Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH: Now, there’s a fascinating story, ladies and gentlemen, in the Washington Post today. I don’t know if this is an op-ed or if it’s an actual story. You can’t tell anymore. If it’s not specified that it’s an op-ed, you really don’t know because front-page news stories read like op-eds.

It’s by somebody named Ed Rogers, and the headline is, “The Insiders: Is There a Mutiny Brewing Around Obama?” Washington Post! Is there a mutiny? Let me tell you something: There is sheer panic. I’m telling you, I know this. It hasn’t been reported, but I know it to be true. There is sheer panic in the Democrat Party over these upcoming elections. There is sheer panic.

You know we’re deploying more troops to fight Ebola than we are deploying to fight ISIS? I didn’t know you could shoot Ebola! I have details on that coming up in just a second. Only to set the table here: “Is a mutiny happening around President Obama? It appears possible that the president may not have made two of his most recent decisions with complete free will.

“The announcement that he would delay his immigration initiative until after the election and his formal announcement that the United States would take military action against the Islamic State could have been coerced.” What this guy, Ed Rogers, is saying is that somewhere in the White House there are some adults who were able to get to Obama and shake him and give him the lay of the land and tell him that it isn’t about him anymore.

I really do believe… You know, you watch Obama when he makes a speech, does an appearance, and he uses terms like “my military.” I really do believe this messianic complex constitutional exists. I believe it. It’s never left him, and I think that he thinks that all of us are totally focused on him, just like he is. He is totally focused on himself. So he thinks everybody else is focused on him.

He misses the point that everybody else is also focused on themselves. They don’t have time to focus on everybody else. But he believes that everybody’s focused on him just like he is, and he thinks that the existence of the United States, while he is president, is nothing more than The Story of Barack Obama. It’s not The Story of Barack Obama’s Presidency of the United States of America, but rather The Story of Barack Obama.

I think a lot of people are worried about this. I’m guessing. I’m purely guessing. I’m relying on what I would hope would be a reservoir of common sense somewhere in that town. I know it’s a long shot, and I may be hoping for something that doesn’t exist simply for something to grasp onto. But it was crystallized when I saw this piece in the Washington Post.

“The announcement that he would delay his immigration initiative until after the election and his formal announcement that the United States would take military action against the Islamic State could have been coerced. Maybe,” says this piece in the Washington Post, “Democratic leaders in Congress and a few members of the Obama team have had it. Could it be that, after President Obama briefed Democrats in Congress on the immigration plan, they balked?

“Maybe the president was told that, if he waved in millions of new illegal immigrants before November, there would be an open revolt against him within the party.” Now, again, we don’t know if Ed Rogers has the inside information or if he is just speculating. I think the reason people are doing this is that there is still, even within the circle of people closest to Obama, a lot of people that don’t know the guy.

They still look at him as they would look at any president, and they assign to Obama the same interests and focus points that any president would have, they believe, in similar circumstances. So somebody might say, “Okay, Obama wants to bring in via amnesty five to six million illegals before the election. That’d be horrible for the Democrat Party. We can’t let this happen!”

“The Democrats have gotta get to him and say, ‘It’s not gonna help us.'” But then on the other side, that doesn’t dovetail with what we know the Democrat Party and Obama both want. They want amnesty. They want a flood of immigrants. They need a permanent underclass. They need subservient, loyal, dependent voters. They need ’em, and they want them. Immigration, amnesty is a huge thing.

Now, I happen to believe — and I’ve mentioned this to you on a couple occasions, maybe more. I don’t believe Obama ever was gonna do amnesty before the election, unless he could get the Republicans to go along and take the hit. He’s purely political. He is through and through, 100% political, and that means ideological. I don’t think he really much cares about the impact on the Democrat Party.

He’s more interested in transforming the nation. But let’s stick with this piece just to show you the kind of thinking going on inside the Beltway. “Maybe,” writes Ed Rogers — and I’m sorry, I don’t know who he is. There’s no slug line at the end of this piece. I’m sorry to be so ignorant here. I have no idea who this guy is, and I’m only reading this to you ’cause it’s in the Washington Post.

“Maybe Democratic leaders in Congress and a few members of the Obama team have had it. Could it be that, after President Obama briefed Democrats in Congress on the immigration plan, they balked? Maybe the president was told that, if he waved in millions of new illegal immigrants before November, there would be an open revolt against him within the party.”

See, that doesn’t kind of jibe with what Luis Gutierrez was doing the last three weeks. The congressman from Illinois could not wait for this. He’s running around trying to get everybody ready for it! I mean, this was Christmas morning, Obama waving in these illegals via amnesty. (interruption) Well, that’s another thing: Why would this be bad for the Democrats? By the way! By the way! By the way, folks, I knew it. This is another thing.

Pardon the diversion here, but I had a story yesterday. I didn’t get to it. It’s from the Politico, and it’s about a poll: “GOP Has Edge on Immigration in Midterms.” Now, ladies and gentlemen, this is the second such story on this in the past six weeks. Let me set the table on this again, just so you remember. For who knows how long, longer than any of us can remember, what have we been told?

We’ve been told that comprehensive immigration reform is the only way the Republican Party can save itself. Correct? We’ve been told by Republicans, by people like John McCain, by the Republican National Committee, by the Chamber of Commerce, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, I don’t care who. We have been told for who knows how long that if we don’t make tracks and build up a positive relationship with Hispanic voters, we are toast.

We are never, ever again gonna win the White House. Chuck Schumer has even worried that we will never win the White House if we don’t get this right. So we’ve been told we’ve got to sign on for amnesty. “We have to sign on for ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’ If we don’t, that’s the end of it.” This is the second story I have seen that shows the Democrats have lost their lead on the whole subject of immigration in the polls.

Now, how in the world can that be?

If what we’ve been told for the last five years is we will never, ever win the White House unless we sign on for amnesty and build a bridge to Hispanics, how can it be that the Democrats have lost their advantage on this issue? The only answer to that can possibly be that it was never true that the Republican Party’s only hope for winning the White House was to sign on to the Democrat plan of amnesty.

It was a lie.

It was a trick.

It was a foolhardy thing that a lot of people were participating in, trying to convince elected Republicans in Washington (who are afraid of their shadows right now) that it was the only hope they had. And then they were trying to convince as many Republican voters as possible that that was the only hope they had. When Obama had the House and Senate for the first two years of his administration, he didn’t do amnesty, did he?

My point all along is: There is no credit to anybody who does it, because the American people don’t want it. The American people don’t want five, six million, 11 million illegal citizens granted amnesty overnight. They don’t want that to happen, and they never have supported it. Yet what we’re treated to in the daily soap opera is that it’s a fait accompli, that it has to happen to save our condition.

It has to happen so that the Chamber of Commerce continues to support the Republicans. It has to happen so the Republicans can win the White House again. It has to happen because the Democrats want it. The fact of the matter is the reason Obama didn’t do it in the first two years is because there was no credit to accrue from doing it! It was always something the American people have opposed, and that’s why Obama hasn’t done it.

That’s why he’s been trying and the Democrats have been trying to rope the Republicans into joining them on it so there are Republican fingerprints on it. So there is no credit to the Republicans for opposing it, because that’s the only way any politician can get any credit from voters on a stand on immigration, is to oppose amnesty. So I’ve thought for a while that Obama was never really gonna do this.

But it was made to look like a fait accompli, to scare the heck out of Republicans and to get them to sign on for it. Now, because of you and other Republican voters and Jeff Sessions — who has spent practically all of his waking time educating the American people about this — Washington has been inundated with phone calls from people warning members of Congress and the Senate that you had better not do this if you like your jobs.

As such, it hasn’t happened. Amnesty hasn’t yet happened. Despite all the threats, despite all the attempted tricks… (interruption) Well, now, that takes us to the next point: Would Obama do it in the lame duck? At some point he will do it because the real objective of this is not party politics, as far as he’s concerned.

Obama’s objective in doing this is the transformation of America. I mean, there’s no common sense reason to even contemplate this, folks. This is one of these things. There’s no common sense reason to do this, and there never has been. I don’t care what the Chamber of Commerce says. I don’t care what Zuckerberg says about needing high-tech jobs.

There’s no common sense reason for doing this, not one bit of common sense that anybody could muster to say do this. Yet Obama’s on the verge or precipice of doing it, and he’s got a totally different reason. He’s not doing it to help the country; he’s not doing it to help businesses. He’s got a whole different agenda when it comes to transforming this country. So the public is furious.

If we’re to believe here in this Ed Rogers piece, the public is furious at Obama’s decision to put off doing amnesty by executive order until after the elections. They still believe, the people writing this story, that it is a fait accompli, and that Obama is gonna do it. It’s so convoluted, but it all adds up to something, if you know how to read the stitches on the fastball.


RUSH: Ed Rogers is a Republican strategist. He worked in the Reagan White House. He founded a PR firm with Haley Barbour, and both of them are pro-amnesty. Ed Rogers is who has the piece here in the Washington Post called: “Is There a Mutiny Brewing Around Obama?”

Here is the relevant second paragraph: “Maybe Democratic leaders in Congress and a few members of the Obama team have had it. Could it be that, after President Obama briefed Democrats in Congress on the immigration plan, they balked? Maybe the president was told that, if he waved in millions of new illegal immigrants before November, there would be an open revolt against him within the party.

“Similarly, a few members of this administration who have independence, stature and an adult disposition may have told the president he must act on the Islamic State or else they were out. IÂ’m thinking of at least Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. Is it possible they could not stomach doing nothing any longer and told the president that they would quit in protest if he did not take action?”

Stranger things have happened. Just total speculation piece. And I must admit, it doesn’t carry as much weight with me now that I find out Mr. Rogers is a Republican. He’s just openly speculating.

See, what’s happening here, leave it to me to clean up the mess. What’s happening here is that Obama is behaving in ways that people who ought to be able to explain to themselves don’t understand. Obama talks and talks and talks about amnesty and doing it around Labor Day, before the election. All of a sudden one day decides not to. And the inside-the-Beltway experts are scratching their heads, why? What changed? What happened? They don’t know Obama. They refuse to admit who they’re dealing with. And does anybody — I’m sorry, I don’t mean to sound — the smart people in this administration are John Kerry and Chuck Hagel? Only career establishment Washington people would think that, for crying out loud.


RUSH: Okay. I finally figured this out, and I apologize, folks. I should have figured this out before the program started, but I had incomplete information. So we’ve got a piece in the Washington Post. It’s actually a blog post. It’s not in the print paper. I was wrong about that. Insufficient information. Second thing is, it’s written by a Republican who is curious why Obama abandoned amnesty before the election and so has a piece speculating.

Maybe the adults got hold of him. Maybe they said, “Hey, don’t do this before the election. It’s gonna hurt Democrats running for reelection. We want to hold the Senate, so don’t do this,” and maybe some adults got to Obama. Clearly the belief is that Obama is not sufficiently equipped to make these correct political decisions himself. Somebody had to get to him and say, “No, don’t do this,” some adults.

I think that this kind of speculation…

I don’t mean this to be critical of anybody, so don’t anybody call Ed Rogers and say I’m dumping on him. I’ve thought this from the get-go, and I think it’s still true. I think there are a lot of people — establishment Republicans, establishment Democrats, establishment types of all stripes inside the Beltway — who really to this day have no idea who Barack Obama is and what motivates him and what his real agenda is and how he is going about it.

He’s still viewed as just an average, ordinary Democrat president. Maybe a little more liberal than most. Maybe a little bit more radical here or there, but that’s about it. The truth of Obama is either unknown or unaccepted. Obama’s goal is the elimination of all opposition, which then greases the skids for anything that he wants to do. And the fastest way to get rid of opposition is to discredit them and to impugn them and ruin their base of support.

One of the best ways to do that is to trick your opponent into believing that you want to help them. You’re working together with them to help the country, and, ergo, we get amnesty. You tell the Republicans, “The only thing you can do to save the party is get on board with this new demographic shift,” and despite all this, it still hasn’t happened, and the people that have the ability to make it happen haven’t done it.

Obama? We’re about to wrap up six years and he’s not done it. He could have done it with no opposition the first two years. He had the Democrats in full control of the House and Senate, and didn’t do it. He’d been threatening to do it every year to varying degrees of intensity since, and really ratcheted up the intensity in this summer, threatening to do it before Labor Day.

Poor old Luis Gutierrez (Democrat-Illinois) believed it. He was running around, getting everybody ready. They were salivating at La Raza and all over at Telemundo and Univision. They all thought it was gonna happen, they were getting ready to throw the big party, and then Obama at the last minute said (impression), “You know what? I’m gonna wait. I’m gonna wait ’til after the election.”

So people said, “Wait a minute. What just happened here?” Everybody asked, “What just happened?” Well, he was getting ready to do it, and we were — Republicans were — alternately salivating at the chance to benefit from it electorally, and some of them were honestly upset they weren’t gonna be a part of it. I kid you not. And it’s real simple.

Obama could not massage this in a way that would force the Republicans to take the blame for it. Because, as I say, there isn’t any credit. There isn’t any. The real nub here on this, the only thing you really need to know is this Politico story. “Nearly two-thirds of likely voters in battleground races this fall disapprove of President Barack Obama’s handling of immigration, according to a new Politico poll — a public rebuke that comes after the White House grappled with the border crisis and reversed on a pledge to take executive action on deportations…”

See, The Politico wants us to believe that the reason the public is fit to be tied at Obama and the Democrats is because he did not do amnesty — and I’m sorry, public opinion doesn’t work that fast. The second reality is, the American people have not been sitting on pins and needles. They have not been sitting on the edges of their seats, their chairs hoping for amnesty. They have been fearing it.

The vast majority of the American people have been frightened. They have been scared that Obama was gonna do it. This Battleground poll showing two-thirds disapprove of Obama’s handling? That is, I’m convinced, a poll result based on their belief Obama was going to do it before Labor Day, and they profoundly opposed it. This is the second such story in six weeks.

Remember the last one? The first poll result showed Democrats had lost their lead in immigration. I remembered making a big deal out of that because there was appropriate question to ask: How can that be? We’ve been told for how many years in a row that the only hope the Republicans have is to sign on, that it’s been a slam-dunk issue for the Democrats from the get-go.

Amnesty for five million, six million, 11 million granted amnesty overnight, and if the Republicans didn’t do it they were toast. And then all of a sudden here came a poll which showed the Democrats had lost their lead. This is way before Obama started threatening amnesty in September, Labor Day. I concluded six weeks ago what I’m concluding now. It’s never been an issue that the Democrats were universally loved and supported over.

It’s never been an issue that the Republicans “had to do it” if they wanted to survive. It’s been the exact opposite, in fact. How can you go from years and years and years of Democrats owning an issue to all of a sudden losing their edge in polling data on it? The only way that can happen is if the mass, overwhelming poll support they supposedly had was never true. So that’s where we are on this, essentially.

So Obama has refused to do it ’cause he can’t get the Republicans somehow blamed for it, or sharing the blame with him. Inside-the-Beltway types are stunned and trying to figure it out, and so many of them are concluding, “Well, maybe the adults got hold of Obama and said, “Hey, Bud, you can’t do this.” And, by the same token, maybe some adults got hold of Obama like Kerry and Hagel said, “Hey, you’re gonna have to do something about ISIS.

“You just can’t sit here, go play golf after journalists are beheaded, man. You got to act.” (sigh) And again, you know, the troubling thing about all of this analysis is what? The belief that Obama’s not engaged, the belief that Obama is detached. Which is exactly what he wants. All the vacations, all the time away from Washington. All of it. It’s made to look like Obama’s gotten bored with the job.

Look at how many people apparently believe it, when nothing could be further from the truth. This guy is as in touch and is as focused on moving his transformative agenda forward as he ever has been. But you may not believe that if you think that some adults can finally get to him and get his mind right. I just find it all fascinating, because I don’t believe Obama’s hard to understand at all.

If you’re just able to honestly admit to yourself what liberalism is and all of its offshoots — socialism, communism, I don’t care what you want to call it, but it is a specific thing. It’s a specific set of beliefs, and the more radical you get, the easier it is to understand it. It may be more difficult to admit it to yourself, but it’s easy to understand.

It may be frightening to admit, but it’s easy to understand, and yet so many people remain distant from it.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This