All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 10, 2017 - Rush Limbaugh Program
30:36
February 10, 2017, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Talent on loan from God.
Rush Limbaugh on the side reclaiming our country from the forces of evil and the abnormal.
We are here on Friday.
Let's keep going.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Yes, sir, Rebub, 800 282-288-2, final big busy broadcast hour now underway.us.
I want to spend just one more little tiny bit of time on the Trump executive order and the federal statute on which it is based.
The federal statute, as I mentioned, dates to 1952.
Now, I want to, with the assistance of a column today by National Review's Andy McCarthy.
Wait a minute, is it that it might be an editorial?
I happen to know he wrote it.
It might be an NR editorial.
I'm not sure which.
Either way, it's it's Andy's work here, and if it's an editorial, there were some editorial contributions.
But in his piece today, reviewing the Ninth Circuit's ruling, and he goes through exquisitely all of the legals of this and explains why Robart, the so-called judge in Seattle and the Ninth Circuit, really have no legal basis on which to stand.
But about this executive order, I have people sending me notes after hearing this statute from 1952.
Well, why do we even need an executive order then?
Why isn't this just the law of the land?
Why does Trump need to do anything?
Why can't well he the executive order actually spells out the presidential action that he's taking, but he doesn't really.
The law of the land is.
Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens, means and single alien or group, whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the U.S.,
he may, by proclamation, just by saying so, and for as long as he deems necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, i.e.
refugees, or he can impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate, meaning he has total power, total control over who gets into the country and who doesn't, and when they get in, and when they can't be let in.
And he can impose any restrictions that he may deem to be appropriate.
It's a federal statute written in 1952.
And a question arises: well, since this is the law of the land, why can't the president just do what he did?
He wrote an executive order, and that executive order gave the left the opportunity to focus on it and not the statute.
Somebody even said, Why didn't he just write the statute as the executive order?
Well, because he then specified a time length.
It was 90 days, 120 days.
For Syrians, it was endless.
So he had to add the specifics to it.
But I want to give you the history of this statute.
Okay, it's 1952, so where did this come from?
You know, what caused this to be written?
Why did Congress give the president this much power over immigrant and refugee entry to the country?
And for this, you go back to a Supreme Court decision in 1948.
Chicago and Southern Airlines versus Waterman is the name of the case.
Justice Robert Jackson, who was Roosevelt's former attorney general, all right?
Roosevelt's former attorney general, and he was the chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, which means we love the guy, right?
He was the chief prosecutor to Nuremberg trials, which really stuck it to the Nazis, right?
So we love the guy.
So he's imminently respectable qualified, right?
We all agree here.
Justice Robert Jackson, former AG FDR, chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, explained that in this Supreme Court case, that decisions involving foreign policy, including alien threats to national security, are political, not judicial in nature.
A Supreme Court justice in 1948 said in a case, Chicago and Southern Airlines versus Waterman.
Foreign policy, alien threats to national security are political, not judicial.
Thus, they are wholly convited, and I'm now reading from Jackson's own ruling in 1948.
They are wholly convited, confided by our Constitution, to the political departments of the government, executive and legislative.
They are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy.
They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil.
They are decisions of a kind for which the judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities, nor responsibility, and have long been held to belong in the domain of political power, not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.
So the timeline is that in the Supreme Court case, Chicago Southern Air versus Waterman in 1948, a justice writing for the court, Robert Jackson wrote what I just read.
Essentially, the judiciary is not equipped, it's not prepared, it's not structured, it's not competent to determine national security questions.
Chief among the reasons why they don't get intel briefings.
There is no daily brief for the Supreme Court, for example.
Judge Roberts hasn't the slightest idea what's going on with Al Qaeda under what he reads in a newspaper.
So after that ruling, Congress wrote the following in 1952.
Whenever they took the Supreme Court ruling and codified it and made it statutory law.
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-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Now the point here is we have a so-called judge in Seattle and three judges at the Ninth Circuit who went looking for precedent, who went looking for legal backing.
The United States Supreme Court, in a ruling that is still active today, backed up by a 1952 statute says they cannot do what they did.
This is akin, it's not it's not apples to apples, but remember during the Florida recount in 2000, the United States Supreme Court finally brought the counting to an end by claiming that they had control over it over the Florida Supreme Court.
The Florida Supreme Court defied an original Supreme Court ruling to stop the count.
There's no reason going forward.
They gave the legal reasons, and the Florida people kept going, and there was another Supreme Court ruling where they really admonished the Florida Supreme Court.
And I remember the Florida Supreme Court chief judge was reading the case, and he was just bamboozled.
Well, they're telling us we have to stop.
They're telling us we can't do this.
Now they stopped.
But the whole point here Is, folks, that judicial precedent from the guy who was FDRs, one of his justices, and ran the Nuremberg trials in 1948, proclaimed that the judiciary has no business.
You know, another reason why they got no business because they're not elected.
The political process is responsible.
They are elected, they owe the people of this country security, national security protection.
They are the people, the political class, the judiciary and I mean the uh legislative and the executive.
They are the departments of government that endeavor to protect, to learn, to gather intel.
The judiciary doesn't get involved in one iota of this.
And so the legislative branch, after this decision, you know what?
We be glad to let the president have all this.
So they wrote that 1952 statute, writing themselves out of the equation and investing in the president total, total power, authority, to do what Trump did.
Trump is not extra-constitutional.
He's not unconstitutional.
He's not illegal, he's not out of bounds, he's not tyrannical.
The tyranny here is coming from the so-called judge in Seattle and the Ninth Circuit.
You have a question, Mr. Program.
I don't know.
Uh what do you mean, starry decide?
You don't precedent.
Well, the pre the left only cares about precedent when it confirms what they want to do.
They're happy to overturn precedent if it modernizes and advances things.
But uh this is clear to me when you look at the legal history of this whole concept, that if there is a tyranny going on here, if there is anybody operating outside the law that doesn't know what they're doing and has no business being involved, it's the judiciary, as stated previously by the Supreme Court itself.
And it was a beloved Supreme Court, by the way, because it was FDR's Supreme Court.
They never made a mistake.
Right?
So they're counting on nobody knowing this.
They're counting on nobody learning this, they're counting on nobody believing it if they hear it.
They're counting on even if everybody in conservative media gets hold and starts labeling it and broadcasting it all over everywhere.
The low information crowd watching TMZ will still never hear about it.
Okay, so I just watched the video of Betsy DeVos trying to go into a public school in Washington, D.C. And she's met by a handful of maybe 10 or 12 left-wing reprobates, uh, guy wearing a black, a white guy or a black lives matter sweatshirt.
She was nearly violently restricted from going up the steps and into the school, and then she and her look like a security guard, well, an assistant.
They hustled back to her vehicle, which was uh suburban and SUV, and this mob followed her back.
They got in the car peacefully, but then this guy tried to obstruct the car leaving, and he was just shouting insanely, no shame, no shame, or shame, shame, shame.
I mean, these people, folks, we're we're we're dealing here with this is not time honored and wonderful and great American descent.
This is human debris, who have had their minds polluted and poisoned by the American left from the education system to media to pop culture.
They're just they're just sick.
And I'll give you, here's a here's a great example.
Any of you people know who Trevor Noah is.
You know who Trevor Noah is.
Uh Wendy, do you know who Trevor Noah is?
Brian, do you know who Trevor Noah is?
Well, you know who John Stewart was?
Wendy, do you know who John Stewart was?
Thank gosh, he doesn't know.
This is cool.
Well, he he he hosted something called the Daily Show, which was uh a comedy show on a network called Comedy Central.
It was actually deranged anger every night that the left thought was funny.
Well, anyway, Stewart left, and they got this guy, Trevor Noah from South Africa to come in here and take over the reins and host the program.
And he's he's a nice enough guy, but he's as ignorant as the sun is bright.
It's just it's actually kind of a shame because the guy doesn't know.
I guess it makes sense.
If you're ignorant, you wouldn't know how ignorant you are.
By definition, you wouldn't know what you don't know.
Well, he's very upset because he's supposed to be.
He doesn't really know why.
He's very upset that Betsy DeVos has been named a Secretary of Education.
He doesn't know why.
He doesn't know her.
All he knows is Cliches.
She's she comes from a billionaire family, and that immediately disqualifies her.
She's white, that immediately disqualifies her.
She's attractive, that really disqualifies her.
I mean, if you really get the left hates attractive conservative white people, they just hate them.
And she's blonde.
So she's got every ingredient they hate on site.
And Trevor Noah, who hosts the Daily Show, was really feeling bad about Betsy DeVoss being confirmed.
Here's what he said.
America seems to be going back to a place where your wealth will determine how much knowledge you can attain.
And so I think it's a scary time, said Trevor Noah, concerned citizen.
If Betsy DeVos gets to do everything she wants to, and I swear to you, he doesn't know the first thing.
He may think he knows school choice is, but he doesn't really know what it is.
He just knows he's supposed to oppose it.
And he probably thinks school choices, rich people get to choose where they go to school and your kids, you know, get the toilet.
Who knows what they think it is, but they're dead wrong about it, as the rest of this quote will demonstrate.
He said if Betsy DeVos gets to do everything she wants to, you will live in a world where even more people who do not have the means will now no longer have the opportunity to achieve the means.
Do you understand that?
You understand what he's trying to say there?
Does that make sense to you?
I have the added benefit of being able to read it.
I imagine just listening to that, you might be scratching your head.
Let me one more time.
If Betsy DeVos gets to do everything she wants to, you will live in a world where even more people who do not have the means will now no longer have the opportunity to achieve the means.
Well, in truth, Betsy DeVos is working to do the exact opposite.
Betsy DeVos, like every conservative, is working to improve the lot for everybody.
That's the point.
Betsy DeVoss is working to get more poor children into the same good schools as rich kids go to.
That's her whole reason for existing in the education world.
She wants to expose greater education opportunities to the poor, to everybody, and she has policies to do it.
It is the Democrat Party and their teachers' unions who are responsible for the existence of and the maintaining of these decrepit, rat-infested, downtrodden places that are called inner city public schools.
It's the Democrat Party that stands in the way of people acquiring wealth.
It is the Democrat Party that seeks in alliance with its unions to maintain actual Squalid conditions where they exist in the public school system.
It is Betsy DeVos who wants to change all of that.
Betsy DeVos wants policies that will help bring to millions of others the opportunities she has had.
That is what we conservatives are all about.
Expanded, extended opportunity for everybody to become the best they want to be.
And Mr. Noah literally doesn't know what he's talking about.
He thinks he does.
And he's saying exactly what he's supposed to say as a good employee over at Comedy Central.
We're being guided by and governed by limited by a degree of ignorance that's hard to quantify because it's so unbelievably widespread.
Just sheer ignorance.
That is the result of prejudice, bigotry, closed-mindedness, a lack of curiosity to find out what might be really going on anywhere.
Instead, they descend in the comfort of the cliches within the cocoons they have built where they can feel unharmed.
Now I want to tell you about this little golf shaft business because I know some of you in this audience uh are golfers, some aficionados, and some just hackers.
I love the game, and I have been playing really well.
I I shot a 76 three weeks ago.
Never shot anywhere near 76, maybe 80, but not recently.
And it was a magic that folks, it would just, it seemed effortless, as it should.
I mean, there was no mental stress, my mind wasn't polluted with all kinds of thoughts.
The ball was going where I was aimed.
It was just, I've never had a day like it.
I mean, it was putting for Bertie, practically every hole.
Driver in the fairway.
But here's the thing.
A couple rounds after that, I have a friend who is a club kook.
I mean, new club, he goes and gets a new putter, new driver.
He's constantly trying things.
And these guys are always trying to get you to do what they do.
Here, hit my driver.
Here, try my five-iron.
Here, you try this three.
You do it because it's easier than saying no.
And I've been hearing all my life about the importance of the shaft in a golf club.
What is the well, they say the shaft is the engine of the club, Mr. Lennon.
I've always thought shaft doesn't matter.
Uh when somebody wants me to try their club, I always say, it doesn't, it doesn't matter.
It's never the Indian.
I mean, look at the guys, Ben Hogan.
Look at these guys that played golf back in the 20s.
They're hitting the ball farther than we do with 100-year-old equipment.
It's not the equipment, it's whether or not we have a good swing.
It's whether or not we put the club on the ball.
I mean, you may hit your driver X well, and so I grab it, don't hit as well as I hit mine.
It's the swing.
It's not the club.
But people insist.
And so I, in many cases, just to entertain, because it's easier than providing, you know, resistance.
I actually tried two different shafts in a new driver I got.
So it's a Callaway driver, it's the epic driver.
And I'm not kidding.
What was the name of the shaft?
Connect connectics.
K-I-N-E-T-I-X.
There's a bunch of different kinds of weights, uh, whether they're stiff, whether they're regular flex, what have you.
Um, but I'm not kidding.
Same driver, two different shafts.
The shaft that I hit second, literally I hit the ball 270 yards, and with the other shaft 245, 250.
So I left that shaft in for the whole day, and it's still In and I I'm I'm hitting that that driver 20 yards farther consistently with a different shaft.
And I my eyes were open.
I never believed this.
I didn't I mean shaft is a shaft to me.
Um so I thought I would mention this to the uh to the golfing community out there because I'm sure many of you people in the golf community already believe this shaft business and how big a difference it makes.
I didn't until I actually saw this.
So then we put the shaft in a different driver.
We tried all kinds with a same driver, different loft.
I use a nine degree loft, my friend using ten and a half.
What's funny?
Oh, Wendy understands the shaft.
Oh that's right, the shaft talk is making the show interesting to some.
That's what it is, stiff and re I wonder why there's so many smiles in there.
I'm talking about stiff shaft and regular shaft and flex and this kind of stuff, and getting a lot of distance out of this to Yeah.
Now, I actually am relating to more people than I thought here.
Well, yeah, bottom line is with same driver head but a different loft.
Ten and a half, same shaft, different player, got a little bit more distance out of it.
The shaft was the difference.
I mean the driver head's the same, the swing was the same.
Um, it's connect i X with a little X connectics.
And I I can't tell you right now.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to pitch these.
I don't know what shaft is in the club.
I in fact I don't even have the car today that has the clubs in them.
But I know you're gonna want to want to know, so I'll I'll tell you.
But folks, I'm 66 years old, and I'm hitting the ball farther than I ever have.
270 yards?
I mean, that's huge.
It is absolutely and it's fun.
It's fun.
I mean, when you when you when you connect and it's driving, it's it's flying, and you know that you've hit one, you just stand there staring at it.
We in golf have a term for that.
Which I cannot utter.
I can't even give you a hint as to what it is.
Um if you want to see these shafts, I'm sure there's a website.
What is it?
Uh Patterson Shaft, P-E-D-E-R-S-O-N, Patterson Shafts.com.
Not P-A-T-T.
Patterson P A D E R S O N Shafts.com.
Jason Hordowski is the founder.
Gotta be a great guy.
And then and the brand name of the shaft, I guess, is Connectics.
That's the one that's in my in my driver.
Connectics.
But it's Patterson Shafts.com.
I'm still excited on the other side of the glass here.
I'd have brought this up earlier if I'd have known this.
Evette, Toledo, Ohio.
I'm glad you waited.
You're next here on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi.
Hey.
Um, I have to read this to you because I'm so nervous.
Okay.
I live in Ohio, but I am um tribal member of the Standing Rock Reservation Tribe.
Wait, wait, wait, which tribe?
The Standing Rock, where they're trying to put the pipeline through in North Dakota.
Oh, oh, oh, okay, yeah, gotcha.
Gotcha.
It's on North and South Dakota, the reservation is.
Understand.
Okay.
Um I own a small parcel of land, which is leased for grazing.
And I am thankful to be Native American.
I didn't do anything to deserve that.
You know, my mother married an Indian man.
But what I want to say is not all Native Americans are against the pipeline.
I I think they should just put it through, and I have a reason for that.
Well, um We we this is again another example where the left or Democrat Party, however you want to characterize it, tries to make it look like everybody agrees with whatever it is they want.
In this case, no pipeline.
So they try to make it look like everybody, every Native American.
And by the way, you all you all hate to name Washington Redskins, too.
And they and and they and it does you all don't want that pipeline.
Every one of you.
That's the image they try to convey.
Right.
Um one thing that uh maybe people don't know is that see I own that small parcel of land and um they have it's been leased for grazing for a long time but um last year I was offered money from a petroleum company and they've been looking for minerals on that property that's owned by all these people for a while.
Last year they offered me a large sum of money for it.
And of course I said no thank you.
So they're looking for minerals on the reservation and at the same time they want them to find minerals which will give them money and at the same time they don't want them to put the pipeline through.
I know well wait a bit why did you say no to the petroleum company?
Because I thought if it's worth that much they want that piece of property they're looking for minerals it didn't cost me anything.
I'm just gonna hang on to it because you think the price is going to keep going up.
Yeah and if they find minerals, if they find petroleum on that property I am a co-owner well that's true that's true.
So but your point is that you're not opposed to the pipeline.
No the pipeline doesn't cross any tribal land anyway.
No it doesn't I have um several relatives that will be mad at me for talking to you about this but um from what I've read on Facebook on the articles they put on Facebook it's not even a confirmed sacred ground.
They think it may be sacred ground.
It's just it's ridiculous kind of embarrassing.
It's look at this is if see this is my if people understand liberalism every bit of this would make sense but they get the confuse it by by using uh terms that maybe only are relatable to or understandable to Native Americans and that makes it sound like it's really exclusive and unique and a special set of circumstances.
When this is just this is it's a bunch of liberals and it's the way they do things and a lot of owners of tribal land are are are making money by selling the mineral rights, right?
You're not just the only one.
Mm-hmm I forget what's it gonna it's not gonna hurt to hang on to it no of course it's not but the point is you're also not opposed to the pipeline.
Right.
They're pipelines all over the country.
They don't hurt anything through a bunch of stamites coming through or exactly right they petroleum much greater risk trains but why that that's the real thing here.
Do you know who owns the trains that uh people suggest is the alternative way of transporting the all Warren Buffett owns the trains many of them and so forth.
Well look I'm glad you called Yvette thank you so much I appreciate it.
Let us make our final departure final break of the day be right back here.
Hey uh Joe Montana says I don't think there is a best quarterback ever I I I I don't call Tom Brady or anybody the best ever.
I think I wanted to ask you about also want to ask you about the five New England Patriots and counting are not going to go to the White House if invited.
Chris Long, the son of Howie Long is not going to go Devin McCourty, Dante Hightower Legarrett Blount Blunt uh oh I'm having a middle blurred there's one other that are we're up to five Patriots are not gonna go.
▲
Export Selection