they were a decided minority in terms of numbers.
Well, now Code Villa's piece came along seven years ago.
And we've had a couple of midterm elections where the Republicans won in landslides with a Republican Party pretended it didn't happen, and all of a sudden, just as there was an actual admission that there was a left-wing media, and now the establishment is admitting who they are, what they are, and they're openly flaunting who they are and what they are, and they have joined us in battle, mocking us, ridiculing us.
It's almost a repeat of what happened with the advent of conservative alternative media, what that did to the mainstream media.
Now the elites in the establishment and whatever you want to characterize them have now begun to behave in ways almost identical to the way the drive-by media did when it was exposed.
And that is to engage in battle to destroy us, to defeat us, in addition to whatever else they're doing.
And this is where we find ourselves now.
Now that's a very, very shortened version of all that's transpired in a in a whole number of years.
But it's why we have Trump.
It's why 16 other establishment type candidates, or 15, there was one other outsider in there, didn't make any ground.
It's why the Republican Party is having all kinds of problems, why George Will has quit the Republican Party.
It's because the well, that's its own story, yeah.
But but still it's a result of the establishment not having any more 100% unadulterated power over all of us.
They now have to fight for it every day, and they don't like it.
It's beneath them to have to compete.
It's beneath them to have to camp.
It's beneath and then the Brexit vote comes along, and the Trump candidacy and all these things are illustrating in many ways just how out of touch and unconcerned about it the elites are.
These are the people that were one time considered the best and brightest, and people looked up to them and respected them and trusted them, trusted them to run the college program, the college education program, trusted them to run student loan programs, trusted them to run the banks, trusted them to run real estate and housing, trusted them to run the institutions that defined our greatness, and they've done nothing but botch it.
The old days when they botched it was just chalked it up as something unfortunate.
Now people have a great sense of awareness of this divide that exists.
Ruling class, country class, just like the divide that now exists between standard old-fashioned media and alternative media.
And it's led to incessant partisanship, not bad in and of itself.
I'm not saying that critically.
They do.
I don't.
Back in just a second.
Don't go away.
Now the point is that the media now has to fight with us to win, and the establishment now has to fight with us to win.
They used to not have to do this.
They had monopolies, they ran it.
There was nothing anybody could do to stop it.
They had such power the establishment did that they could they can prevent uprisings from starting before anybody knew they were even brewing.
But they can't any longer.
And they're scared and they're mad.
And these are the kind of people, folks, that are where they are, not because of merit.
If they lose it, they can't embark on a plan to regain it.
Because the memberships they have, the like in the establishment, the networking, the clubs are all the result of having the right last name, the last pedigree, right pedigree, any number, nothing to do with merit.
So they lose it.
How do they get it back?
In their minds, they'll have nothing.
It's a strange world.
I I I wouldn't myself, I wouldn't be comfortable in a world where merit was not a determining factor.
I just I don't know that I would ever feel whole.
I I if if I were part of that club and was there for things that had nothing to do with me particularly.
I mean, I had not really done anything to earn it in the traditional sense of earn.
I don't know how I could.
I'd never think it was real.
I would always think it could be snatched away from me if it wasn't based in any kind of substance.
And I think that's where they are now.
And they're not gonna let it go.
This Brexit vote, you we get to this stack, they're hellbent on redoing the vote, or just ignoring it, or discrediting it somehow.
And I hope the Lelave crowd understands what they're up against.
Because it still just isn't gonna happen.
There's already mumblings now that there's so much guilt on the leave side.
Maybe, you know, we might have been a little hasty, not sure we really want to do this.
You can even see those kinds of stories out there now.
Right on, back we are, L Rushbow, have my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Time to get started on the phones, and we're gonna start with Adam in Charleston, South Carolina.
Great to have you with us today, sir.
Hello.
Hello Rush.
First time caller and longtime listener.
Could you explain to me without using the term double standard, how our elected officials are state legislators trying to impose regulations to keep women safer, uh get denied.
Yet non government employees like the uh EPA impose sanctions and regulations on businesses, and they get put out of business all the time.
Well, um honestly, I I had very much trouble understanding what you said.
Not your fault.
It's my cochlear implants and that's what you said.
So I had to read what you said, so I'm a little behind.
But I think what you're asking me is how is it that uh some Texas state officials will pass a legitimate law guaranteed or designed to make abortion safer, and the Supreme Court comes along and says, no way, no how you can't do that.
Unconstitutional screw you.
Meanwhile, over here, the EPA can write whatever regulations it wants outside of any congressional action, and it becomes law and can never be challenged, right?
If if that's the question, it's a great question.
It's a great illustration of exactly what kinds of things we're up against.
The EPA is not the only bureaucracy doing these kinds of things, issuing the number of regulations that come out of the Obama administration, folks, are in the tens of thousands.
It's gotten to the point where it may be impossible for an average citizen to go through the day without violating some federal law or regulation.
There are that many of them.
Now, I'm gonna give you a generic answer to how come the EPA can do this.
It's not complicated to explain, but apparently it's very, very hard to do.
The Constitution has this thing in it called separation of powers.
You see, the founders distrusted all power in the hands of a single person or entity.
So they divided, they divided government up into three branches.
You had the courts over here called the judiciary, then you have the executive branch, which is the president and his cabinet, which includes the Department of Justice, and the uh national security apparatus and a military.
And it it now includes things like Homeland Security and whatever presidents have created in the process.
OSHA was created by Richard Nixon, for example.
EPA, created by Richard Nixon, was not part of the founding.
They were political constructs.
In Nixon's case, he was trying to, I think, show liberals he wasn't a bad guy by giving them things that they liked, didn't work, they hated him, they were never going to stop hating him.
And then they had the legislative branch, which is uh House and Senate.
Now the founders knew that there was going to be a never-ending battle for federal power.
That's why they divided it up three ways.
But they were smart, they were students of history, and they knew that all presidents would try to eventually become kings.
They knew that every member of Congress would want to become president.
They were very wary of what judges would do.
So they put limits.
The simple answer to your question is if you want to stop the EPA from writing regulations that become law, Congress has to stand up and protect its turf.
Congress has to call the EPA in and tell the administrator that the last 10,000 regulations are defunct and unconstitutional because they didn't go through Congress.
And if you don't like it, eat it.
If Congress isn't willing to protect its turf, Adam, then the president will be able to walk all over them.
The judiciary will be able to walk all over them.
The president and his cabinet will be able to walk all over them.
The Constitution was brilliant in this way.
It set up all kinds of obstacles.
It built gridlock into the system for crying out.
Gridlock is heralded as one of these horrible things because it stops government from making laws.
No, gridlock is a godsend.
Gridlock is the thing that stands in the way of government growing inexorably and unstoppably.
It built the Senate and designed the Senate to act slowly.
The Senate is there to practically shut down every piece of legislation that comes out of the House.
Every spending bill by virtue of the Constitution, every penny that is spent in this country must first be authorized by the House of Representatives.
And the committee that does that is Ways and Means.
And if the Congress doesn't authorize the spending, it can't happen.
So if a renegade agency of the executive branch starts spending money, it's got a budget if he starts spending money or doing this or that that has not been authorized, it's up to Congress to stand up and say you can't do it.
It's like anything else.
If the cops aren't going to chase criminals, they're going to get away with it.
If when we catch criminals, we don't put them in jail for whatever reason, they're going to keep getting away with it.
If we're not allowed to catch criminals because stupid things like profiling, they're never going to get caught in the first place.
So if Congress wants to rein in all of these out-of-control bureaucracies, they could do it.
I'm sure if I had a member here, they'd tell me, yeah, yeah, theoretically you're right, Mr. Limbaugh, but in practice it would be very, very difficult.
There would be all kinds of retribution.
I'm sure it would be.
None of this is supposed to be easy.
But all of this, Adam, is about power.
Every single shred of this is about power and the quest for it.
That's another aspect of brilliance in the Constitution.
It is to limit that power residing in the federal government.
And the federal government is constituted today, is led by people who want to rip the Constitution to shreds and either just dispose of it or rewrite it, granting them the power they don't have now.
And in lieu of that, they're acting as though they do.
And when you have the House of Representatives telling the president, sir, we're not going to stop you on the budget if you want a budget.
We'll give you what you want, because we don't want to harm our candidate in this year's campaign for the presidency.
And Mr. President, because of your race, we're not going to ever bring impeachment charges.
Well, if you're a president, subsumed the quest for power.
You have just been given blue skies and green lights, the likes of which a Congress is never before granted an executive.
Why would Obama stop?
Well, because Russi's a great American is a patriot.
Oh, realize here what's going on.
You ought to not take advantage.
Had a respect for the rule of law.
Maybe the respect for a rule of law.
Who are we talking about here for talking about statist, socialist, big government liberal Democrats who've just been given blue skies and green lights for the rest of Obama's term and they got it two years ago.
Why would he stop?
Same thing with the IRS.
The IRS should not be able to penalize any Tea Party group simply because of politics.
But they will if nobody stops them.
And the rule of law, if it ceases to exist, is not going to stop them.
The piece of paper the Constitution's written on is not going to stop them.
It takes somebody blocking them and tackling them.
And if you don't have the appetite for it, then it's going to continue to happen.
Meanwhile, the people see all this and they're livid.
They want it stopped.
Because all these EPA regulations and all this other caca coming out of Congress is doing nothing but making it harder and harder and harder to simply earn a living.
Much less achieve the American dream.
They want it stopped.
They want this stuff all taken out of their way.
Some do.
Hopefully still most.
But if the Congress, and this is not an attack on this current one per se, I'm just theoretically, if the Congress is not going to stop.
The executive branch from trying to take its power away.
The executive branch is going to keep taking its power away.
It's human nature.
I don't know if you're the kind of person who wants power over other people.
I don't know if you're the kind of person who wants to amass power at your job or in your family, but rest assured, people who do are everywhere, and many of them are in government, And it's the sole reason they're there.
Constitution be damned.
With the amount of money this government collects because of the vast economy of this nation.
You're talking about trillions and trillions of dollars.
And where does it all end up?
In Washington, D.C. It's something called the Department of the Treasury.
And at the Federal Reserve in their banks.
But theoretically, it's all in Washington.
That's where the collecting agency is.
That's where the people who authorize its taxation and spending are.
And so that's where you want to be if you want your share of it.
And that is microcosm, exactly what's happening now.
Go to Washington, you'll find the unemployment rate's 3%.
You'll find the per capita income in Washington and the surrounding area dwarfs anywhere else in the country outside of the Hamptons and Beverly Hills and San Francisco and other such places, but it's right up there.
They are experiencing no immigration problems in Washington or surrounding environs.
They are certainly not experiencing any unemployment.
They're not seeing their wages decline.
They're seeing, in fact, record amounts of money being collected to be fought over and distributed and used for whatever purposes necessary to acquire and gain even more power.
And if those who are constitutionally mandated, as the House of Representatives and the Senate are, with a certain amount of constitutional power, if they're not going to stand up and protect it, then you're going to have an out-of-control agency like the EPA with impunity pretending that it writes laws.
Meanwhile, everybody else obeying the law, following the legislative route, here comes Supreme Court.
They also have become totally politicized now.
The Supreme Court's not a judicial body anymore.
It's a rubber stamp for the Democrat Party.
There are four liberal judges, now five with Kennedy for all intents and purposes, and they are there for one reason, not to study the cases and make the ruling based on law.
They are there to rubber stamp whatever, and they all know the left-wing agenda demands case by case by case.
In the abortion case, the word has gone out, even though it doesn't need to go out, they all instinctively know this.
There will not be one law.
There will not be one regulation, there will not be one rule permitted that is seen to make abortion more difficult to have or be performed.
Ergo, Texas comes along and says, you know what, we're going to not allow abortion clinics that are no better than veterinary clinics, no offense, veterinarians, but we're not going to allow these unhygienic, filthy, dirty clinics to exist.
They're going to have to be some standards.
You have to be some post-op standards.
You've got to be people at work, and they're going to have to have admission, eligibility for hospitals.
Supreme Court came on.
No, you are not going to do that, Texas, because all that might make it harder for our constituents to get an abortion, which is all that matters.
Plus, we love sticking it to you.
So you.
And that's how it all happens.
If the people madly in the quest for power are not stopped in that quest, or if they are not competed against for it, what do you think is going to happen?
Look, you all instinctively know it.
That is why you're so angry at the Republican Party.
Pure and simple.
And we will be back.
Don't go away.
No, no, I've not forgotten about it.
I also got the Brexit stack here.
No, I've not been purposely putting it off.
I just things happen as they happen.
Here, back to the phones.
Fargo, North Dakota.
This is Dan, your next sir.
Welcome.
Hey, Rush.
Thanks for having me on.
Yeah, you bet.
So I uh I just wanted to touch on a point here that has a lot of aspects to it, so I'll try to stay concise.
But it seems to me that when the country was founded and the Constitution was drafted, um, there was a there was a general uh more homogenous um outlook on uh the vision for this nation.
Um whereas today um, you know, the nation is for better or for worse, um full of um far more diverse values and perspectives um that create a sense of discord among the populace.
Um and it seems to me that the uh the elite and the uh the ruling classes you call them actually feed off of that that sense of discord as it as we vote them more power day by day.
Um and it's uh kind of a breath of fresh air the other day to see that Brexit vote and see that uh that there was uh um you know an entire nation, or at least, you know, 50% of a nation that that's willing to step away from a centralized power like it did.
So wait, wait, wait, wait, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute.
Now you boy, you got a goldmine of good points here.
In the first place, the Brits did not renounce socialism.
The Brits are still socialist.
They didn't renounce that.
What the Brits, that's why I made a point last Friday of saying, even though we would love to see this as a rejection of liberalism, we can't lie to ourselves.
What this was was a bunch of people saying we are not going to stop being Great Britain.
We are going to hold on to our nation.
We love being British.
We love that there is a Great Britain, and we're not going to let it be dissolved.
We're not going to let it be overrun by out-of-control immigration, by people in charge of not caring what happens to British people.
We're not going to let ourselves be subjected to a bunch of people ruling us who don't care that there is a Britain or a Germany or a France or whatever.
We're not going to be run by a peach bunch of people who don't believe in nations.
This was nationhood.
This was nationalism speaking up, piping up.
This is a bunch of people fed up like here with immigration.
Fed up with the attempted abolition of nationhood, which is what the EU is all about.
The EU.
I don't know, folks, if you have traveled over there, but once you enter the EU, that's the last time you have to use your passport.
You enter the EU in France, you go anywhere.
You don't have to show them your passport, you get a Great Britain.
You don't need to show your passport, you go to Germany, because the borders don't exist.
That's what they were rising up against.
But they did not.
They did not reject socialism.
That hadn't happened yet.
Now you had another point, but I've got to wait on that because I'm sadly out of time.
Our last caller, Adam, said that at the founding, in the days of the founding, we were more homogeneous.
We are not necessarily so either.
▲
Export Selection