All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 8, 2017 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
February 8, 2017, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 247 podcast.
Well, here we are.
Right back at it, folks, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
It is great to be with you.
It is just a thrill and a delight to have these three hours with you each and every day.
Enjoy talking to you most of the time.
Telephone numbers 800 to all the time.
800-282-2882.
The email address, L Rushbow at EIVNet.com.
I'm sorry, E by EIBNet.us.
I'm sorry, we got a new email address.
It's probably six months old now, and I I've just got syllabic habit that I have to break.
It's L Rushbow at EIB net.us.
Okay, Elizabeth Warren blew up on the Florida Senate last night in Mitch McConnell.
Mitch slapped her.
With Rule 19, Senate Rule No.
Mitch blew it.
That by invoking Rule 19 and shutting her down because she was personally insulting Jeff Sessions about things they had already vetted and discussed in a committee hearing on sessions.
Shut her down, and that's turned her into a 24-hour news story and news focus.
But I don't think that's why I don't think they invoked Rule 19 to shut her down here.
It's the effect of it, but I think it's got ramifications down the road on confirmation for Gorsuch and other all of which I'm going to explain as the program unfolds.
But folks, while else is going on, then Folkahontas Warren is all over leftist media.
She's receiving accolades and cheers and atta boys and atta girls, and you keep it up, Liz, you keep it up, and she's livid and she fit to be tied.
And in the midst of all this, she thought it necessary to send me a message.
In the midst of all this anger, who is on her mind, none other than your beloved host, the all-knowing, all caring, all sensing Maharushi.
It happened this morning on the view.
And this is just one of the many stops that Folkahantis has made since having been made famous as a screeching ranter last night on the floor of the Senate.
Here is what happened.
Rush Limbaugh has famously said, oh, all this marching and protesting, they're all gonna get tired of it.
Do you think we're gonna get tired?
No, Rush.
We are not gonna get tired.
We are here to stay.
I know you'll never get tired.
Not only are you gonna get tired of it, it's gonna rebound negatively on all of you.
You people are digging your grave even deeper with all of this.
You just don't know it.
They really don't.
This stuff is not gonna stop Trump.
It is not going to stop the Republicans, it's not going to reverse the outcome of the election, and it's not gonna set them up for better improvements in 2018 or 2020.
Because they still have no message behind all this other than they're a bunch of spoiled brats who simply are a bunch of authoritarians who can't handle losing.
There's a great story in the Washington Post, it's actually a column in the Washington Post today by Julian Zeltzer.
Z-E-L-L-Z-E-R.
He's a political historian at Princeton.
He's a fellow at the New America Foundation, and he is the author of The Fierce Urgency of Now, Lyndon Johnson Congress and the Battle for the Great Society.
But he's a fellow somewhere.
When you're a fellow somewhere, that's big.
When you're a fellow, I mean, well, it is r reputedly smart.
It means you have a chair at a think tank.
So you sit there and you think.
And then occasionally you write what you think, and then the think tank publishes it.
Nobody buys it, nobody reads it, but you are heralded as a great thinker.
But anyway, this guy's right.
He said protest didn't hurt Reagan, and they're not going to stop Trump.
And he takes us back.
This kind of thing happened during Reagan's first term.
Reagan was despised as much as Bush was and is despised as much as Trump.
In fact, some of the comparisons of Trump are identical to those made about Reagan.
In fact, he's disengaged.
He's stupid.
He doesn't know politics.
He doesn't know the Constitution.
He's an idiot.
He's lazy and all these things.
And the guy documents how all of this didn't matter a whit.
It didn't affect anything.
Reagan got his agenda.
Uh and I I I think where we are with all of this, like Scott Pelley opened the CBS evening newsletter, what did he actually say when he opened the news?
He's by calling Trump divorced from reality.
He said, it's been a busy day for presidential statements, divorced from reality.
So the media is caught up on trying to prove every Trump lie.
The one thing they got all hot and bothered about yesterday when Trump said the murder rate was in an all-time high, or 47-year high, and the media went into gear and they fact checked it.
Trump's lying.
Trump's wrong.
The murder rate's actually been coming down.
Trump doesn't know what he's talking about.
And then Trump attacks the media, and so the media decides to defend itself.
And I I think what I've said about this campaign and what this presidency, going back to the first days of the campaign, and that is they still do not know what they're dealing with here in Trump.
But the most important thing that the media does not know.
They do not know even today who elected Donald Trump.
They haven't the foggiest idea.
They haven't gone out and talked to them.
They have a caricatured image of the Trump voter.
And let me describe the media and the Democrats who they think Trump voters are.
They're missing one or both front teeth.
They chew tobacco or smoke cigarettes and they spit constantly while sitting on the front porch, reading the latest from the National Rifle Association.
They have pickup trucks and they go to church.
They didn't get much beyond high school, if even that.
They are poor.
They are middle to lower middle class.
They are 100% white.
They are 80% male, 20% female.
There are no gays and lesbians or transgenders or cisgenders or oddball genders or any other genders that voted for Trump.
This is who that's what they think of the Trump voter.
They also do not know that the average Trump voters tune them out.
They don't know that the average Trump voter's not paying him any attention.
They're going about trying to destroy Trump in the tide and tried and tested ways that they've been able to destroy any Republican they've wanted to in the past.
And they're missing the mark.
And they're missing the mark because they they still don't know who elected Trump.
They have this negative caricature of people who are idiots, uninformed, ignoramous, racists and bigots.
And that's who they and they think that they can take Trump out by talking about how Trump lied about the murder rate.
And Trump doesn't know what he's talking about.
He wants a religious ban on people.
They think he can lie about what Trump's doing or even report the truth about what Trump's doing in a sneering way and think they can do damage to Trump.
And by due damage, I mean destroy his presidency.
And it isn't going to work.
I think the media is effectively right now in a circular firing squad and doesn't know it.
I think the Democrat Party's in the middle of that circular firing squad.
Can I give you an example?
We'll get to the Folkahannist details here in just a second.
We'll get to the oral arguments before the Ninth Circus yesterday.
Because folks, I have to tell you, two of those, you know, there were three judges in the Ninth Circus.
It's a three-judge panel.
And two of those judges didn't even ask about the law.
They asked about Trump's opinions.
They asked about Trump's attitudes.
He asked about Trump's psychology.
And even the lawyer representing the opposition to Trump told the judges that they should take into account what Trump had said on the campaign trail in determining whether or not his executive order is constitutional.
That has nothing to do with it.
There is a law that applies here, and it's cut and Dried.
And it clearly gives the president total control over who gets into the country after he declares certain danger zones, certain problems that exist.
It clearly states the president is in total control.
Where this case hinges legally is on the constitutional rights of some who are not citizens.
Because even though, as a non-citizen, you don't have constitutional rights.
If you're an illegal alien does not have constitutional rights, so whether the president's constitutional or unconstitutional shouldn't and does not apply.
However, there are some individuals who are not citizens who, by virtue of other aspects of the law, are treated as citizens.
And that's where there is some gray area in this statute.
But that's not even, that wasn't even explored.
And I have to tell you the Trump DOJ lawyer was horrible.
Did you did you listen to any of this, Mr.?
It was folks, it was this guy.
I mean, he even said to the judges, you know, I get the feeling, and I'm not, I'm not persuading you.
And he said, Well, please, if we lose here, don't make it too bad on this.
I'm not one listening to this, and I'm saying, is this the best that they've got over there to send out to the Ninth Circus?
Maybe they just figured they're going to lose there anyway.
Here is two things.
Trump has tweeted, and he made a speech to the sheriffs today, the National Association of Sheriffs in Washington, and he criticized these judges.
And he said, I'm not saying they're biased, I'm saying it's political.
I said, I can't believe how political this was.
I listened to it.
I can't believe how political it is.
People are saying, don't start attacking the judges before they rule.
There's no way they can rule for you now, because now it would look like you successfully intimidated them.
And these people are in the judiciary, and they've got lifetime appointments.
They're going to stay there long after Trump's gone.
They're not going to be intimidated by you, and they're not going to act like so.
They think a lot of people think Trump buried his own case here by going out there and ripping them.
But his supporters love it.
That's difference.
That's the difference.
The Trump voters like it.
The Trump voters like Trump telling these corrupt and politicized judicial people the truth.
He likes telling them off.
They like him telling them off.
Because everybody knows our judiciary has been corrupt by politics.
Everybody knows that the left has populated the judiciary not with judges but with liberal activists and hacks.
And there were two of them on that three-judge panel yesterday.
Now here's the second thing, and this is an even better example.
Are you aware that the famous upper tier and high-class department store chain Nordstrom decided to get rid of all Ivanka Trump products?
Purses, lipstick, what whatever Ivanka makes.
Fashion related, whatever it is, they publicly announced that they're getting rid of Ivanka stuff.
And that was last week.
Well, Trump today tweeted how bad he thinks that is.
He tweeted and he slammed Nordstrom for getting rid of his daughter's fashion line.
And.
Said she's her fashions are great.
Her products are great, and Nordstrom is also being political and making a dumb, stupid move here.
Well, I watched this on CNN, and they had a panel assembled to discuss this.
And the consensus on the panel was this, you don't do this.
Presidents don't do this.
This is something a father would do.
A father would defend his daughter.
But you don't go out there and pick winners and losers.
The president with his microphone and with his bully pulpit.
The president shouldn't be going out there and and and criticizing individual businesses that are making business decisions.
And that's that's that's not what's going on.
Nordstrom didn't make a business decision.
They made a political decision.
I think I have some experience with this kind of rot, and I think this is pure political decision that Nordstrom made.
This is not business.
And to a certain extent it is, but I mean it's politics driving it.
And that's what Trump was talking about in his review of the oral arguments of the Ninth Circus.
He was simply said, he can't believe how political this is.
This is the law.
We're talking about the law here.
What what is politics got to do with it?
So he goes out, he defends his daughter.
And I'm going to tell you again, Trump supporters who hear about this, the people that voted for Trump, stand up and cheer when he does this.
The fact that it's not something presidents doesn't matter to them.
Because these people have seen people on their side be savagely personally assaulted and attacked with lies and distortions, and they're fed up with nobody pushing back against it.
People that vote for Donald Trump, I don't know whether they whether they buy Ivanka Trump stuff or not.
That's not the point.
Ivanka Trump males would be Donald Trump in this instance.
So Nordstrom, effectively, as far as Trump supporters are concerned, told Donald Trump to take a hike by telling his daughter to take a hike.
And Trump supporters are also saying, why punish the daughter because you don't like the man, the president?
It's not fair, it's not right.
This is the kind of thing the left has gotten away with for years.
Being able to, I mean, the left, it's okay for them to boycott, it's okay for them to politicize business.
It's okay for them to threaten and bully businesses into banning or not selling certain products or advertising certain.
Oh, that's perfectly fine for the left to do that.
Nobody says anything.
That's perfectly fine.
That's capitalism at work, supposedly.
But when a president's daughter is affected and he sends out a tweet ripping Nordstrom for doing this, well, no, no, no, we're not supposed to do that.
That's not presidential.
That's something a father would do, but this is very, very bad.
Now, I will concede that the vast majority of political establishment types will agree in unison that Trump's tweet slamming Nordstrom, bad move.
Wrong move, not presidential, but Trump's voters, right on.
Whether they buy Ivanka stuff or not, because Trump voters are stick and tired, fed up with the one-sided rules that exist in the American political playing field today, where Republicans and conservatives can be banned, can be fired, can be dismissed with no pushback whatsoever.
Whatever the left wants, if a pizza shop won't sell to gay people, then the pizza shop should be put out of business.
If the photography studio or if the bakery won't cater a gay wedding, put them out of business.
Nobody pushes back against it.
Nobody says this is wrong.
Nobody attempts to reverse it.
Nobody comes to the defense of the businesses under attack.
Well, Donald Trump has come to the defense of his daughter, a business under attack, and I'm here to tell you that the people that supported Trump and voted for Trump have not one problem with that.
In fact, they're probably cheering it.
Back in just a second.
On the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Limbaugh and hump day.
Wednesday, middle of the week.
You have this day behind you when you were over the hump.
Okay, so we've got we got lots coming up of the program today.
We've got the full explaining and detailed analysis of uh Focahantis Warren erupting on the floor of the Senate last night and being shut down.
Mitch slapped, as it were, by the invocation of Rule 19.
We also have the uh analysis of the oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals revolving involving the Trump executive order, and these these people could rule at any time, so I want to get to that probably first out of the break.
Um to my not really shock and surprise, I awoke today to an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, which is actually was published late yesterday by James Baker and George Schultz.
Uh advocating on behalf of the Republican establishment for a are you ready for it?
Carbon tax.
I said, wait a minute, I read this right carbon tax, I mean it.
Bill Clinton won a carbon tax.
Barack Hussein Obama wanted a carbon tax.
What the hell do we want a carbon tax for?
And I read further, oh, because we need to take action on climate chance.
No.
And then in exchange for a 20% carbon tax, we will get rid of cumbersome environmental regulations.
And then I read that there are certain oil companies in favor of this and certain oil companies opposed to this.
But here you go.
Here's your Republican establishment.
I mean the senior members from years ago, been in it for decades, advocating a carbon.
Detail that for you as the show unfolds.
There is a story that I also in the stack today that I need to spend a little bit of time on.
It is a story from the what?
Yeah, damn it, it didn't print the Republicans fear for their safety as Obamacare protests grow.
Let me find the link of this because I uh my print technique doesn't print everything.
It's political.
I knew it.
I know it's gonna be political.
So we'd have that.
Republicans fear for their safety, as Obamacare protest growth.
So we've got it, we've got that.
I want to get to the Ninth Circus business here, the uh oral arguments yesterday, because the judge panel could rule at any moment, even though it's like 934 out there now.
Um everybody expects them to move quickly here.
Um Trump today went and spoke to uh law enforcement officers and sheriffs, and he was standing there, I watched it, and he read aloud Title VII, chapter 12 of the U.S. Code, which is the law involved here, which is the statute that permits his executive order.
And this is it.
Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may, by proclamation,
and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-emigrants, or impose on entry of aliens any restrictions that may deem to be appropriate.
And Trump said it's not just me, it's for Obama, it's for Ronaldus Magnus.
It was done for the security of our nation, the security of our system uh uh citizens and nothing to do with religion.
It's a helpful reminder that Obama initiated a six-month ban on anybody from Iraq coming into this country.
And nobody had a problem with it.
So then Trump said that he listened to oral arguments about the legal challenges to his executive order, because the Ninth Circus made them available for audio streaming.
And he said, when you when you read something so perfectly written, so clear to anybody, courts seem to be so political, it would be so great for our court system, just read a statement and do what's right.
And let me just tell you about this, in a in a sterile world, he's exactly right.
Let me read this to you again.
It's there's nothing ambivalent here.
There's nothing, there's nothing that that is in any way confusing or uh that would provide any out for legal opposition.
Whenever the president, by the way, this is a law passed and debated in Congress.
It was legislation signed into law by the president at the time.
Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens, or of any class of aliens into the U.S. would be detrimental to the interests of the U.S., he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary.
Suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-emigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be inappropriate.
There's no wiggle room there.
There's no alternate interpretation.
There's no reading between the lines to find out what they really meant here.
It is as crystal clear as can be.
This is why Judge Robart in the state of Washington did not use the law in issuing a temporary stay of the executive order.
He couldn't.
He had to go off on tangents and use other things, such as it's a religious man, or it's unfair, or it's bigoted.
And remember, Judge Robart is not a Republican, he's a Republican appointed judge, but he is a left-wing judicial activist, actually chosen by Patty Murray, the senator.
Now, the the the here's here's the legal theory on which opponents to Trump are trying to have this thing thrown out.
The theory is that this statute cannot override constitutional rights.
That no president is able to issue an executive order that overrides any person's constitutional rights.
Now, common sense says that should have nothing to do with this.
Because we're talking about aliens.
We're talking about people outside the country who want to come in.
They are not citizens.
Therefore, citizenship is not being denied.
Citizenship is not being trampled.
Because we are talking about aliens and immigrants and refugees and all that outside the United States who have no constitutional rights.
However, there is a little gray here because some of the aliens affected by the Trump executive order have been in the United States before.
They left.
And they were prevented from getting back in by the issuance of the executive order, but they had been here before.
And some of them have some degree of legal status here.
But it isn't citizenship that they have.
The people we're talking about and the people that Trump wanted to restrict from coming in.
Now the left is arguing that this little bit of gray area gives them a measure of constitutional rights, gives these aliens who have been in the country before, but who then left and wanted to come back and now can't get in because of the order.
Well, the left says, well, they had quasi constitutional rights.
They had measure it because they'd been here.
And as an example of this, the police cannot enter the home of an alien criminal suspect without a warrant.
Even though the alien is not a citizen.
There are still constitutional rights that do descend to a criminal alien suspect.
The Fourth Amendment applies to them just as it does to citizens.
This has been so ruled by the courts.
Now, whatever the merit of this argument, the fact remains that the rights of aliens who have some legal status in our country cannot outweigh the security of American citizens from foreign threats.
In other words, this should not matter.
The leftist argument is wait a minute, you are denying somebody's constitutional rights because they have been here before.
Some of these aliens that wanted to come in and were prevented had been here before.
They had lived here, they may not have had citizenship, but they had been effectively quasi citizens by virtue of the way they lived and the way they were treated.
And the answer to that is doesn't matter.
A, they're not citizens, but B, we cannot allow that small subset group of people to supersede national security.
The left says, damn, yes we can.
Screw you.
We're going to do anything we Can to stop this president.
We're going to do anything we can to stop Trump, and we'll go we'll go any legal avenue open to us.
But again, their argument, I think, is specious in Swiss cheese because the rights of the aliens we're talking about who do not have citizenship.
They've got some legal status, but they don't have citizenship.
You can't allow deference to them to outweigh the security of American citizens and foreign threats.
And this is a matter the Constitution delegates to the political branches, not the judicial.
The Constitution doesn't give the judiciary a role here in national security, and they cannot assume it.
So the president, whoever it is, in this case Trump, has a very high degree of constitutional authority to repel foreign threats.
And Congress, which has the authority to determine the qualifications an alien must meet to enter our country, has delegated sweeping authority to the president in the statute that I just quoted.
He has total say so by proclamation.
He can suspend entry into this country by aliens, illegal immigrants, anybody at a time he thinks we are under threat.
And he can determine how long that ban is.
Congress has given the president that sweeping authority.
I sent this to a legal friend of mine to make sure that my interpretation was correct.
And I highlighted the word he.
He shall deem necessary.
He may deem appropriate.
That's in reference to the president.
And the fact that the word he and singular and the reference to the president is in a statute that was passed by the Congress indicates Congress wanted the security decision made by the president alone.
That's why I said there's no ambiguity here and there's no ambivalence.
The power vested in the president here is total and complete by Congress.
They wanted the security decisions made by the president alone, not the president under the supervision of the federal courts.
At nowhere in this statute is there any reference to the judiciary at all.
There's no reference to the judiciary having review.
That the judiciary must sign off on whatever president does.
That's why what Judge Robart did is totally wrong.
As a matter of law, Judge Robart was way outside his legal purview in issuing the stay.
And he did it because he's a leftist hack, doing the bidding of the side he agrees with.
His ruling, if you go look at it, he didn't address the law at all because he can't.
He cannot stay Trump's executive order on matters of the law.
And that's why Trump is out tweeting how unfortunate all this is that politics, by the way, it's not politics, it's liberalism.
It's liberalism.
Now, Trump saying politics, I know why he's saying that.
He's calling it the courts getting political is probably a little bit more effective in persuading people to your side than attacking liberals because it just is.
Because people instinctively know the courts shouldn't be politicized, you know, and the civics 101 courts should not be politicized.
And people think that they aren't and shouldn't be.
So I understand Trump using the word politics instead of liberal, but these just they're a bunch of left-wing hacks.
And two more of them on the Ninth Circuit three judge panel.
Now, see, here's here's but this doesn't end here because the problem, Andy McCarthy wrote about this.
Let's assume here that the Ninth Circuit upholds Judge Robart.
Trump loses, and so we now that one of two things can happen there.
The government can ask for the entire Ninth Circus to hear it.
That's called in bank.
This is a three-judge panel that can ask for all, I think it's actually 19.
There are many more judges at the Ninth Circuit, but some of them are long gone, and they're just there in name only.
Lawyer being of counsel to affirm names on the door, we didn't do any work.
I think it's actually 19 judges or thereabouts.
And hardly ever is that granted.
Appellate courts generally side with what their three judge panels do.
So if they request N Bank and it's denied, it's hello Supreme Court, where the assumption is that it'll go 4-4, because there are eight justices, and that would send the court the case back to the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that Trump lost, and that would be the end of it.
McCarthy writes, wait a minute, it's a mistake to assume this is going to go 4-4 because Anthony Kennedy, we can't count on him on this, because Anthony Kennedy in a couple of other cases has made it very clear he doesn't like the judiciary being subordinated in these kinds of cases.
He doesn't like the fact the judiciary can just be swept aside.
He doesn't like the fact judiciary is told to stay out of matters like this.
Point is it's not a slam dunk that the Supreme Court would go 4-4.
And it could go 5-4 either way, you just don't know.
If this there ought not be any debate.
This is what's wrong with the judicial system.
This is where we are because of liberal hacks who are judges.
Because the law on this is just crystal clear.
There is no alternative view of this.
And now the left is saying to the judges during oral arguments, yeah, did you hear what the president said during his campaign?
He said he wanted to ban all Muslims all the time.
That's not relevant.
Objection!
Relevance!
Throw it out.
You can't start talking about a responsible judge would shut down any lawyer who made that argument before he finished the sentence.
We're talking about the law.
These left-wing liberal judge hacks are now telling us what they think was in the president's mind and whether it's moral or not, according to their political agreements, their beliefs.
It's just bad.
All right, now let me make another point here, folks, and I want you to buckle in for this.
You think Donald Trump is president, and he is.
You think he won the election, he did.
Ever since Judge Robart stayed the executive order that Trump issued, putting a temporary ban on all entry to the U.S. from people from those seven states in Syria.
Get this, the Washington Examiner.
Since President Trump's immigration restrictions on seven nations were sidelined by a federal judge last weekend, the State Department, which effectively Trump runs now.
The State Department has rushed in 100 Syrians.
According to a report, the State Department of Donald Trump, clearly with a lot of Clinton and Obama holdovers in there.
100 Syria was a nation listed, mentioned in this list, and their ban was ongoing.
It was not to be lifted in 90 days.
It was permanent for however long.
And the State Department has just looked at Trump and basically gone, because in just two days, the State Department has rushed in 100 Syrians.
From February 5th to February 7th, 15 Syrian refugees were sent to New York, 10 of them to Virginia, nine to Texas, and the rest to 11 other states, according to State Department numbers posted by something called a refugee resettlement watch.
And here's the kicker.
Those 100 Syrians in two days let into the United States were vetted by the United Nations, not us.
All because a leftist hack judge stayed Trump's executive order.
Does anybody have any doubt what the left is trying to do here?
This is a willful purposeful attempt to corrupt and undermine this 100 Syrian refugees.
Now, some of them may be perfectly fine.
That's not the point.
The United Nations vetting them.
That's supposed to make it okay.
This is the Trump State Department.
Daily Caller.
New poll shows most Americans support Trump's immigration ban.
It's an investor's business daily poll.
Telling the public that voted for him is still with him.
That's that.
You have to take another timeout because the constraints of the programming format.
Now, just a couple of more things to add to this, and that is the left's focus on the religious ban.
They're trying to portray Trump's executive order as a religious ban, and that can be easily swiped away, which I will do when we return here and move on to Focantas.
▲
Export Selection