All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 25, 2017 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:40
January 25, 2017, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
We're standing by for that.
Uh Trump is on his way to Department of Homeland Security is going to have a press availability there.
And we insiders are told that he's gonna list off all of the executive orders and executive actions that he has authorized.
A Wall Street Journal has it has a news alert.
Listen to this.
Trump will order large physical barrier on Mexican border.
A large physical barrier, also known as a wall.
But the Wall Street Journal doesn't call it a wall.
Large physical barrier.
Anyway, welcome back, folks.
Great to have you with us.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network here, 800-282-2882.
If you want to send an email, L Rushbo at EIBNet.us.
When Trump starts, we will join it in progress.
A note to our affiliates, we will be taking our regularly scheduled commercial breaks.
Uh regardless whether we join Trump's remarks in progress or not.
Also a I don't know, housekeeping thing, whatever.
I, ladies and gentlemen, must be away tomorrow and Friday.
And we're gonna I'll be back on Monday, but who we got who we got?
We got Mark Stein one of the two days.
And I'm not sure who the, I'm not sure what day Stein's here.
Uh whose Friday?
Oh, Buck Sexton of the CIA is on Friday.
And Mark Stein will be hosting the program tomorrow.
And I I wanted to tell you rather than you tune in tomorrow and find me not here and go, what's going on?
I just it's a um.
No, I'm not taking the golf clubs.
It's not, it's not one of those.
No, it's nothing, no, it's it's nothing related to anything you might think it's related.
Nothing to do with Trump, nothing to do with Washington government, nothing to do with work.
Pure and simple.
Now, I want to share something here with you.
I just became aware of.
Uh John Pedoritz, affectionately known as J Pod.
Uh writes a column for the New York Post.
Is I is a columnist and maybe an editor at Commentary.
He is the son of uh Norman Pedoritz.
And he was involved with Bill Crystal at the National or the Weekly Standard when it was founded on an up and running.
And has done, I think, an occasional appearance at uh at Fox over the years.
And he has a piece here.
I want to share some highlights with you.
Get your reaction, got your thoughts.
The headline of the piece, the national elite nervous breakdown.
And in part, it is about the Feminazi March on Sunday.
And here are a couple pull quotes from the J Pod piece.
Now, oh, I should I should say, and I don't say this derisively.
I'm not saying it critically.
I'm I'm just giving you background and information on who J Pod is.
J. Pod a proud never Trumper.
Now, I don't know what his thoughts on Trump are since the inauguration.
But I know during the campaign he was a he was a proud never Trumper.
Pull quote number one.
It would be a terrible mistake for conservatives, Republicans, and Trump supporters to poo-poo this mass women's march, which happened simultaneously in several cities and towns, with a gross turnout dwarfing any mass protest in American history.
Dismissing three million people, taking to the streets nationwide would be an act of willful blindness.
And ascribing the march's success to George Soros' money would be foolish.
In other words, Mr. Pod thinks that this is big.
This is huge, and you and we, you better pay attention to this, because this is unprecedented.
Three million of anybody spontaneously marching all over the country.
You can't just discard that.
You can't just chalk it up to kookism.
He writes, it would also be wrong to assume those crowds even heard a single word of Madonna's curses or cared one whit about the fight between check your privilege activists and the offended cowed Brooklynite feminists over whose march it was.
He, I guess, also assumes that very few people ever heard what Ashley Judd said, that people are missing the point if they focus on Madonna and Ashley Judd and the wacko things they said.
His point is it was no one's march, it was everyone's march.
Anyway, there was no leader.
It just it was it was it for all intents and purposes spontaneous with singular purpose, and it worked, he says he believes, because it had a simple message, and the feminist march, simple message was we don't like Trump and his behavior towards women.
Period.
That's what got three million women into the streets all over the country and around the world on Sunday, their dislike for Trump and his behavior towards women.
Maybe, I mean, if J Pod has figured out women, kudos.
More power to him.
Nobody else ever has.
If J Pod's figured him out, then I'm willing to learn.
But the thing about this, I mean, you can you can say that women don't like Trump because of his behavior towards women.
But how in the world is there is there no hypocrisy in any of this?
These same women celebrate people like Bill Clinton, who literally use women and spit them out.
Serious allegations that Clinton raped a woman, destroyed the life of a 19-year-old White House intern.
Now, look, I know, I know Clinton was right on abortion, so it doesn't matter.
And most of these women wished they were married to him.
Well, didn't have to be married to Clinton.
That's another thing.
Wished for one night with Clinton themselves.
Who can explain it?
It's like in high school, the girls like the bikers.
It made no sense, but they did.
But now we're talking politics.
So we're supposed to say that their dislike and their hatred of Trump because of the way he treats people.
No, that's justified.
They have a Mr. Pod here thinks that a legitimate reason for disliking Trump, one we better hear.
We better understand this.
We better not poo-poo this, we better not chalk this up to kookism or kookery.
This is serious.
Okay, from the and he means politically.
But then there's another political aspect of this, and that is there's a bunch of reprehensible left-wing guys, and they treat women like dirt.
And they're never called on it, held to account for it.
They're always excused.
That has to mean something too.
If all this is political, then there is a an objective.
And if it's political, and it's liberally oriented, then it's well worth opposing and defeating, from my standpoint, anyway.
Another pull quote from Mr. Podoritz.
The existence of a grassroots Tea Party movement encouraged serious candidates to take up the task of running for Congress in what had seemed a bad period for Republicans.
The movement provided money, volunteers, and a core enthusiasm for the task.
If Democrats can use the women's march as a comparable accelerant to recruit candidates, particularly for the House, who have real connections to the Republican districts in which they're running and can frame their bids as a means of stopping Trump from working his will with an all Republican Congress.
They might really have something here, meaning they might have a way to stop Trump by winning back the House in Republican districts by getting votes from others who also hate Trump.
So he's he's correlating the Feminazi march with the Tea Party.
Now the Democrats are trying to do the same thing.
We had a story, Jonathan Martin in the New York Times yesterday, or talked about it yesterday, in which he said that the Democrats are trying to create their own Tea Party.
Well, you can't create that.
The Tea Party evolved.
It's like you throw an impromptu party one night, and it goes so great, you try to do it again the next Saturday night, and it's just never the same.
You just can't repeat it.
And if they're going to try, like we've just had the news that scientists saw how successful the Feminazi march was, so now scientists want to do one of their own.
I guarantee you it's going to fizzle.
It may not be reported as fizzling.
I don't even know if it's actually going to happen, but it won't be what this was.
And if the women did it again, it may not be.
You just...
Because that one would be planned and orchestrated, and they would do everything they could to emulate what happened the first time around, The first time around, it was basically a spontaneous occurrence.
And the thing that united these women was not the women, it was Trump.
Now, how much emotion do they have left for it?
Who knows?
But as far as creating another Tea Party, I still don't think the left understands the Tea Party.
And how it came to be, you can't, the Republicans didn't create the Tea Party.
Tea Party was opposed to Republicans as much as it was Obama.
It was primarily opposed to Obama, but the Tea Party was opposed to want and spending, and the Tea Party was frustrated the Republicans weren't doing anything to try to stop Obama.
So for Jonathan Martin to have a piece now in the Times about how the Democrats are trying to create their, I thought they had that.
I thought that's what Occupy Wall Street was.
When Occupy Wall Street sprung up, they told us that's our answer to Tea Party.
But it wasn't.
It was manufactured.
And George Soros was right there.
Sad to say.
Well, if it was genuine and if it was organic, why isn't Occupy Wall Street still there?
Why isn't it still doing what it's doing?
And all I said, yeah, that's right, it's been replaced by Black Lives Matter.
So anyway, if I if I understand what John Pedorts is saying here, he says, look, I don't care.
Republican, conservative, pro-Trump, anti-Trump, anti-Trump, you better take this, because this is three million people who got together for one reason, hatred of Donald Trump, the way he treats women, things he says about women, and it was organic.
It didn't require a lot of work, didn't require leadership, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Meaning it was the essence of real.
And if it happened once, it can happen again.
And if they ever get this kind of power showing up at ballot boxes, which I'm sure Hillary Clinton spent the weekend saying, where the hell were you on election day?
And for all we know, they were showing up.
For all we know, they did vote on election day.
Why are people assuming they didn't?
You know, people look at the Feminazi march and say, wow, where were these women on election day?
Maybe they did vote.
Hillary was saying, in addition to where were you on election day?
No doubt Hillary was saying, where were you at my rallies?
How come you didn't show up at my rallies?
Well, because I guess for these women it really wasn't about Hillary.
Pedoritz may have a point.
I don't know how many of these women that marched on Sunday really cared or said much about Hillary.
It was really filled with just visceral, raw hatred for the Trumpster.
But I didn't see a whole lot of love for Hillary.
I don't think there is that much, actually.
especially not the amount of it that left and the Democrats seem to believe exists.
I, I just don't know.
Look, they call themselves, this was, I mean, they even, they call themselves something, we're all uncomfortable even saying it here.
I have to sort of massage the word, the Pusai march.
Okay, so is there a Pusai roots movement as opposed to grassroots?
Is there a Pusai roots movement out here waiting to be tapped into like a grassroots movement?
The Tea Party candidates had real and serious issues to run on, which were positive.
They were engaging.
They required action.
It wasn't just hatred for somebody and anger and inexplicable, irrational rage that created the Tea Party.
But it does appear that's some of the primary ingredients to the Pusai march.
And the Tea Party crowd, they didn't have embarrassing hats like the Pusai march did.
And the scientists, you know, what are they going to do?
They can put balloons on their heads and go as condoms.
Test tubes or what have you.
But they're going to embarrass themselves trying to replicate the Pusai march.
And you don't know if the Pusai march, March could actually replicate itself that may have been a one-time event.
But I realize what Pedorts is saying.
Look, you got three million people showed up in January, filled with rage and hatred, and it's not a small number.
And it could have meaningful political consequences.
So don't laugh at them.
Now the fact that that uh Pedorts is a never Trumper, I don't know what what role that's playing in his analysis here.
Anyway, that's just a couple pull quotes.
There's there's much more in his piece.
Um I haven't read the whole thing to you, but it's in commentary, and of course, we will link to it at uh rushlimbaugh.com.
By the way, you know what when our website redesign and the uh content we we we are continuing to set subscriber records at at rushlimboke.com.
I need to really take a moment.
Thank you all for that.
It's it's uh it's as gratifying as it can be.
Thank you.
Bottom of my heart here.
I gotta take another timeout, but we will continue in a moment.
Don't go away.
I think Chatsworth on a holdout for 25 million dollars.
No, somebody asked me.
Tucker Carlson, he is is doubled the ratings at nine o'clock in the 2554 demographic.
Somebody just mentioning that to me here in the break, and I said, pay him 25 million a year, but it was the going rate, at least 20.
I think Chatsworth just re-up, though, so he'd have to have to mount a campaign and hold out, threatening who knows what it's not probably the timing.
But I mean, I just thought I'd make the point, throw it out there, stir it up a little bit.
Here's uh here's Mark and Troy Maine.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Russ.
I would like to make an observation on what you've been speaking about, the uh J Pod comments.
Uh the ladies who have been marching the two to three million, which is a very large number, are bought and paid for by 50 or 60 groups from George Soros.
They are not.
Yeah, but no, but wait, wait a minute.
He says you can't you're missing the point if you if you want to think those women showed up because they were paid to, you're wrong, and you're making a huge mistake by overlooking what this was about.
Well, that plays into his never Trump or persona.
But even if we negate that, Russ, my point is this.
These women are angry, they're bitter, they don't like Trump, they're haters, but they've already voted, Rush.
These are not new voters.
The people who were brought into the political arena by the the Trump movement, if you will, and by the uh Tea Party folks.
Those were new voters.
A lot of them did not participate, they had never participated.
They were new to the scene, and they were brought in by Something other than their monolithic hatred of one man.
Okay, this is an excellent point.
So you're saying that these women are already politically active, they probably already vote, so they don't bring anything new in terms of numbers or weight to the left's causes.
That's true.
That's exactly true.
And over time, while they may have loud voices and strident voices, and in the case of some of them rather.
Well some of them are just wackadoos, Rush.
My point is that I really don't think that they're going to have the kind of impact that J. Pod says they will, because I don't think they're going to have the staying power.
Well, it's an interesting point.
They're they're already in the system.
They already vote and did the way they behave.
I'm just asking, uh, Mark, do you think that march was in any way infectious and wanted to make other women who are maybe not on the same page as these women, you think of excited of it.
Yeah, I want in this movement.
I want to get in this movement.
How much of that do you think was part of this?
Just by looking at the anecdotal evidence, looking at the pictures of the women who were there, they're very rich and very old.
They have already made their lives, or they're very young and very foolish.
Right, no, but but but the event itself, how many new women out there that were not part of it looked at it and said, Wow, this is great.
I want to be part of that.
How much of that do you think there was any?
Well, my personal opinion, Russ, is that not many.
Yeah.
I mean, if these these folks were out there during the election in the two-year run-up to the election, Russ.
Okay.
I gotta take a break because of time here, but I got I got to call.
We'll take a brief one and be right back.
We had a caller up there who is since well, didn't hang on, wasn't able to hang on, I guess.
But I'm gonna I'm gonna share the caller's question, I'm gonna give you the answer to it.
The caller was very, very worried about Trump using all these executive orders and executive actions.
And from what I can gather, you know, I just have a line here that describes what the caller's gonna say.
So I'm having to assume that the caller's point was I don't like this executive action, executive order stuff, because it's not permanent.
I mean, if if if if Trump can just do this with executive actions, can't the next president just come in and erase them like Trump is erasing to Obama?
And on the surface, it's it's it's a good question.
Uh but in many cases, you have to realize that what Trump is doing is is not all, but he's simply canceling Obama's executive orders and executive actions.
He's just eliminating it, just canceling them, which didn't have the weight of legislation behind them in the first place because Obama could never have gotten the votes for them.
So he did it anyway.
Obama famously said, if Congress won't act, uh woo.
And he suspended a bunch of immigration law and refused to enforce it.
And he looked at sanctuary cities, he refused to do anything about that.
What what Trump is doing in many cases is simply enforcing existing law.
And I hate to tell you this, but that's exactly what his executive action or executive order on the wall is.
There's already legislation to build the wall.
It's just we haven't done it.
Back in 2006, give you some names.
Barack Hussein Obama, Senator Illinois, Joe Biden, Senator Delaware, Hillary Clinton, Senator New York.
Sixty-four House Democrats, twenty-three Senate Senate Democrats voted for legislation to build a border wall between the United States and Mexico.
So Trump's executive action or executive order to build the wall to get construction going is simply moving on previously signed legislation.
The legislation was passed, it was signed, nothing has been done on it.
Obama got elected and immediately stopped any action on it, just like they stopped Enforcing a number of other uh social cultural laws that the Congress had passed.
Now, I'm it's not every instance here, Trump is simply canceling or f moving forward on pre-existing legislation, if you want to call it that exactly what it is.
Some of it.
There's some fake news out there, too.
How many of you have heard that Trump was going to reinstitute CIA black sites?
Fake news.
They're not going to do it.
I think that fake news came from Politico.
They ran a story that Trump was going to reopen CIA black sites, a la things like Club Gitmo.
Only these are the real bad places nobody knows exists where deep torture takes place in the deep state.
That's not true.
It was totally made.
Spicer made the point in the press briefing.
So all this executive order on the wall is doing is simply putting an exclamation point behind the legislation to build it in the first place.
And in the process, by the way, what's also going to be illustrated, hey, you Democrats, you're out there saying you can't do it, don't do it.
You voted for it, you hypocrites.
Uh Savannah, Tennessee.
This is Kent.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Hello.
Yeah, hey, Russ.
Uh, Ditto's, and thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
Uh just wanted to give you the uh 64-year-old grandfather's uh takeaway on the uh women's marks this last weekend.
Uh wait a minute.
Are you sixty are you si are you sixty-four?
Yes, I am.
You don't sound you don't even sound 34.
Well, thank you very much, right?
You're welcome.
Um my wife and I took our uh three young grandkids to the inauguration, had a blast, and the next morning we decided to take them to the Smithsonian Museums uh and found ourselves caught up in the middle of the women's march.
Um prior to that, the uh the the most obscene place I've ever been in my life was Bourbon Street.
But uh Burbert Street doesn't hold a candle to what we saw that day.
It was it's indescribable.
Um when I got back to the room that night, watched the news, I really scratched my head and wondered, were they at the same place that I was.
You mean you're talking about human debris kind of behavior.
You mean just unbelievable.
Uh fortunately my grandkids were young enough that they just couldn't understand the words, and uh we were we we we exited the uh the parade route uh pretty fast.
Well well, what would you say that the stuff you heard these women shouting was it worse or about the same as stuff Trump says?
Uh Trump doesn't say anything offensive uh as far as I'm concerned.
He occasionally he's entertaining, but I heard a lot of offensive stuff and and read a lot more offensive stuff uh uh on the mallet.
Uh this let me ask you this.
You you you were you were amongst them.
You were in the midst of it, and then you watch it on TV.
Did TV, the stuff that you saw on TV, was it representative of what you saw?
Did they show the same stuff or did they paper it over?
It was absolutely not representative.
I was stunned when I watched the television coverage because it was nothing like the real experience.
Well, it doesn't surprise me.
I mean, uh obviously the one of the objectives would have been to sanitize this and to make it look like what it wasn't.
Um these women are running around thinking Trump degrades them.
Uh I I uh you're not the first guy I've talked to that was that was amongst this mob.
And it sure sounds to me like they did a much better job degrading themselves than Trump ever could.
Jennifer in Pinellas Park, Florida.
I have been there.
It's great to have you.
How are you doing?
Oh, I'm pretty good, Megadiddos.
How are you doing?
Fine, Dandy.
Thank you much.
I have a comment or question.
Back in the 70s and 80s, the uh these global scientists were saying that everything was gonna turn into a big iceberg.
Okay.
Now they're saying we're these exact same scientists are saying that we are going to be a big desert.
Being a Doomer driver, I get Commentary from both sides.
And I just want to know your take on it.
I think the whole thing is political.
In fact, Jennifer, I found, and I've talked about it in this program, a story in the New York Times, either in the late 1800s or the early 1900s about climate change and how it was going.
This is before air conditioning, uh just the turn of the century with electricity.
And even then, climate change, you can see in the way it was reported.
All so many similar terms were used even over a hundred years ago.
What I thought I think about climate change is is the best way to understand it is liberalism.
If you understand a couple of basic things about liberals, liberals love big government, and they love big government controlling people's behavior because controlling behavior is the only way liberals can make people behave the way they think they should.
And so anything that comes along that promotes big government and promotes big government dictating behavior, they are for.
Like health care is ideal to promote the expansion of government and government power.
Climate change is the same.
The way it works is this.
You claim that people living their lives are destroying the planet.
And you assign it to technological improvement like air conditioning and fossil fuels, big cars, barbecue pits being fired up at the same time every day, and you tell people you are destroying the climate.
You are forever altering the climate.
If you keep on the earth isn't going to be habitable, and you scare the hell out of them, and you make them feel guilty, and then you set them up for redemption by telling them that you can save the planet.
But here's what you have to do.
And it always involves electing Democrats, allowing big government control over every energy source, allowing massive tax increases to limit the use of that energy, under the guise that all of this, and and buying these podunk little cars that nobody really wants that don't mean a whit's difference to the environment or pollution,
and in this way, you are controlling the population, you're guilting the population, and then setting them up for redemption, which in their minds uh you're you have given their lives meaning by telling them they are saving the planet after they nearly destroyed it.
So in 1979, you're right, the cover Newsweek promised a coming ice age.
The problem was that real life could not support the prediction because it wasn't happening.
So they changed it in the early 80s from the new ice age to global warming.
But there hasn't been any warming in 15 years, so now it's called climate change.
And whenever there is a hurricane, a tornado, a 15-inch snowstorm, whatever the calamity, they assign it to climate change and claim that it wouldn't have happened otherwise.
It's specious because climate and and weather of all forms has been happening for thousands of years before humans even had any impact on anything.
So man-made climate change is nothing but a political construct designed to make people feel guilty for destroying the planet so that they will then subscribe to the idea that they can save the planet by voting Democrat and allowing the government to control every aspect of energy.
it's a, it's one of the biggest con games that the left has tried.
And it's been, They've been working on it for hundreds of years.
Well, a hundred years in the American political system, and it's rivaled by the same games are used in health care and any number, everything is a crisis.
Everything is going to kill us.
Everything's going to destroy us.
Coffee one day, oat brand the next, then it's going to save us.
It's all designed to make you think you can't live your life on your own without the liberals dictating every aspect of it to make it safe, to keep you safe, to save the planet.
It's a crock.
Don't believe a single syllable of it.
Trump just started at uh the home Department of Homeland Security.
We're going to bump out.
And I'll be back on Monday.
See you.
Then we've got Mark Stein here tomorrow, and Buck Sexton of the CIA will be here on Friday.
Thanks so much, as always, folks, for joining us and being part of the program.
▲
Export Selection