All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 2, 2017 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:35
January 2, 2017, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, this is gonna be fun, folks.
It's it's gonna be fun.
I don't quite know how to describe how much fun it's gonna be, but I can try to give you an idea here.
Greetings and welcome back.
Rushland bought talent on loan from God.
It's a delight to have you here.
800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program to email address L Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
What happened to that call that was on line four that I wanted?
What was do you remember what the subject matter of that call was?
What was it?
What was it?
Oh yeah, yeah, that we had a caller up there.
I gave advice to somebody on how to to do what.
Oh, yeah, how to deal with schoolmates razzing her because she didn't vote for Hillary.
And she wanted to tell me that she gave she tried the advice on on for herself or for her daughter, and it worked.
And she was going to tell me, and I can't remember what I told her.
I can't remember what.
Oh, okay.
Okay, so it was a guy who heard the advice I gave the lady that called, and he passed that advice on to his daughter, right?
And it worked.
And he was going to tell me, and I it's vaguely coming back to me.
Anyway, the guy hung up.
I should have taken him first because I I I wanted to, I don't remember exactly what the advice was.
I've given so much advice to so many people that I needed a refresher on the specific advice I gave to that caller that this guy had had overheard.
Anyway, what I mean by this is going to be fun.
Remember now that to understand all this, you have to establish, and I want to keep reminding you of mindsets, you have to, and I'm sorry to keep browbeating this, but it's it's it's really important.
In order to understand the never Trumpers and the Democrats and the leftists and the media and anybody critical of Trump, you have to understand who they are in order to get a good understanding, have a good understanding of how Trump's success is going to affect them.
So in the case of Obama and his White House staff, in the case of the media, in the case of Never Trumpers, you have people who are embedded for life in the political system.
The establishment, the elites, or what have you.
And that political system has rules and norms.
And Trump, and they they have a superiority almost complex about it.
As members of the elite, as members of the establishment.
There's only their way of doing things.
And if anybody is going to try to get into their system, they're going to have to behave according to the rules of the system.
And if somebody doesn't, then all bets are off.
Well, that's where we are here.
We have a legitimate outsider Donald Trump, who wants no part of their system.
And that offends them.
He doesn't believe in their system because he doesn't believe it's been working.
He believes their system has been retarding the growth of this country and preventing us from realizing our full potential, both as a country and as individuals.
So he doesn't believe in their system.
That offends them.
But they think he's the one that's a nut because the system is theirs.
They devised it.
They're the ones that maintain it and protect it.
They guard it, and they believe in its supremacy and superiority.
So Trump is already running rings around them.
And he's not even president yet.
Trump is already able to accomplish things that they haven't been able to accomplish, that they say can't be accomplished, because it's a global world now, and there are massive forces out there, and we must learn our place in the world and all this rotat.
And Trump doesn't care about any of that.
The other factor here that you have to keep in mind is the media.
Look at how you learned that Trump convinced Carrier To keep a thousand jobs in Indiana.
You heard about it from Trump.
Trump tweeted it.
The two major news stories of the day are Donald Trump tweets.
The first tweet is the carrier tweet.
The second story is that Trump is going to have a press conference on December 15th, or a uh some sort of a public ceremony where he is going to back out of all of his businesses.
What is happening on the media?
Trump is setting the news agenda.
And he's doing it himself.
And the media is following.
Trump establishes a story or an agenda or a narrative, which they have always considered theirs and theirs alone.
They are in charge of that.
They're in charge of the daily narrative.
They're in charge of the script.
They're in charge of the soap opera.
And then everybody has to follow them.
And everybody has to kiss up to them.
Everybody has to do whatever they can to get treated nicely by them.
Trump's, I don't care.
I'm going to do the news of the day.
I'm going to tell people what I want them to know, and he does it.
They're following.
After Trump goes out and establishes these two narratives, then what's happening?
The drive-by media is now out all over television and on their websites, and there's soon to be published newspapers filling space based on what Trump has done and said.
And they resent the heck out of that, folks.
You cannot, you cannot believe the resentment about that.
The media believe they are more powerful than any other branch of government.
And they think they should be.
They think they have the power to bring any branch of government or anybody in government to heal.
And by the same token, they have the power to insulate anybody, like Obama from any criticism from outside.
But however they use it, they believe they are the sole purveyors and owners of that power.
Trump is blowing all of this up.
To illustrate, I have an audio soundbite from Josh Ernest, who is Obama's press secretary.
He had his daily press briefing today after Trump announced that Carrier, after talking to Trump, is going to keep a thousand manufacturing jobs in Indiana.
So at the White House press session this afternoon, the press briefing, an unidentified reporter stood up and asked this question of Ernest.
Late yesterday, Carrier announced a deal with Donald Trump to keep close to a thousand jobs at an air conditioner plant in Indianapolis.
All the details of the deal haven't been announced.
When I was wondering, does the White House have any thoughts on the strategy that's been employed to lean on a private company to get them to keep jobs in the U.S.?
Is that a strategy that the White House approves of?
I just wanted your thoughts on that.
The early indications are that this is good news, and uh obviously we'd welcome that good news.
I know that the President elect has uh indicated that uh he deserves credit for that announcement.
And I guess what I would uh observe is that if he is uh successful in doing that eight hundred and four more times, then he will meet the record of manufacturing jobs that were created in the United States while President Obama was in office.
If we go to protecting jobs, there are uh more than a million jobs uh in the industrial Midwest that were saved when uh President Obama made the decision to rescue the American auto industry.
Right.
He didn't rescue anything, he bought it.
That's the difference.
But do you hear the arrogance there?
I I'm telling you at the White House when this was announced, don't doubt me on this.
There was seething, there was rage, there was cursing at everything about it.
At Trump over the details of the story, over how small it was gonna make Obama look, how inconsequential it was gonna make Obama look, and so they had to have a meeting and they had to devise how they're gonna deal with this.
And they decided to go out there and minimize what Trump's oh, we really happy for Donald Trump, that's really great.
If he does it 84 more times, then maybe he can talk to Obama about how you save jobs.
That's their message.
It is as transparent and empty at the same time as You can get, and it's it's it's childlike.
It's it is not at all mature.
And the only thing Ernest could cite in saving manufacturing jobs is President Obama's decision to rescue the American auto industry.
He'd made no such decision.
President Obama did not rescue the American auto industry.
He bought it and then tried to turn it over to the unions.
There wasn't any rescue.
What Trump has done with carrier and what Obama did with the auto industry are two entirely different things.
For there to be any any similarity here, Obama, or I'm sorry, Trump would be the owner of carrier today.
And he would have gone in and browbeat them and made who knows what kind of deals in order to transfer the ownership.
Obama looked at the auto industry as the epitome of what's wrong with America.
It was one of the many examples of what's wrong with America.
The auto workers, they're the ones that should own that company in Obama's world.
Because they provided the sweat labor.
They're the ones that made any automobile sale possible, and they got nothing.
They got dirt compared to the CEO and compared to the stockholders and the board of directors and all this other thing.
And so Obama's purpose was to go in and take the auto industry away from the people that owned it.
And that's exactly what happened.
There were stockholders and there were bondholders.
Now, people forget these things, but I do not.
In the pecking order of who gets paid when something goes belly up or is close to it, and investors need to be made whole.
Bondholders go first.
Then the stockholders, and then other investors after that.
What Obama did was go in and basically tell the bondholders, people who had invested in bonds.
I think what are we talking about?
General Motors here.
He told the General Motors bondholders that they had to pound sand.
They got diddly squat.
Obama took it away from them.
There is literally no comparison to what Obama did in so-called rescuing GM and what Trump has done here with Carrier.
And their answer here, their seething bitter little answer.
I mean, stop and think of the mindset here.
You're president of the United States and your spokesman's out there, and you are the most powerful man in the world.
And there's some guy out there that you don't particularly like.
He's just been elected president.
You think he's a buffoon.
And so you think you've got to put him down and you've got to do it in such a way that makes everybody think you're the big guy and he's just a chump pretender.
Well, you know, okay, so he saved the jobs and carrier.
We're very happy about that.
Big whoop, big if he does it 804 more times, he can come talk to us.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, uh there hasn't been any jobs rescue under Obama.
We've had net zero.
Yeah, there are new jobs created, most of them are part-time because of the Obamacare requirements.
We've had businesses shut down.
We haven't had any economic growth.
There hasn't been any economic recovery.
If the economy had as robust as Obama was saying, Hillary probably would have been elected.
If the economy were roaring and everybody was experiencing what you have in economic growth, if wages were really increasing and people's standards of living were rising, then Trump probably would not have won.
But America is stagnant and it's being run by somebody who doesn't believe it deserves to prosper.
At least not as a superpower.
Barack Obama and the Democrats believe the United States is guilty and has been an undeserving superpower for way too long, built on the backs of minorities and the discriminated against and the besieged and the grievance-filled.
And the purpose of the Obama administration was to pay America back so that people got a taste of what it was like to be at The back of the line.
We didn't deserve our superpower status.
We didn't deserve our exalted economic status because it was purchased unjustly and immorally.
This is what they believe.
America, we were told this is a new normal.
America in decline.
Get used to it.
This is where the the world is headed now.
Then they threw in climate change and all the other damage that we've caused, and then they're out trying to portray themselves as these big believers in economic growth, and they were responsible for it.
And if they were, they could point to it, and Hillary would have been re-elected, but they can't, and they didn't.
And that's why what Trump did, saving a thousand jobs.
Stop thinking this.
Trump announces saving a thousand jobs, and it's a bigger economic announcement than any Barack Obama has had in eight years.
That's what they're steaming about in the White House.
Trump could go out and tweet that he has saved a thousand jobs at carrier in Indiana, and it's a bigger economic news than anything Obama announced.
Bigger than his stimulus, which didn't work.
Bigger than Obamacare, which is an albatross around this nation's neck, and is going to have to be dispatched and rebuilt.
Practically everything Obama touched has been damaged to one degree or another.
I think it's quite telling that an announcement of saving a thousand jobs is maybe the biggest economic news this country has had, the most uplifting, shall we say, in eight years.
And they know it at the White House.
And they know it at the Democrat Party.
And they've not had experience dealing with this because they have not had a functioning opposition which was out to defeat them or fix their mistakes.
They're up against things they have no preparation for, no recent experience dealing with another timeout.
We'll be back after this.
Petty is right.
That's the exact word to describe Josh Ernest and the regime reacting to Trump saving a thousand jobs at Car at Carrier.
Well, he's only got a about eight hundred and four more jobs like that to save, and then we'll be in the same territory.
It's pettiness.
It is infantile and childish.
And expect more of it.
Here's Dave in Boston.
Dave, great to uh have you on the program.
Hello, sir.
Hey, Rock, thank you.
I'm calling to tell you that I'm excited about the physical barrier that's going to be constructed along our border to Mexico because it's going to impact a lot more than just border security.
I think it's going to be uh President Trump's first opportunity to show that America yet can get things done under good leadership, just like the great generation did back in World War II.
And I think it's going to turn it into a monument of the new American attitude that we're going to have.
Let me ask you a question, and uh Dave, what what happens if the wall doesn't get built?
Uh I I think you were talking earlier about his uh instincts and his focus on accomplishment.
It has to get done.
And I think uh I'm in the construction industry, he can get it done before the end of the summer.
It's not rocket science.
Well, I know.
He's said that.
He said he can get it done, he can get it cheaper, and he can have a nice, much nicer looking wall, a beautiful wall with a big, big ass door uh in in this wall.
And one thing I was thinking about as far as uh how he uh I don't think he's gonna lose face on uh Mexican not paying because all we have to do, it's I I looked it up in uh Wikipedia.
I think it's only like fifty-one million dollars a year, if that's correct, but we'll withhold the money that uh we're giving him right now with age.
There's any number of accounting tricks that you could perform to at the end of the day claim the Mexicans had paid for the wall.
No, I know he didn't answer the question.
Well, he did answer.
I asked him what he's gonna do if if the wall doesn't get built, and his answer was it's gonna get built.
He's gotta build it.
He's gotta be.
Oh my God, if he doesn't build the wall, geez.
Carrier Schmerrier, if he doesn't build a wall.
Um I don't know whether he's gonna build a wall.
My friends, I want to be I have never thought.
I think I've even said this a couple of times during the campaign.
This is What so frustrates the people who count themselves as Trump critics, I for one have never believed that there's actually going to be a multiple thousand mile wall.
What I do believe is the first thing that's going to happen after Jeff Sessions succeeds in enduring his confirmation hearings, and they're going to bork him.
Actually, they're going to ashcroft him.
But they're going to try to, they're going to try to weaken sessions so that when he's confirmed, he doesn't have any legitimacy.
That's the only thing he can do with Trump and all of his appointees.
First thing they have to do, first thing that no, not have to do.
The first thing to do to make the biggest difference in the world to immigration, simply enforce the law.
With that move alone, you would stop it.
Back in a second.
No, no, no, no.
I am not avoiding anything.
But I want to I want to answer the guy's question that he didn't answer about the wall.
What happens if Trump doesn't build a wall?
You realize, ladies and I'll tell you what I think the first thing that's going to happen is that immigration law on the books is going to be enforced.
The whole problem that we have, may I be honest, solving immigration has always been about saving two things.
Our economy and our culture.
Solving illegal, mass illegal immigration such as that brought to us by the Washington establishment.
We have how many untold refugees from war-torn areas of the world who have not been vetted, one of them just engaged in an act of terrorism at Ohio State.
They're all over this country because they haven't been vetted.
They have been let into this country for irresponsible reasons.
Typical irresponsible left-wing liberal reasons.
Compassion, understanding, tolerance or what have you.
I actually think the reasons are much worse and much different.
I think illegal immigration is one of the tools the left has been using to undermine the majority of this country from the days of our founding.
And nobody will convince me otherwise.
Illegal immigration has always also been a way to keep the Democrat Party provided with a permanent underclass of potential voters who are in constant economic need because they don't speak English, they're low skilled, and they haven't the ability to provide for themselves.
Democrat Party is happy to do that under the auspices of the federal government, making them permanent, never-ending, always-voting Democrat and...
People.
So the primary objective here is to save the United States economy and to save the United States culture from being overrun.
Trump tweeted about the Ohio State terrorist should not have even been in the country.
He's absolutely right.
The objective I believe Donald Trump has is to precisely keep people out of this country who should not be here.
And the way you do that, first step you take is enforce existing law.
The law that we have is fine.
It's multifaceted and would take care of the vast percentage, the vast majority of illegal immigrants who are in the country or who are crossing into the country now.
There are five laws that Trump could enforce immediately.
Number one is to deport illegal aliens.
Number two is to complete the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which both Hillary and Obama voted for.
Number three, enforce the laws that punish employers for hiring illegals, and number four, end sanctuary cities and number five, enforce the laws prohibiting welfare to illegal aliens.
That's what if if those five laws, they already exist.
We don't need new legislation.
We have cities in violation.
We have governments in violation.
We have employers in violation.
If these laws already on the board, we already have a fence law.
If these laws already passed by the elected representatives of the people were simply enforced, the impact on illegal immigration would be profound.
And you could do all of that while you're building a wall if you intend to, but you wouldn't even need to build the wall to do any of those things.
You need the resolve to do it.
The sanctuary city people are not going to cave in, at least not not easily.
Employers are always going to be tempted to hire cheap labor.
But the real criticism that the majority of American citizens have, this is a law and order issue.
And it is a rule of law issue.
And we have had too many years of the United States government not enforcing its own laws, and that's what's rubbed people wrong.
That's what has enraged people.
That has that that has that simple fact explains so much of the opposition to the Washington establishment.
Just that.
By not enforcing the laws, the country's economy is under siege and our culture is under siege.
And then after Democrats were elected, and it appeared that is what they wanted, then the energy to resist it became even greater, and that's why Donald Trump's been elected.
And I'm just here to tell those of you in the media and those of you in the left, if Donald Trump doesn't build a wall, but nevertheless enforces immigration law, everything's going to be fine with his supporters.
Because the objective is not to build a wall.
The objective is not to have a tourist location.
Wow, go look at the wall Trump built.
The objective is to save the U.S. economy and the United States culture.
And if the enforcement of already existing law can accomplish a good part of that, then people will be more than happy that it's been done.
Now, I don't know whether there's going to be a wall built, and if there is how big, how many miles, or any of that.
We'll just have to wait and see.
All I'm trying to tell you is that if Trump doesn't build a wall, it's not going to be a strike against him as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not going to take it.
See, he lied.
He didn't mean it.
That's not.
If he doesn't enforce the immigration laws, then there's going to be problems.
If nothing changes, where illegal immigration is good, that's where he's going to have a problem.
But if the effort is made to fix this, and it's a serious effort, and if it succeeds, and if Trump hangs in and commits on his real pledge, and that is to end this, the fact that there's a wall or not will be incidental.
You disagree with that, Mr. Snerdley?
Because I think it's about the substance, not the symbols.
The wall in Mr. Trump's campaigning has always been, as far as I'm concerned, symbolic.
Mexican paying for the wall.
Mexico pay for the wall has also been symbolic.
It has a specific meaning.
But the people that do not get Trump are never going to understand this about him.
They're never going to see this.
I don't know that they're even going to be capable of it.
Let me read to you just a bit from a column today by JPOD.
Our old buddy John Pedoritz writing in the New York Post.
Now I'm going to read a whole thing, just a it's a few relevant excerpts here.
But we're missing one profound thing about Trump, and we keep missing it.
He's talking about himself and the buddies in the media.
And we will continue to miss it.
And that is that Trump is not a politician.
He doesn't think of himself as a politician, and he doesn't act like a politician.
And we are all desperately trying to fit him into our understanding of what he's supposed to be.
He's running for president, he got elected, that means he's a politician, that means X, Y, and Z and A, B, and C. But he's not any of those things.
So we keep trying to make him what he's not, because he has entered our arena, and he better be what people in our arena are, but he's not.
Trump himself told the New York Times last week that it was about two years ago that he started thinking about politics.
Every major elected official in our time, with the possible exception of the late starting Ronaldus Magnus, has thought of nothing but politics most of his or her life.
Until he was sixty-eight years old, Trump only thought about politics as a sidelight, as a diversion, as something to dabble in, something a noodle about.
He was first and foremost a businessman who became a showbiz sensation.
But what if there is no Trumpian strategy?
What if there is no organizing principle?
What he means by this, when a George W. Bush announces for the presidency and then runs, you're able to discern what his agenda, what his program is, what his beliefs are, his fundraising structure.
You're able to learn everything about Bush and who he is, and you can judge and report on him accordingly.
With Trump, they can't figure it out.
Because with Trump, they can't find an organizing principle.
They can't find the lifelong reason he's wanted to do this.
And then Pedoris's next line, what if Trump has no plan?
That seems the likeliest interpretation of his tweeting and even the bizarre rigor role surrounding his consideration of Romney'd be Secretary of State.
So they're honestly sitting there after having listened to Trump for a year and a half after having watched Trump, or at least they've had the opportunity to, assuming he's got no plan.
Well, he most certainly does have a plan, and he's been very clear about it.
He's been very precise about it.
What is it about it that his people, these people don't see?
Why are they not able to listen to what Donald Trump says he's gonna do and believe he means it?
Well, I they don't believe it, and they don't believe anybody in their world would ever speak this way, would ever have this kind of an agenda or these kinds of objectives, and so nobody else would either.
No reasonable person could possibly behave like Donald Trump does, not in our world.
What if Trump has no plan?
What if he's got no plan?
He his plan is what's behind him running for office.
His plan is to make the country great again.
His plan is based on his and millions of other people's belief that this country is in decline and dwindling away in ways it shouldn't be.
And the one thing we know, the people in Washington, both parties, wherever they are, think tanks, magazines, media, elected office, doesn't matter.
We know they have never thought at any time in the last eight years that this country's in crisis.
That has been the great dividing line.
We're out here thinking we're on the verge of losing the country, and they're laughing at us for thinking so.
Because in their world, everything's fine.
Their kids got into private school, they all have their incomes, they live in the areas they want to live, they go to restaurants and cocktail parties, everything's fine.
They cannot possibly understand people that think the country is in crisis, that we're on the verge of losing it.
So it's obvious they can't then comprehend Trump's plan.
Even if they did, they don't agree with it or think it's legitimate.
But it's worse than that.
They don't even think he has a plan.
The fact that he doesn't have a plan seems like the likeliest interpretation of his behavior.
He improvised his way to the presidency.
He's improvising his way through the transition, and it's likely he'll continue to improvise as president.
What is this?
He improvises at his rallies, as I have so astutely tried to tell people.
He goes an hour, hour and a half without a prompter.
He's improv on parade.
And he loves it.
It's great performance art.
But to say that he's improvising.
How do you say that when you look at his cabinet selections?
How do you say that when you look at his transition?
Improvising?
How do you say there's no plan?
That he's just getting up every day and going through the motions, throwing it up against the wall, see what sticks.
Back to Mr. Pedoritz.
He says we would like to grasp the outlines of a Trump foreign policy doctrine.
We'd like to establish the contours of his approach in domestic matters.
But the truth is there's nothing to grasp, precious little to grasp, and it's likely whatever contours there may be are as unclear to him as they are to us.
This is why I said earlier, they're never gonna understand him.
They're never gonna figure it out because he's not one of them.
He doesn't come from their world.
They can't plug him into whatever cookie cutter molds they have there in the establishment for plugging people into.
And so they since they can't plug him into one of their molds, he's not real.
He's just going through the motion.
He had no plan, he's improvising.
And as such, he's not right.
Underlining all this is this man cannot be smart.
He just can't be IQ intellectually uh with it if he's not willing to uh include us in things like this.
He said uh Padoritz wraps up, says I don't find this analysis reassuring, but I think it's true.
And if it is, in the way everyone is going about trying to understand this entirely new phenomenon in electoral politics is hopelessly misguided and needs to change.
We're right about that.
I'm up against it on time again.
There's more to say on this, but I don't know if I will.
Back in just seconds.
Just looking at some charts here.
Department of Labor.
Department of U.S. government, Department of Labor charts, that demonstrate that Barack Obama has lost eight hundred thousand manufacturing jobs.
Something close to that, during his two terms.
While Josh Ernest is out there, this petty little, well, if Trump saves eight hundred and five more companies, then we might be able to talk about him achieving the same thing Obama.
Obama is a net drag.
A net loss on United States economic activity.
Here's Lynn in Noblesville, Indiana.
Great to have you.
Glad you waited.
What's up?
Well, thank you so much.
I'm glad to finally get through to you.
Um I have a question on behalf of a houseful of millennials, I should say.
I have four children, eighteen to twenty-four, and a plethora of their friends.
The majority of them are Bernie Sanders fans.
And they're having a hard time understanding this whole electoral college thing, no matter how much we try to explain it.
My question is this.
What is the negative side to the what looks like the pro the positive side of distributing the electoral college votes the same way we do in some states during the primary?
In other words, if you have 40% of the vote, then you receive forty percent of the electoral votes.
Because it seems to me the pro side of that would be you would have the candidates campaigning in what are traditionally, let's say Trump would campaign in California, which is traditionally democratic because he now can get a percentage of vote.
I would think that you would have a greater voter turnout because now people who live in states that tend to go one way or another would have more of an impact because their votes could be distributed by percentage instead of all going one way.
And it would also seem like it would help to deter the possibility of voter fraud if they don't know where to target like they do currently.
Well, I thought you're the you're the guru of all things that I can't explain to my millennials, because I'm sure there's a downside to those theories.
I would I would love to know.
I'm gonna have to ask you to hold on through the break at the top of the hour, because before I answer this, I need to know what you're telling them.
That they are rejecting, that they're not believing about the purpose of the Electoral College.
And then we'll get into your your theory there.
But can you hang on?
I sure can.
All right, good.
We'll we'll take a brief time out here, folks, and delve into this as best we can when we get back.
Fastest three hours in media, Rush Limboy here with uh one exciting big broadcast hour remaining.
And we'll rejoin our caller here at the uh very soon at the top of the hour when we get back.
▲
Export Selection