You see, the Democrats had a rally Capitol Hill last night and the microphone didn't work.
We have some audio that coming up.
Well, they eventually got it working.
We've got audio.
I'm told that we have audio of the microphone not working.
It is a good question.
How do we have the audio if the microphone's working?
Because our microphones are everywhere in addition to theirs.
Anyway, folks, greetings and welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbos, serving humanity.
How by being here?
And that is behind that, the golden EIB microphone.
Take a moment and call us if you want, 800-282-2882.
Email address, Lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Look, I have a lot left here that I want to try to cram into this hour, including your phone calls.
Let me start with the Super Bowl stuff.
Because this is not even about the Super Bowl.
This is classic illustration of what liberalism is and how it takes over everything.
Well, the first thing is about the Super Bowl, but it really isn't.
It's a poll question on who do you like and who do you not like in a game.
It's from public policy polling.
Only 20% of respondents want the Patriots to win.
53% want the Falcons to win.
A journalism professor that, and by the way, the story tries to go on about how hated the Patriots are.
You don't think that's an accident, do you?
I mean, the Patriots, what are they known for this year?
Not winning.
They do that every year.
What are the Patriots known for, Rachel?
You tell me.
What are the Patriots known for?
Why are the Patriots in the news a lot besides football?
Brady, Belichick, and the owner, Robert Kraft, support Trump.
And they're going to have to pay.
And the way they're going to have to pay is they're going to lose.
The American people supposedly want the Patriots to lose because the American people supposedly hate Trump and anybody who likes Trump.
And that would be Belichick, Brady, and Robert Kraft.
And so you get a poll that shows 27% of the American people like the Patriots.
And you're supposed to take away from that, that 27% of the people like the Patriots because only 27% of the people like Trump.
Then here's the next story.
From our old buddies at Newsbusters, Brent Bozell and the boys, professor claims Trump supporter Tom Brady more un-American than Colin Kaepernick.
Well, that's not even half of this.
Wait till you hear the details.
Who is more threatening?
A professional athlete who disrespects the flag and our troops and supports the radical activism of Black Lives Matter and the ruthless dictatorship of Fidel Castro?
Or an athlete who wears a Trump hat?
The answer depends on how sunk in lefty groupthink and reflexive America hatred one is.
For example, David Dennis Jr., an adjunct journalism professor at Morehouse College, meaning he's teaching your kids how to come out and be members of the drive-by media.
This is not some isolated, incidental wacko teaching at the University of East Overy.
This is Morehouse College and a journalism professor who thinks Tom Brady's politics are far more un-American than Colin Kaepernick.
He had a column that appears at the Huffing and Puffington Post, and he writes the allegiance of Brady to a president as oppressive and crass as Donald Trump reveals a major character flaw in Brady.
In Dennis's world, Trump is recruiting Nazis.
America is dominating people through subjugation.
And foreigners are not smuggling drugs into and committing crimes in our nation.
He goes on to write about the glories of Kaepernick, what a brave athlete he is, what a courageous athlete he is, what guts it takes to take a knee, what guts it takes not to celebrate the national anthem, what courage that is.
That's real America.
Tom Brady is just pathetic.
This journalism professor writes that Brady's Trump endorsement has been largely ignored when in fact supporting Donald Trump as president is far more threatening to America than taking a knee during the national anthem.
Here's a pull quote.
And Brady is almost being defensive and saying, I don't understand why this is a big deal.
Brady wants to avoid talking about Trump.
Well, wait a minute, man.
We're all judged by the company we keep.
Donald Trump has said some things and perhaps done some things that people find morally questionable.
So if that's your guy, Brady, and if you have a hat in your locker room that says make America great again, and you're hanging out with him, Brady, then he's shouting you out.
And you all are writing letters to him and that sort of thing.
People want to say, that's your boy?
Yeah, Brady and Belichick supposedly wrote Trump congratulatory letters after winning the presidency.
It's almost a week until the Super Bowl, and this journalism professor Dennis is hoping the media will question Brady about his un-American beliefs and treat him like the media treated Collins.
The media celebrated Colin Kaepernick.
What are you talking about?
Treat him like they treated Kaepernick.
Kaepernick was treated as a conquering hero by the drive-by media.
Then the professor writes, Then we'll really see how well Brady holds up under pressure.
And it was just yesterday, USA Today had a column by female sportswriter columnists suggesting that Brady had a lot of things to explain.
He has a lot of excuses to make.
He's got a lot to apologize for.
And he owes everybody an explanation.
And he shouldn't get a single football question until he has satisfied everybody's curiosity about how in the hell he could support Trump.
Another example, liberalism, how it operates, how it's taken over what you consider to be a mainstream tradition, sports writing.
You know, the sports drive-bys, in many cases, are more leftist extremists than the news compatriots, their counterparts.
By the way, Super Bowl Entertainment.
Ready for this?
The cast of Hamilton will sing America the Beautiful.
Now, okay, I'm not either.
Snerdley is proclaiming here he's not watching that crap.
But no, that's not the question.
Who decides this?
The NFL decides this.
Somebody, a committee.
Why are they picking Hamilton?
You think it's the anti-Trump pinch thing?
You don't think that it's possible that the people at the NFL don't even know about that?
They just think the whole country loves Hamilton because if it happens in New York, it's happening everywhere.
Don't kid yourself.
Snirdley is shouting at me that the NFL is very much well aware that the cast of Hamilton disrespected the vice president when he showed up for a performance on a Friday night.
And that the NFL is choosing Hamilton to honor the fact that they disrespected the vice president.
I don't know.
Well, now, I was going to get to Lady Gaga.
Look, I know where my sentences are going if you'd let me utter them.
The first thing on Hamilton, I thought of it the way you did, the way you're thinking about it.
But then I read the NFL, at least publicly, proclaims they want nothing to do with politics because they don't want to anger half the country.
I think it is entirely possible that you're right.
But I also think it's equally possible that they don't know a thing about that and instead have chosen Hamilton to sing the America the Beautiful because being in New York, Hamilton was the biggest thing on Broadway, meaning it was the biggest thing in America, when it isn't.
It wasn't the biggest thing in the country.
It was the biggest thing in New York.
And it, I mean, everybody saw it and loved it.
I'm not criticizing it or putting it down.
What I'm saying is Hamilton is not America.
It has not been seen by most Americans.
The play, the musical has not been available for most, but where it has been seen, primarily on the New York boards, it is considered the all-time best ever greatest, except maybe for, I don't know, the vagina monologues.
But you think they chose it specifically because this cast, okay, then you have Lady Gaga.
Lady Gaga is doing the halftime show.
I read that Lady Gaga, as part of her show, wants to do it from the roof of Energy Stadium.
And they're trying to figure out how to get her up on the roof and how to televise it and get her off the roof safely while she's singing and stuff.
Now, the choice of Lady Gaga, Lady Gaga, also anti-Trump, Hamilton, anti-Trump.
The National Football League, supposedly the national pastime.
So they have chosen two acts here who are well known to most Americans as anti-the President of the United States.
You might be right, certainly.
I don't know.
I think what they ought to do, if you're right, you know, go out there and have Kaepernick flip the coin.
The opening coin toss, get Kaepernick out there to do that.
And maybe instead of Bill O'Reilly interviewing the president, which is what happens, because it's Fox has the game and their top drawer gets to interview the president, have Michael Moore interview Belichick.
And let's see what the audience is.
Interesting headlines: San Francisco, lowest percentage of kids in America.
What might be the first reason that you would think would explain that?
San Francisco, lowest percentage of kids in America.
Go ahead, tell me.
What do you well?
You know what?
This is a Breitbart story.
And actually, it's a Breitbart.
It's not a Bright Bart, it's a New York Times story.
The New York Times doesn't mention that aspect of it.
San Francisco, lowest percentage of kids in America.
It's same-sex.
Do you know what the gay population of San Francisco is?
What do you think it is?
No, it isn't.
It's not 50%.
It's amazing how low it is.
It would stun you.
I think it's because everybody thinks the population of San Francisco is 50% or greater.
I think it's 2530.
But even at that, San Francisco, lowest percentage of kids in America, and you would attribute that.
I mean, if you see that headline automatically, what do you expect?
I mean, you got same-sex city there.
How in the world?
Well, let's see.
The report by the New York Times indicates that only 13% of San Francisco's population is under 18.
The combination of high rent and the distance of public schools from where people live has resulted in what can be regarded as a mass exodus of families with school-age kids to surrounding cities that are more affordable.
So that's the reason, Mr. Stern.
It's not that there's a lot of people there that don't have kids because they can't.
It's because the schools are so bad and they're so far away that people have moved out of the city and to the suburbs and surrounding areas.
The Times notes that San Francisco has invested millions in upgrading its parks, which was a waste of money because the homeless immediately took over.
Before the tech boom and ensuing gentrification, San Francisco was bustling with kids.
Approximately 90,000 students enrolled in the public school system in 1970.
Now there are reportedly 53,000.
Not a single word of the makeup of the sexual orientation of the city as a factor in the fact that there are fewer kids in San Francisco.
Let's go to the audio.
Oh, oh, Supreme Court pickets tonight.
CNN, I've got to get this out there.
CNN is reporting that Trump has brought both of the likely nominees to Washington, Hardeman and Gorsuch.
They're both being brought to Washington.
There's only one of them going to be picked.
This is a publicly televised choice ceremony tonight that Trump is conducting.
Why would you bring both of them if you already know which one you're going to pick?
Why would you bring both there?
And are they going to be part of the public show or whatever Trump has planned?
Is it, is it, is it, why would, who would the other guy apologize to?
What do you mean, bring the other guy in to apologize?
No, you mean you apologize to him publicly and in person.
Trump apologizes to it is what you said.
Nah.
Are they both going to be on stage and Trump's going to be behind them walking eeny meeny mining?
Which one is it going to be?
Is it going to be that kind of a show?
Are they both going to be there and Trump's going to do a show?
He doesn't know which one yet.
He's not going to make up his mind till he actually gets on stage with both these guys standing there or sitting there.
Is he going to read off the ups and downs of both guys while they are standing there on camera?
You know, I really like Gorsuch here.
He's this, this, but over here, Hardeman, let me tell you, Ben, you really stand out here.
But Gorsuch, don't feel bad because I like you for other reasons.
What's it going to be?
I never heard of this.
Why would you bring both of them in?
Let's see.
CNN says that Gorsuch is, according to the choice.
Increasing indications that Gorsuch will be.
Now, Gorsuch of the two, just so you know, Gorsuch is the supposed rock-ribbed, dead-straight center, solid, no doubts about it, conservative.
Hardiman is the guy, might be a nominee that is largely conservative, but might surprise you down the road.
But Gorsuch, and see, the reason that this matters, again, if the Democrats have already announced that they're going to do everything they can to stop the nominee, if they weren't going to do that, then the first person that you would nominate would be the least contentious, which would be Hardeman in this case, for the simple reason it might be easier to get him confirmed.
And once you get somebody confirmed, then the next ones supposedly become easier.
But if they're going to announce, the Democrats, if they're going to resist and they're going to go nuclear, if they're going to do everything they can to stop it, then you may as well go with the best you've got or the one you really want.
I don't mean to characterize either of these guys as lesser or greater, but Gorsuch, by reputation, is supposedly the most real deal conservative and therefore the most hated and despised by the Democrats.
So that's the guy.
If they're going to go nuclear, then you go nuclear.
And you throw your guy right at them and you beat him back on this.
And then after you beat him on this, every other nominee you get.
With decreasing opposition.
That would be the theory.
We go back to the phones.
Margate, New Jersey.
This is Eric.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program, huh?
Hey, Rush, how are you doing?
Very well, sir.
Thank you.
I missed the Hutch this time of year.
Ken Hutchinson.
Listen, I called to make a prediction.
Okay.
If the president doesn't get out and remind the American people that Obama and the Democrats created ISIS with the void they left in the Middle East, the next time there's an attack here, they're going to blame what happened just this past weekend on President Trump.
Well, Nina, I think Trump believes he's already done that.
That was a staple of his campaign, that Obama and Hillary created ISIS by vacating Iraq prematurely.
He may think he's covered at base.
You think he needs to keep saying it?
Yeah, because the American people forget pretty fast.
And they're great on the blame game.
Right.
Well, you know, I think you've got a point.
In fact, I saw this speculated somewhere that, so here comes Trump with his executive order to ostensibly vet incoming illegals and refugees as designed to make America safer.
And then if there is a domestic terror attack, the left is going to blame this very thing for it by saying the terrorists got really mad when Trump tried to keep him out of that country.
That's what they're going to say.
They will say that.
You're right.
That's hilarious on its face.
They're going to blame Trump's executive order for this because it made the terrorists mad and it made them even more committed to getting into the country and beating Trump's efforts to keep him out.
And therefore, the next terror attack will be all Trump's fault.
And the same people were those people exonerating Obama had nothing to do with it.
Obama's policies were irrelevant, say the San Bernardino massacre, for example, or what.
It's a good point that you have out there, Eric.
And we have another obscene profit break, folks.
Be right back.
So during the break, I'm watching a little cable news for the first time today.
I really haven't paid attention to it.
And they're still talking about Sally Yates.
That's such old news.
And they're still debating whether or not Trump had a right to fire her.
And Jay Seculo is not even going to question, did she betray the justice, did she betray the Justice Department?
She betrayed everything.
She betrayed the executive branch.
Her job is to execute the orders of the president of the United States.
He is the lone boss of the executive branch.
This is constitutional.
It is not in her purview to choose which laws and executive orders that she's going to enforce and defend or not.
She had no choice.
Trump had no choice.
She had to go.
She should not have been there.
Everybody's missing this.
She should not have been there.
Trump should have fired her and every other Obama appointee last Friday or January 20th when he was immaculated.
They all have to go or you're going to get stuff like this.
Because the Democrats are delaying the confirmation of all of Trump's cabinet picks, or the vast majority of them, Jeff Sessions, that vote's supposed to happen today in the committee and still hasn't gone to the whole Senate.
That'll be a while.
She had to go.
Should have had a Trump person in that position from the moment Trump became president.
I dealt with this in the first hour, so I don't want to be redundant here.
I was wrong on the gay population in San Francisco, and I was way high.
Time magazine in 2015: quote: Gallup's the Gallup survey, Gallup's poll of the 50 largest metro areas in the United States found that 6.2% of San Franciscans identify as LGBT.
That's 2.6 percentage points higher than the national average.
San Francisco, named a gay capital of the U.S. by Life magazine in 1964, has a long histoire of politically active LGBT communities, 6.2%.
In a survey where they ask people, which I mean, this is as close as you're going to get.
I know you are.
I knew you'd be stunned when you found out what the real, you're thinking it's 70%.
You think Seattle is close, right?
Nope.
Well, Atlanta, I don't know.
But the national average is 4%.
Something like that.
Okay, what else we have?
Oh, two stories back to gay.
I've been waiting to do this.
First story: USA Today, again, you know what the, you know what GLAAD is, G-L-A-A-D?
You know what that stands for?
It's a gay and lesbian something or other against defamation.
Gay and lesbian, not only it's G-L-A-A, the gay and lesbian anti-defamation.
Anyway, they have awards.
They give media awards for the most understanding, the most sympathetic, the most enlightened, whatever, media people understanding the plight of gay and lesbian Americans.
And the latest GLAAD Media Awards, this is a USA Today headline.
GLAD Media Awards nominations show dearth of major films with gay content.
Moonlight, the Golden Globe winning, an Oscar-nominated coming-of-age film about a gay youth, has just one rival, Star Trek Beyond, in its category in the annual GLAAD Media Award nominations.
Okay, what this means, for those of you in Riolinda, is that the gay lesbian alliance, that's what it is, gay lesbian alliance against defamation, something like that.
They're angry because the movies in Hollywood have less and less gay content.
And that means that Hollywood is screwing up.
Means things are not going well in Hollywood, okay?
Next story from Vanity Fair.
Why Hollywood as we know it is already over.
I just, finding these two disparate things and putting them together, I enjoy it.
Here's Nancy Pelosi unable to make her microphone work.
That's a montage.
This last night, they were actually outside the Supreme Court.
The Democrats held a rally to protest Trump's executive order on immigration.
And during her remarks, Pelosi had technical problems with her public address microphone.
And the protesters couldn't hear her.
Here is a montage of how it went.
Thank you very much for coming out.
Is the sound working?
The sound working?
I can hear you.
Can you hear us?
Good evening, everyone.
I'm very proud to stand with the members of the House Democratic Caucus.
It's not on.
Is somebody going to deal with this and crack back?
Look at that moon.
The new moon.
Staff, sound people.
Shall we sing this land is your land again until they get the sound working?
This land is your land.
This land is my land.
From California to the New York Island.
It's just, folks, I'm telling you, microscopic of what's really happening to these people.
The bottom line is the Democrat Party is imploding.
The Democrat Party is being rejected.
The Democrat Party is losing since 2010.
They have lost over 1,000 seats.
You've heard me say this.
Donald Trump is the president.
He is not slowing down.
He's not backing down.
He is not being deterred.
He's marching forward.
They can't stop him.
The only thing they can do is protest and raise hell and try to make it look like they represent a majority of Americans, but they do not.
The Democrats know it.
They show up at the Supreme Court last night to protest everything Trump is doing and the public address microphone doesn't work and they reduce to singing this land is our land, which nobody could hear anyway.
Now, you might, well, how were we able to hear it?
Well, there were other media people there and their microphones were working, but the PA microphone wasn't working.
And you could hear the Democrats, Stanny Hoyer, and others very, very frustrated.
And Pelosi, I'll guarantee you, by the way, that when that thing ended last night, some heads rolled.
Because this made the Democrats look like laughing stocks last night, which they were.
Mandy in Philadelphia, glad you waited.
Great to have you next on the program.
Hi.
Hi, thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
I just wanted to start by saying I've been a longtime fan.
I've been armed with the Limbaugh letters since the early 90s, and you've helped me to identify, avoid, and fight liberalism.
So because you are able to explain and kind of get into the head of the president, I wanted your opinion on the timing of the immigration executive order, which I'm very much for.
As far as doing it before his cabinet has been voted upon, and also there's these reports that he didn't include all of his cabinet members, such as General Mattis.
And what you make of all of that?
Well, I'm like you.
I have to guess.
And there have been some questions answered about this by administration officials, but we're still left to fill in some of the blanks ourselves.
I think one of the things here that is going on that to me, it's not a negative.
Some people might interpret it as such, but I really think that Trump was intent on showing his supporters that he meant what he said and that he's not just idle chatter and wasn't going to wait around.
And this is one of the major aspects of his campaign.
I think there's a little marketing and PR in this.
Not that it's not substantive, but I think he was hell-bent on doing this and getting it done quickly so that people realized he meant it and they could continue to have faith in him.
I think that he has some advisors because the cabinet's not fully in place who took control of this and got it out as quickly as they could get it out without going through all of the necessary steps just because they thought it was important to do.
Maybe there's some turf wars going on too with people making marks there in the administration for what areas they control.
And this was a demonstration of that.
Whatever errors that were involved here, I think are resulting from good intentions.
I don't think it's the result of inexperienced people rushing to do something before they were ready to do it.
But clearly the implementation could have been much, much better, and it will be as time goes by.
The substance of this thing was fine.
I appreciate the call, Mandy.
I wish I had more time, but I don't.
I just.
Okay, get the Supreme Court pick tonight.
That'll largely dictate what happens tomorrow here, but there's going to be tons of other stuff, and no place better prepared and more equipped to explain it all to you than right here.