All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 10, 2017 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:47
February 10, 2017, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 Podcast.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
You are tuned to the most listened to radio talk show in the country.
It's Rush Limbaugh behind the golden EIV microphone on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
You know, I long for the days of Andrew Jackson.
And Abraham Lincoln just arrest the judges and put them in jail when they violate your constitutional authority.
I don't think people have any idea who Andrew Jackson was.
They think it was a populist.
They don't know what he did.
And he went too far, don't misunderstand.
But this is simply outrageous.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
I have been I've been trying all week to avoid leading with my anger over what all is happening here with the left and the their essential takeover of the judiciary.
And in instead of just ripe anger, I I've been trying to apply reason to this and uh inform, educate people on what is going on as as best I can.
But it ticks me off, folks.
I can't tell you how angry it makes.
And I'll tell you something, it Judge Gorsuch.
This whole business there ought not even be a story of Gorse that supposedly or didn't supposedly say whatever, that he was disheartened and demoralized by what Trump said about the judges.
That whole that whole story bothers me.
Whether whether it it's it's partly true, totally true, it just bothers me.
We need people with guts to take these people on.
We do not need people that are going to cower and kowtow because this is the last chance we're going to have.
And something else bothers me today, and it has for the longest time, and I've addressed it on I don't know how many occasions.
The way I've put it on previous occasions is that Donald Trump is winging this all by himself.
He's got no support.
He doesn't have, like Obama had the media helping him, and every liberal think tank in the world, and all kinds of public advocacy helping him, and protest marchers, and Donald Trump has nothing.
Every support group that Obama had is opposed to Trump.
The only thing Trump has is the people that voted for him.
What if he changes his mind one day?
What if he wakes up and says, you know what?
Life isn't worth this.
Screw it.
What if he decides I don't care about this anymore?
I don't think that's gonna happen, but the point is there needs to be some serious work making sure that what elected Trump is not just a one-time thing that only shows up every four years during presidential elections.
There needs to there's there's a grassroots out there.
There is a vast majority of Americans in the electoral college election that overwhelmingly showed up for Donald Trump.
And those people are desperate to still be involved and find a way to assist.
They watch what's happening in the news and they are livid.
They're outraged.
I went out last night for the first time in a long time to up to a uh public affair.
It was a cigar dinner at a golf club near here.
In fact, I met a couple prominent Republicans in the Florida House.
Jose Oliva, who is the uh Congress is a representative from uh from North Miami, he's gonna be the speaker of the Florida House a couple years, and the current uh speaker to Florida House Jose Oliva was the uh cigar company last night that provided cigars.
It was about 250 or 300 people at this event.
All professional people, all eminently successful, some retired, some still working.
And uh I don't do these much anymore for host of reasons, primarily because it's just impossible for me to hear in in rooms like that and to have conversations with people even at the dinner table, and so it's just sometimes it's just it's it's more frustrating than it is worthwhile for me.
But this was a Marvin Shankin dinner, and I went to it.
I can't tell you everybody in that room.
There were even a couple of Democrats that came up to me, but everybody in that room was 1,000 percent behind Trump, 1,000 percent ticked off at what is going on.
There is nothing I I was asked to get some remarks, and I stood up.
There isn't a thing I could have said last night that would have offended him.
There's not a thing I could have said last night that anybody would have thought was going too far in describing the Democrats, in describing these people were hungry to hear it.
Because they voted for Trump and they they uh they also I think at times uh it's not that they feel alone, because that it's not that they're on the winning side, but they know everything that's arrayed against them.
And they worry about the Republicans in Congress.
You know, just how firmly behind Trump and his agenda are they.
In other words, they're worried that all of this is precariously balanced, and that it needs constant support behind it.
Uh it's it's it's it's kind of frustrating to say that the only thing we've got here that gives this this movement, if you want to call it that, any energy is Trump himself.
Not then that's not a cut at Trump by any stretch of the imagination.
I see, I don't think right now I don't think the argument is within with much merit over are we doing populism here or are we doing conservatism?
That to me is not what's most important.
What's most important is defeating the left, an ongoing project that we've just won one election in the in that big process.
It must be ongoing.
And what's happening here with these judges and these two state governors in in, I guess it was uh state of Washington, I forget the now doing victory laps like they won the presidency last night after this ruling, because these rulings are totally outside the law.
These rulings are totally absent any reference and fealty to the Constitution.
I have a story here in the stack.
Hundreds of thousands rally in Iran against Trump.
Who else is rallying against Trump?
The Democrat Party in this country and the American left.
As it so often happens, anti-American institutions, anti-American leaders, anti-American countries sound no different than the domestic Democrat Party.
They sound no different than the American left.
And in fact, these hundreds of thousands of Iranians rallying against Trump actually issued thanks to American Democrats for their help in supporting the nation of Iran, which is a state sponsor of terrorism.
And I think it's safe to say that the Democrat Party does not care.
Whatever damage results to this country resulting from their policy decisions or their political decisions.
They'll clean that mess up later in their minds.
All that matters to them right now is defeating Trump and making this election look like they actually won it.
And making everybody on the victorious side, the victorious side, the winning side, think that it's just an aberration and not real.
And that's what they're in the in the process of doing, and that that's their modus operandi.
Now, I want to review uh what this case is all about and give you a little judicial history as well, and talk about what is the next phase, what can Trump do?
What will they do?
Will they continue to fight this?
Because you know, Trump's a winner, he likes winning.
Will he continue to fight this?
If he does, this could go on months, folks.
You know, these idiot, I I couldn't, I could one of the things I'm sorry to be hopscotching here, but I I learned of this ruling late after it had happened.
After I had arrived at the cigar dinner.
So I had to break away with the phone, get to a private place where I could study what the heck had happened just because I wanted to know.
I we were making jokes about this, and I watched CNN earlier in the week, and some infobabe at CNN was peppering Trump supporters.
Well, you know, I've talked to a lot of lawyers.
I've talked to a lot of lawyers and they have said that the judges can strictly rule on what the president said during his campaign about wanting to ban Muslims.
I was beside myself instead of that.
That there is no way under the sun where that is relevant in a legal proceeding.
What the president said, that would be like saying when Obama says when they bring a knife to a good to a fight, we bring a gun.
That'd be like judges deciding that President Obama is pro-second amendment.
You can say that he just came out and supported gun rights and because of something he said on the campaign trail.
Judges and courts never do this kind of thing.
But these are not judges.
These are left-wing liberal hacks who wear robes.
And this is going to continue because this is where the left has populated themselves.
They've taken over the judiciary and they are in the bowels of the uh bureaucracy in unelected positions.
Here you have three judges on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who do not have access whatsoever to national security information.
Presuming that they know more about national security and that because of that they can overrule the Constitution.
You know, I don't care.
It doesn't matter to me that whoever presented the case for the Department of Justice was incompetent.
That doesn't matter.
The law is the law, and the law doesn't matter now when it goes against the left.
Anyway, I'm trying to reign in my anger here and keep it in check so that I continue to make salient and brilliant points.
Let me take a brief time out.
The president's got a press conference coming up here.
It supposedly starts at one o'clock Eastern time.
We'll jip part of it, probably will start late, but we'll have uh parts of it to find out what is going on, and we'll have our in-conference commentary as we are known for.
So hang on, folks, I'll be right back and continue after this.
I sometimes think we get sidetracked.
And I'll give you an example of global warming debate.
So here comes climate change and global warming, and here come the left, and they've got all their data, only supposed scientific data, consensus of scientists, and all this scientific data, and it's made up.
It's a hoax, it's made up, it's guesswork.
There's no way they can know 95% of what they're asserting because we weren't taking records way back then.
So all of this, the tree rings and the ice cores and the high, it's all made up.
What do we do?
We debate them on the science.
Understandably, we have our own scientists who re who who dispute it, but we take their premise, which means we lose the argument from the get-go.
When we accept their premise that climate change is happening and we start trying to prove it negative, we waste time.
Because climate change is not about climate change.
It's about liberalism.
If you want to defeat climate change, if you want to educate people about climate change, you educate them about liberalism and socialism and who the hell it is and who the hell they are and what the hell they're doing.
If you get caught up in numbers of emissions of CO2 and what's going on at 35,000 feet in the atmosphere, and you have lost the debate.
And I've told the science side on our side about this.
But they love it.
They love the science, they love getting into it, and they love proving the theory wrong.
But we're not dealing with science and climate change.
We're dealing with liberalism.
Same thing here.
It looks like we're debating the law with the Ninth Circuit Court of Opinion.
We're not.
We're under assault by the left.
The left does not respect the traditions and the institutions established at the founding of this country, including the court system.
They have sought to overtake the court system and turn the courts into nothing more than left-wing political operations.
Now we can sit here and we can debate the aspects of their ruling, and we can go out and we can point to everybody how this is not constitutional and they don't have this right.
But they still, at the end of our argument, get away with it.
We can argue all day what we can demonstrate for as long as we live how these people have turned the law upside down.
At the end of the argument, they still prevail.
And people then say, well, if they're so wrong on the law, and if what you say is right, that they're abrogating the law or violating the law or ignoring separation of powers or whatever, why do they prevail?
And the answer to that, hello, L I B E R A L I S M. Liberalism.
But our side loves to debate the law.
A lot of people love to debate the law, and I'm not saying don't do it.
I'm not saying do not expose the fraud that these people are engaging in.
With rulings like Judge Robart and another.
I am so worn out with hearing we can't comment on these people.
That somehow they are above and beyond scrutiny analysis.
Who says they're left wing hacks that wear robes?
That's exactly what they are.
They don't, if they see a law in their way, they simply ignore it.
They find a way around it.
Because they know it's very difficult to overturn.
Now, the Ninth Circus leads the league in having decisions of theirs overturned at the Supreme Court.
There's nobody even close, and it's a stunning number.
I don't have it right in front of me.
But you would be shocked at the number of decisions from the Ninth Circus that the Supreme Court agrees to take.
I mean, that's like 80% of them, folks, or maybe even higher than that, get overturned.
We don't know about this one, uh, if it ever got to the Supreme Court without Gorsuch being there, because they got four liberal hacks on that court.
And Anthony Kennedy, when he has written and opined on matters like this, he has found for the power of the judiciary over the executive.
So it's not, it's not a guaranteed win if it goes to Supreme Court.
But at the root of all of this, the Constitution being ignored, the will of the people being ignored, liberalism, and they have their various areas where they engage in this nefarious activity,
and those areas shield them and give them authority and give them respect, like scientists in climate change, and judges in the law, wearing black robes, imminently educated among the best and rightest of our legal minds, educated in some of the finest liberal indoctrinate, I'm sorry, law schools in the country.
I happen to think you're not going to see this represented on the news.
I happen to think the vast majority, everybody voted for Trump is livid over what's happening here with this robot character and the Ninth Circus.
You know what else they're livid about?
You turn on CNN, I just saw it a minute ago.
Jacob Chaffetz, a bunch of other Republicans in the House going back home, and they're having town hall meetings.
And a bunch of progressives are showing up, and they're bought and paid for, just like they're bought and paid to riot.
They're bought and paid to protest.
The media is in the headlines.
Republican congressmen facing outrage from constituents in town halls made to look like.
The American people didn't want any part of this.
They didn't want any part of what Trump's doing, any part of what the Republican House is doing.
And they're hearing it.
And that's not true.
It's fake, phony protests At these Republican town hall meetings.
Bought and paid for.
Back in just a second.
Greetings.
Welcome back, Open Line Friday.
Rush Limbaugh will be heading to your uh your calls here just uh just a second.
Umard Department of Justice ignored evidence of terrorism leading to the travel ban straight being struck down.
Now, I'm gonna deal with some of the legalities of this, but then again, this really isn't the legality.
This is the point.
These judges at the Ninth Circuit, and this Judge Robart sitting there reviewing the Trump executive orders, well, I don't see any evidence that any people from those seven countries have committed acts of terrorism.
I I just I don't think I so what?
That doesn't matter.
You don't get to decide that because you don't have the intel.
You don't get the briefings, Judge Robart.
And neither do these three or the whole committee out there on the Ninth Circuit.
Now the DOJ, one of Trump's big problems is he still didn't have his people there.
There's a bunch of Obama holdovers that I think are sabotaging him.
And the classic illustration of this, Department of Justice attorneys ignored ample evidence of terrorists from those seven nations affected by Trump's executive order.
And this helped lead to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a suspension of the order.
The uh the Ninth Circuit ruling said in part, the government has not shown that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable injury.
The government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack.
So what?
That is irrelevant to the law here.
It doesn't matter.
It is from 1952, it invests in the president's sole discretion by proclamation to do this, but that's not the kicker.
The kicker is there have been at least 80 alleged terrorists who have immigrated from those seven countries since 9-11.
And if you're like me, you're saying, well, where the hell was the DOJ lawyer arguing this executive order before these two courts?
Why didn't he have this information?
Folks, I don't know if they had it and purposely didn't use it.
I don't know if because they're just now getting settled in after the inauguration, they weren't prepared to defend the executive order in court.
I don't know if the implementation of this thing was not up to speed.
None of that matters when you get down to the law.
None of it matters.
And even if there had not been eighty different terrorists get into this country from these seven countries, which there have been, even if there hadn't, it doesn't mean that there won't be.
And it doesn't mean that the administration doesn't have intel showing that they're trying to.
The courts can't possibly know any of that.
That is why, among many other reasons, they are not constitutionally charged to police national security.
But this Judge Robart presumed to know more than the president, presumed to care more than the president, and presumed that the president's stupid.
The Ninth Circuit, all they had to do was back up Judge Robart and make the same conclusions.
But what's going on here is all four of these judges...
Robart and these three judges at the Ninth Circuit are simply Trump opponents.
They were not acting as judges.
They've got the cover of acting as judges because they work at courts, but they are left-wing activists, is no different than Donna Brazil.
These three judges are no different than Paul Bagala or James Carville sitting on these courts.
That's exactly who they are.
Or Matt Lauer or Take Your Pick of any drive-by journalists.
That is what we're dealing with.
Yes, they've been to law school.
A lot of good that's done anybody.
They have been to law school, and they have Served on various lower courts, and they have distinguished themselves with their judicial writings and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But when it comes down to understanding, defending, protecting, and enforcing the supreme law of the land, what do they do?
They piss on it.
And I'm fed up with this.
And there's got to be a way around this other than simply trying to demonstrate how these people are wrong on the law.
They have lifetime appointments, so you can't get you can't impeach them.
There is a process for removal.
Congress has more power over the federal judiciary than anybody knows, and they have more ability to deal with re-establishing, redrawing districts, however they want to deal with the judiciary, that is under Congress's control, as vested in it by the Constitution.
We're not dealing with judges here.
Well, fine point.
Yes, they're judges, but that's not why they're there.
They're there to advance the Democrat Party agenda.
They are there to whenever they can attack, limit, destroy any other agenda that is in opposition to theirs.
You know these people.
You know these people hate Trump.
They despise Trump for all they're all part of the establishment.
They despise Trump because he's from outside and because he won the election.
And again, what I when I boil all this down.
The fact is Trump doesn't have anybody helping him.
And I don't mean to portray him as helpless.
Don't misunderstand.
Again, I'm sorry for the redundancy, but you know, Obama could go out and say and do whatever he wanted, and the media is backing it up and supporting and making it look brilliant and normal.
All day long, all night long, all week long, all month, with Trump, whatever he does.
It's portrayed as insane, dangerous, risky, uninformed, stupid, or what have you.
Who is out there countering that other than some of us in the alternative media?
But it's a never-ending, and there has to be a plan for this.
That's why I think Trump ought to continue to go out and do rallies.
I think Trump ought to go out and continue to draw 20,000, 25,000 people and demonstrate, let the picture show that the pictures the media is creating are bogus and not representative of public opinion.
But that still puts the onus on Trump.
And if I were Trump, frankly, I'd be kind of ticked off that I have to do that.
What more do you want from me?
I won.
Now he's faced with people whining and moaning he's not doing things fast enough, or the Congress isn't doing things fast enough.
Folks, you've got to understand here, there is a lot that has been put in the way, and presidents are not kings, and they don't just get to sign their name to stuff and have it happen.
We now have been told the wall.
Three and a half years to build a wall.
We are told that repealing Obamacare is not going to happen in 2018.
And it's Trump that said that, not the Republicans in Congress.
They may be sympatico to it.
But I think a lot of people were expecting the left to realize they had lost to lay down and get out of the way.
And I tried to tell everybody that's not, that wasn't gonna happen.
You've got late-night comedy shows and Saturday Night Live now given as much weight as standard day-to-day media network broadcasts.
It is an it is an onslaught.
And there's a there's a part of me that that believes that all of this is leading to a continued backfire on the Democrats and on the left.
I think they're going to continue To lose elections.
There's a story.
I have a story in the stack today.
It's one of these deep in the weeds analysis of why they lost.
And it's the most ridiculous thing.
It goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
And it never once mentioned that their ideas are rejected.
It never once mentioned that the American people don't want their ideas.
It never once mentions Obama.
Then there's another piece in the New Republic that kind of gets after Obama for not taking the time and expending the effort to get his revolution embedded at the states.
That Obama didn't care enough about the party, that Obama only carried about himself, cared about himself, and he didn't do enough to build the roots of his revolution.
And I read that, and I thought, well, let him have that argument.
But the same thing can be said right now of Trump.
The same thing can be said in a proactive way that that needs to happen.
These people in the grassroots that made this happen.
They need to be nurtured.
They need to be made to believe that what they did was real and matters and will continue to be and triumph if they do not jump ship, if they don't go wobbly.
You're supposed to get so mad over this court ruling that you're supposed to give up.
You are supposed to think, huh, what's the point?
We can't beat them.
We beat them at the ballot box, they lose elections, they can't stop anything in the House, they can't stop anything in the Senate.
And look, they're stopping Trump in the courts.
We can't lose.
And they want you to throw your hands up and quit and maybe move to New Zealand.
I have to take a break.
I just saw the clock.
Mr. What did you say that I sound like I'm on the edge?
I am in total losing it?
I sound like I'm that close to losing it.
I am in total control.
I have never been in more total control.
I got a I got a fast instant message here from my brother.
He said, screw keeping your anger in check.
People love it when you get mad.
And they wrote back, I know, but I'm I've I just if I if I get too angry, sometimes I worry that I will not make as much sense as I want to make.
So that's why I try to rein in the anger.
But I'm not teetering on the edge here.
You make it sound like I'm just precariously balanced and one wrong word and I'm gone for the day and maybe not come back on Monday.
What do you mean?
Oh, launch an expletive leighton.
No, I have more maturity and I have a greater vocabulary.
I do not need to descend into a launch of explosives in order to make my point.
I mean, I I I I said I said the P for urine word on purpose, not because I had lost control, Mr. Snerdley.
I said that to penetrate the noise.
What little faith who has?
Snerdley?
No, Snurley, it's not that Snerdley doesn't have faith.
It's that Snerdley cares so deeply.
He doesn't want anything screwed up here.
So I checked the email, and somebody said, okay, Rush, give me one example from the Ninth Circus ruling that you think will sum it up and explain it to everybody.
Okay, try this.
And this I referred to earlier when I saw last week or earlier this week, CNN, some some brain-dead info babe actually suggest, well, you know, the president said in a campaign trail, he wanted to ban Muslims.
And the court could rely on that.
No, they can't.
They cannot do that.
That's pure politics.
That's not legal.
And besides, if there were a Muslim ban, it would not just be seven countries, it would name every country.
There was no Muslim ban in this order.
Okay.
This Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was never going to do anything other than what they did.
This was a political opposition maneuver.
The court cited the president intimating during the campaign that he might implement a Muslim ban.
Candidate Trump spoke in a campaign trail of implementing a Muslim ban.
Except this isn't.
But it doesn't matter even if it was.
This isn't seven countries plus Syria.
85% of the Muslim population is not covered by this executive order.
There is no way that this was a religious ban in any way or a Muslim bansoever.
The fact that it's obviously not a Muslim ban and the fact that Trump did not say anything in the executive order about it being a Muslim man, and that they have to go and find a statement Trump made on the campaign trail to associate with this in order to uphold this so-called judge in Seattle.
This is simply a ruling that has nothing to do with the law.
This is pure Democrat hackery.
This is pure left-wing hackery.
They get to make it look like it's law because they wear robes, and they are judges on a court.
And so that imagery conveys all the authority and the rights that they have to do this kind of thing when it is in clear violation of the Constitution.
Let me grab a call.
It's open line Friday, try to get one in the first hour every Friday.
Appleton, Wisconsin.
I've been there a number of times.
Nick, how are you doing?
Great to have you with us, sir.
Thank you.
Great to hear you.
My question is on based on your last point there, as a matter of process, how are how is this judge able to even put a stay on this then?
As a matter of law andor process, you know.
Uh might be grandiose, but if the president were to make like another order, like, you know, like to choose to wage war in a different country or something like that.
Could a court in the Ninth Circus over there decide, no, we don't like this idea.
Let's put a stay on it.
No, here's the way it happens.
I'm glad you asked.
What happens is Trump writes an executive order.
The protests were waiting.
The protesters, the rioters were waiting for the go order since last November.
They get into gear.
The first thing that happens is that pictures on TV make it look like this is outrageous.
The president of the United States has lost his mind.
Oh my God, we're denying people from all over the world into the country.
Then the next thing that happens is that Democrats go judge shopping.
And they find a left-wing hack in a left-wing state that is going to make a left-wing political ruling, and they found it in Robart, and they go to Robart.
You say, how can Robart do it?
Because he's a judge.
It's like anything in politics.
And this is politics, this is not law.
In politics, Nick, you you can do what anybody will let you do.
The Constitution, you can violate all, violate it all day if your political opponents don't stop you or punish you or make you pay for it.
So in this case, Robart issues a stay when he does not have the legal authority to do so.
And then the media chimes in and singing the guy's praises, and everybody, what a great courageous act to take on the president like this who wants to ban all Muslims and judge robots standing for the downtrodden and the thirsty and the hungry and all that stuff.
And they set the public mind that Trump's out of control, he's out of his mind, and a simple-minded little judge in the state of Washington has brought reason to the and that means if if the Trump administration tells a judge to go to hell, then they got an additional political problem with that.
So that's that's the process.
And I'm out of time here, but I will explain what happens when they rewrite this.
Okay, everybody breathlessly waiting for the presidential press conference.
Looks like it's the East Room.
I've been there, that's the gold carp uh, the uh the gold drapes.
▲
Export Selection