Rush Limbaugh Program - February 22, 2017, Wednesday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 22, 2017 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:30

February 22, 2017, Wednesday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The views and opinions expressed by the host on this program, not necessarily those of the staff, management, nor sponsors of this station, but it's a hell of a lot more than it used to be, and we're not going to stop until everybody agrees.
	That's the objective of this program.
	It's a big, it's a big, I mean, it's a big bite, but we're going to take it.
	Great to have you here.
	Telephone number 800, 282-2882, and LRushbow and EIBnet.us if you want to send an email.
	Okay, to Trump executive orders in action here.
	I want to start with this because I don't, this is going to drive nuts out there.
	And it's going to cause even more fevered protests and anger and anguish if it happens.
	I mean, it may not even need to happen, just that Trump is thinking of it.
	New York Times.
	Trump appears set to reverse protections for transgender students.
	President Trump appears on the verge of reversing protections put in place by the Obama administration to stop discrimination against transgender students in screws.
	This came from supposed officials yesterday.
	Civil rights advocates said that the possible rollback of protections, which could come as soon as today, would represent a major, major setback after the enormous progress made by gay and transgender people in recent years.
	Mr. Snerdley, official program observer, he's really frustrated at a caller in there.
	I can tell it.
	He's gesticulating wildly in there.
	It's not worth getting all frustrated.
	You can say, thanks for calling and call back on Open Line Friday.
	Hang up.
	He gets into arguments with them in there.
	We've had to suspend him.
	I had to suspend him once or 45 minutes and just took raw calls.
	Didn't screen him because he's being so mean to him in there.
	Anyway, somebody explain to me what is the commonality of homosexuals and transgenders.
	Why are they politically aligned?
	I mean, you look here and it says, civil rights advocate.
	Don't tell me the civil rights angle.
	That's not what it is.
	I mean, you may appear to be civil rights advocates said that the possible rollback of protections put in place by the Obama.
	Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, before I forget it, that word protections, that's in a New York Times story.
	I'll tell you where that's coming from.
	Remember George Lackoff rhymes with he was a wordsmith for the Democrat Party.
	This goes back to the Clinton years.
	And this is a guy that had meetings with Democrats to tell them what words to use in public.
	Protections is the new word for regulations, where you always used to talk about regulations.
	The Democrats are now supposed to talk about protections, be it in housing, be it in any kind of business, be it environmental.
	It's all now going to be called protections.
	And right here it is in the New York Times, on the verge of reversing protections put in place by Obama introduced regulations, but they're now being called protection.
	Folks, do not fall for this.
	This is a word game trick.
	And the purpose is very clear.
	It's to make it look like Trump is endangering people that Obama previously protected.
	Yeah, Obama had this cloak of protection put over all these groups.
	Now Trump's coming in and he's going to reverse these protections.
	Make a note.
	I'm going to be reminding you of this frequently.
	This is the latest Democrat trick with the language and with the lexicon to convince people to oppose the relaxation of burdensome regulations, which in many cases have been placed on individuals and businesses without having been passed as laws.
	They just get written by these embeds in the bureaucracy, at the EPA, at the Department of Justice, any number of places, Fish and Wildlife, Department of the Interior, they issue these regulations.
	And they hamper, like a puddle of water in your backyard can now make your backyard a wetland and you can't mow the grass, you can't do anything.
	It's not your property, essentially, because of a regulation.
	Now Trump's going to roll back these protections.
	So just keep a sharp eye, because I predict you're going to be, we're going to be seeing this thousands of times a week.
	Trump rolling back protections.
	It's exactly what it says here.
	Civil rights advocates said that the possible rollback of protections, which could come as soon as today, would represent a major step backward after the enormous progress made by gay and transgender people in recent years.
	So I have a theory about this alignment with the transgenders and the homosexuals.
	But I don't, I know what it is, but why do they think they're aligned?
	What is it?
	Because the universe in which they live, their universe, right?
	The universe in which they're in revolves around their sexuality, right?
	Okay.
	Well, see, I know what it is.
	The homosexual community had much progress faster than they thought they were going to get it on gay marriage.
	They thought that was going to be a 20-year battle.
	And then here came Anthony Kennedy and the Supremes.
	Sure, sure, absolutely.
	So, I mean, what is there left to complain about?
	So they had to align with the next group that's being discriminated against every which way you look at it, and that's the transgenders.
	And transgenderism became the new homosexuality that was besieged and set upon.
	And it's to continue the activism of gay actors, give them an arena, continue their activism.
	How many transgenders are there?
	Doesn't it depend on what day you ask?
	A transgender can be either or, depending on the day, right?
	One day they can identify female, and the next day they can identify male.
	Is that one or two transgenders?
	I've seen no estimates, but I have to say it's less than one-tenth of 1% of the population.
	And the gay population best guess is 3%.
	So anyway, this word protections shows up 10 times in this New York Times article.
	I'm telling you, it's going to be used thousands of times over a week.
	It sounds like the New York Times is now protectionist itself.
	But if Trump does this, reverse the, and it's even in the headline, Trump appears to reverse protections for transgender students.
	Keep a sharp eye.
	But again, they'll overreach in their anger and acrimony here.
	Now to the, oh, there's one other thing that Trump's going to kill off.
	AmeriCorps.
	You know what AmeriCorps is?
	Do you remember what AmeriCorps is?
	Rachel, you know what AmeriCorps is?
	AmeriCorps was created by Bill Clinton.
	And at the time, to many people, not to me, because I knew what it was, but to many people, it sounded like a good idea.
	Theoretically, AmeriCorps was a program where American youths could basically earn free college by working and helping their communities.
	It was a way of converting young skulls full of mush to socialists.
	Obedient socialists who owed the state for whatever they had.
	Because there's this word free.
	Hey, you know what we're going to do?
	We're going to give you free college education.
	You know, what happens when you go to college?
	You see the women at those places.
	I mean, I'm going to set you up big time.
	I'm going to set you up free college university.
	All you got to do is go pick up some trash now and then.
	All you got to do, go out, you know, meals on wheels, whatever you want to do, get involved out there.
	And if you do enough of that, I'm going to set you up with free college and all the things I found when I got there myself.
	It's going to be the greatest thing that ever happened to you.
	And the word free was in there.
	So they're supposed to suck in, rope in these young skulls full of mush.
	It was Clinton's version of the Peace Corps.
	It was a domestic version of the Peace Corps.
	Clinton loved JFK.
	They had a lot in common in the bedroom and the backseat of the car.
	And so it was his attempt to be like JFK with a similar kind of program.
	Now, on the surface, and if you don't understand the inherent issue with any government program, it sounds like a great way to help people get their education.
	Oh, man, it sounded great.
	Free education, and they get to learn community services.
	Wow, nothing could be better.
	But that's, of course, not what it was.
	And the proof that that's not what it was, it never reached the level that Bill Clinton envisioned.
	A whole bunch of skulls full of mush didn't sign up for it.
	And now, AmeriCorps is on the Trump chopping block, along with the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities.
	You believe this?
	You know what things we've been given by the National Endowment for the Arts?
	Try this.
	Try nude chocolate-covered performance art.
	Some woman nude, wrapped herself in milk chocolate, went out dancing on stages.
	It was called performance.
	It was funded by the NEA.
	Another artiste by the name of Andres Serrano got really mad at the Pope one day and put his crucifix in a jar of urine.
	And it became an art display traveling from museum to museum to museum because of an NEA grant.
	And then there's a National Endowment for the Humanities.
	Anyway, these are on the chopping block along with AmeriCorps, and college officials are freaking out.
	The Trump administration is circulating a list of programs to eliminate.
	The list revealed by the New York Times also includes a National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, previously reported to be targets for elimination in the first Trump budget.
	In the case of AmeriCorps, the program major initiative of President Clinton, long been associated with him, Hillary tried to get in on it, too.
	You know how this all was all sourced?
	Oh, and here's the Trump administration poised to change transgender student bathroom guidelines.
	The Washington Post hasn't gotten a memo on protections yet.
	You watch.
	They'll see it in the New York Times today, and I'll guarantee you, everything tonight starting tomorrow, the New York Times will also start changing guidelines to protections, regulations to protections.
	The idea that Trump is going to change transgender student bathroom guidelines is according to a draft of the letter obtained by the Washington Post.
	So somebody in the Trump administration is leaking this to the Washington Post.
	And so now these various groups are going to be all hotwired and ready to go.
	As for the new immigration regulations, many stories on this today.
	Depending on where you go, you'll find varying levels of panic.
	In the Breitbart version of the story, Department of Homeland Security removes Obama's handcuffs on Border Patrol agents.
	And essentially, where we are right now, we are back to the rule of law now, and the gloves are off.
	We are allowed to do our job.
	That's what Border Patrol agents are saying in reaction to the new immigration actions that have been taken by President Trump.
	DHS Secretary John Kelly lifted most of the restrictions imposed on Border Patrol agents under the previous regime and ordered agents to expand their efforts to enforce laws against illegal border crossings.
	The order came in a memo obtained by Breitbart, Texas from Homeland Security officials and discontinued President Obama's catch and release program.
	All this is, folks, it is commonsensical as anything would be.
	It focuses on people who have committed crimes, who've been deported and come back, people who are about to be charged with crimes, people who have done anything illegally.
	If they're here illegally and have engaged in illegal behavior, they're going back.
	It's nothing more than the enforcement of existing law.
	And the left is running around.
	This is not our value.
	This is not who we are.
	Our values are being raped right before our very eyes.
	New York Times, new Trump deportation rules allow far more expulsions.
	They're not happy.
	Another New York Times story.
	Mr. Trump's deportation force prepares an assault on American values.
	That's the New York Times editorial.
	So the deportation, it's simply enforcing existing laws.
	We told you yesterday that is all this is.
	And in fact, there's an exemption they're thinking about.
	They're thinking about an exemption for the DREAMers.
	And I want to tell you where I come down on that.
	A lot of people think that Trump's caving.
	Because if you allow the DREAMers to stay, we're talking 750,000 DREAMers, kids, who each have two parents who could come in.
	I just, look, this is a no-win.
	Nobody's going to win anything by deporting a bunch of kids that we let in, whoever did Obama, whatever.
	If we can get the strict enforcement of existing immigration law, if we can get enhanced and increased border protection, if we can start doing what we are supposed to do in defending this border,
	and if we can prevent amnesty from being extended to all of these adult illegal immigrants who have committed crimes or on the verge of committing crimes or committed crimes and been released, what have you, then the DREAMer thing may be an acceptable payoff.
	It could well be if all the rest of this stuff happens.
	We'll have to see how it all manifests itself.
	Look, there's a caveat here.
	In order for the DREAMer thing to be acceptable, the rest of this stuff has to be by the book.
	No amnesty for anybody other than the DREAMers.
	We enforce existing law.
	We turn the Border Patrol agents loose to find people they already know exist and they already know where they are and deport them.
	People that have committed crimes, people that have been accused of crimes, they're subject to deportation.
	People who've been convicted of committing crime.
	The idea, these are all people that are not citizens.
	They're illegally here in the first place.
	And deporting them is exactly according to existing law.
	If that happens, and if they move on the wall, if they move on strict border control, then the dreamer thing is a worthwhile compromise.
	Are you looking at me like you're incredul—well, maybe.
	He thinks I've set off an earthquake here.
	But I just, I don't know what the politics are of rounding up a bunch of kids.
	I know.
	I know each of these DREAMers has two parents.
	And if you've had 750,000 DREAMers, that's the number, then you got to multiply it by two or three.
	I understand all that.
	But even after you do that, we're not talking $11,000, $12,000, $15,020 million here.
	We're not talking comprehensive immigration form.
	Oh, yeah, my gosh, I got to take a break.
	I'm way low.
	No, I'm just saying that the DREAMers, if they're properly defined, if you properly define DREAMers, leave it at that.
	Small price to pay to get the problem under control.
	And there's going to have to be some price to pay for getting it under control.
	You look at the memo, Kelly put out yesterday, the Homeland Security Guard put out a six-page memo, single-space memo, detailing the new guidance.
	And you know what?
	You can sum it up in one sentence.
	Henceforth, the United States shall be governed by the laws of the United States.
	Now, if they do that, that's all that's happening here.
	That's what we've been asking for for years.
	We don't need new immigration, comprehensive or otherwise.
	Just enforce what's on the books.
	If they do that, it's going to make a huge, huge difference.
	And the Border Patrol sounds eager to get going.
	We will be right back after this.
	Don't go away.
	Okay, I'm going to do phone calls for the rest of the half hour because people have been patiently waiting, and it's just not nice of me to keep people on hold for so long.
	Just one thing first.
	We have a montage here of Hillary and Bill Clinton talking about immigration reform starting in 1995 and 2006.
	This is when Hillary is a senator and thinking about running for president as Bill Clinton as president.
	So when you hear Clinton, he's talking in January of 1995.
	Hillary is in October of 2006.
	Here is our montage.
	We are also a nation of laws.
	It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years.
	If they've committed transgressions of whatever kind, they should be obviously deported.
	We will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes.
	Secure our borders with technology, personnel, physical barriers if necessary.
	That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more, by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before.
	We need to try to incentivize Mexico to do more.
	This is exactly what Trump has said.
	This is exactly what we're doing.
	And Bill and Hillary are on record numerous times there as suggesting it themselves first.
	And all this is, is the enforcement of U.S. law.
	Look at, to show you how far gone this is, look at the cacophony of anguish at just the prospect of enforcing the law.
	This is not, Trump isn't even proposing anything new.
	That was in Clinton's first State of the Union speech.
	May amigos.
	And Hillary, well, she never did a State of the Union, a State of the Pantsuit speech, but nevertheless, it's identical to what Trump was saying.
	And then, so all that's happened here, and the result of that six-page memo that General Kelly put out, yesterday John Kelly says, stands for us, the United States will be governed by the laws of the United States.
	That's all he needed to say.
	It took him six pages to say that in order to deal with whatever objections that might occur.
	And there'll be plenty of them just to show you how far gone this whole immigration thing is.
	And I don't want anybody to misunderstand me on this DREAMer business.
	That's out the window if we don't do everything else.
	If we don't enforce every immigration law in the books, if we don't round up all of these bad actors and criminals and murderers and thieves, purse snatchers, rapists, or whatever, we know they're there.
	We catch them, we release them.
	They get deported.
	They come back.
	We round them all up.
	We get rid of them.
	We clean up America's neighborhoods and then we secure the border.
	If Trump follows through on everything that he said he was going to do in terms of shoring up the border and stopping this deluge of incoming illegal immigration, nobody, nobody is opposed to immigration.
	That's another thing that's really bad that's happened in this debate.
	Immigration has now been misdefined to equal anybody who has gotten into the country any way is called immigration.
	Just coming here, just arriving, just getting here is what the left now calls immigration, and it isn't.
	Immigration is a legal process that must be followed, and people that don't must be thrown back out, sent back out, and they must come in the right way.
	And we have control over who gets in.
	We have control.
	It's our country.
	We control the borders.
	We determine who gets in.
	Not the Democrat Party, not the Republican Party, not the left.
	The United States government at the time, using existing law, determines who gets in and how many.
	And it's not an endless number.
	There is a limit, and it's based on assimilation.
	It has to be based on assimilation.
	You're going to let whatever number of people in, you've got to be assured the people you're letting in love America and want to become Americans and that they want to learn English.
	And if you can't confirm that about them, they don't qualify.
	That's not cruel.
	That's not mean.
	That is simply preserving who we are.
	That is actually preserving our values.
	Our values, American culture is distinct in the world, and it's rooted in our founding documents' proclamation of the freedom inherent in each individual at birth, not by government edict.
	And if we don't maintain that, if we don't preserve that as a primary American fundamental value, then the country is going to end up being something it was not founded to be, which is what many in this country want to happen.
	And immigration, wanton open borders, is the fastest way to undermine the founding of this country.
	That's why so many on the left are in favor of it.
	So Trump was very clear and very precise throughout the campaign, and he created no confusion about this.
	People who voted for Donald Trump think they know exactly what he intended to do because he spelled it out.
	If he does all that, Gets a handle on incoming, returns us to the rule of American law, then okay.
	Now that's the phones, because as I say, I want to get as many in in this half hour as I can because people have been holding.
	This is Ted, Spring Lake, Michigan.
	Welcome, sir.
	Great to have you with us.
	Hi.
	Thank you very much, Rush.
	Megan Dittos from the Great Lakes state of Michigan.
	Thank you, sir.
	I want to thank you very much for taking my call and also thanking you for everything that you have done with this in your efforts to have Mr. President Trump elected.
	Also, I have an issue that two issues that are actually related to one another, and I want to get your input on them.
	The first one is, besides yourself and a handful of others, nobody is really talking about what we are seeing in the stock market.
	It's unprecedented.
	We shattered the 20,000-point ceiling, and we are three-quarters of the way to 21,000 at this point.
	With that said, we have a Federal Reserve chairman that is stating that she is going to start raising the interest rates, which I believe is a partisan move on her part.
	What do you think President Trump can do to offset that should she go ahead and proceed?
	And how do you see her doing if she raises the interest rates?
	Okay.
	Remember that no matter what they say, everybody's political.
	The Federal Reserve is political.
	No matter what they say, every institution in government is political.
	Sadly, it's what's happened.
	I assume you're talking about Janet Yellen.
	Correct.
	Yeah.
	See, the theory here, folks, is that with the stock market going up so much, means that the U.S. economy is roaring.
	And the Federal Reserve has for decades been afraid of government growth, economic growth.
	They think they got to get the handle on it because they're really afraid of inflation.
	And so they think raising interest rates will slow down economic activity, which also slows down jobs, slows down hiring, it slows down productivity and wage increases, all at the altar of stopping inflation.
	Well, the dirty little secret is that inflation's been going nuts like it always does.
	I mean, there's certain market items that are down, like oil is down, gasoline prices are down, but there are other things that cost you much more today than they did two years ago, and that's due to inflation.
	Now, the Fed is ostensibly immune and independent, and thus Trumpster cannot call her up and demand that she not raise interest rates.
	Now, there are other ways the Treasury Secretary can go do things, he has contact with them.
	Other economic things, if she raises interest rates, if they do this, are there countermeasures that, yeah, well, get going on cutting taxes, get going on tax reform.
	That should happen regardless what the Fed does.
	But your question really is: are there people at various levels, Federal Reserve, not part of the government, but let's just, for the sake of communication, everybody thinks that it is.
	So let's, without getting too technical here, the question is: if the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates, is it a purposeful move to harm Trump politically?
	Yes.
	Just like they kept interest rates non-existent to help Obama and his phantom recovery.
	Absolutely.
	Look at the Federal Reserve is practically the grand ballroom of the globalists' big club.
	So, but what can happen if she does raise rates, what Trump's recourse are, they're limited.
	He can't browbeat her because, and they can't fire her.
	She has a term, and I don't believe he can fire the attorney.
	I don't think he can fire.
	I have to check.
	I'll double-check this, but I think they're fully, completely, ostensibly independent.
	The Fed's congressional mandate is all about trying to keep full employment, which is why they get so concerned about inflation.
	Anyway, I appreciate the call, Ted.
	Brief timeout, back before you know it.
	Don't go anywhere.
	Here is still mourning in California.
	I know Tammy in Long Island.
	Hi, Tammy.
	Great to have you with us.
	Oh, my gosh.
	Hi, Rush.
	Thank you so much.
	I'm really nervous.
	I just wanted to call.
	Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
	Why are you nervous?
	Because I'm a huge fan of yours.
	And I don't know.
	I'm usually pretty quiet when it comes to politics.
	And I guess lately I've just become really, like with the election and everything, just encouraged, but also kind of right now a little discouraged by everything that's going on.
	All right, good.
	Well, as far as the call is concerned, don't be nervous.
	This is going to end up feeling like you're having your back rubbed with a mink glove.
	Don't sweat it.
	Well, I just wanted to call in because yesterday you were talking about Milo Yiannopoulos, and I'm a huge fan of Milo.
	And I'm a millennial conservative.
	And I feel like Milo Yiannopoulos is kind of the voice for the young voters in this country who are conservative and support Trump.
	And I feel like the treatment he's been getting is really unfair.
	And also, I just wanted to say, you know, to the members in the audience who aren't familiar with him until this story broke, he's really, he's very intelligent.
	His message is, you know, it's all about freedom of speech and, you know, having the right to voice your opinion no matter what, if you're Republican or Democrat.
	And I feel like I'm a little upset because I feel like he's been getting, you know, a lot of like a bad rep. And even the right has kind of mistreated him.
	Like, they didn't give him a chance, really, after what happened to explain or to even release a statement on it.
	And I don't know if you watched his press conference yesterday on what happened.
	But so I just wanted to say that he's very important to, I think, the conservative movement in the country, especially among young voters.
	How would you compare him to, say, Lena Dunham on the left?
	Well, I'm not saying that what he says was right.
	I mean, he's definitely speaking as a victim.
	But I think in just comparing him to Lena Dunham, where she wrote in her own book, you know, some things that I think were inappropriate, and no one really held her accountable, and she wasn't even put in the position to really explain what she wrote.
	Of course, nobody's ever going to hold her accountable.
	She's a liberal and she's a woman, and so she's doubly indemnified against any serious analysis of what the hell she says or thinks.
	It's a clear example of the double standard out there, Tammy.
	I mean, this woman makes up being raped or something at Oberlin College, and then she's out there.
	She did commercials for Hillary, so she's a darling.
	She ran that TV show at HBO.
	HBO is a left-wing enclave.
	It's worshipped.
	And so she benefits from that.
	The left defends their, whatever you want to call it, partisans, activists, or what have you, where I think Milo ran into trouble.
	I'll just tell you, when word spread that Milo had been invited to be the keynote speaker at CPAC, there were some in the, and by the conservative movement today is so fractured that I think you'd have a tough time actually defining it and pointing to it.
	Who is the conservative movement?
	Where is it located and who runs it and who's in charge of it?
	They can't even agree within the conservative movement who is a conservative and who isn't.
	Now, I think CPAC, by inviting Milo, was an attempt to reach out to millennials.
	They're not, I mean, they know.
	I know plenty of young people.
	Milo's great.
	Love Milo.
	Admire Milo.
	Think he's courageous doing what he does.
	I think where the bridge was crossed here, Tammy, and I say this from afar, I think once you even wade into the water on even if it's just alleged pedophilia, you're going to run out of people to defend you.
	All right.
	Now, like I said, I'm not condoning what he said.
	And I think, you know, he even took responsibility for what he said and not, you know, the poor word choice of words he used for it.
	But, I mean, it's like I said, there are other examples on the left where this has happened.
	And, you know, nothing's really come of it, like Lena Dunham or Roman Polanski.
	Then, like, if Milo had, if Milo, let's say, was a Democrat, I think they would be protecting him.
	They wouldn't.
	Oh, there's no question of it.
	This is a great.
	What?
	You're 23, did you say?
	Yes.
	That's fabulous lesson you're learning here of the double standard.
	You hit the nail on the head.
	If Milo were a liberal, he could say whatever and then some, and he wouldn't be dressing CPAC.
	He would be MCing the Oscars.
	Right.
	And it's, I guess, you know, after a while, it just people like me, they get shut up because it's, you know, first of all, being surrounded by, you know, fake news.
	And now seeing someone who is trying to change the, I think, just trying to change the conservative movement and make it more trying to give us strength almost in a way by going out there and saying what's on his mind, not being afraid to speak, and seeing how the media is trying to take him down.
	Well, the conservative movement, let me just, let me tell you, Tammy, I go wading into the fire pit.
	But the conservative movement, geez, look at Milo.
	He's in his 20s.
	He's flamboyantly gay.
	We're not, we're nowhere near the conservative movement here, Tammy.
	Ideologically, he's pure, ideologically brave.
	He's right down the line, and I understand why you like it and so forth.
	But the conservative movement, it's kind of like, I'm out of time here.
	I wish I would.
	Look, I'll continue to address this, though, Tammy, but I have to go now.
	I'm just.
	There's an actor who used to be on Star Trek, George Takai, and he brags about his sexual experiences with much older men who taught him how to do it and comfort.

▲