Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: Now, yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, I made a point that the Democrats know what to do with their power. They use it when they have it, and, for the most part, the Republicans do not — and I mean raw power. I don’t mean the power that you have in majority votes in the Senate or in the House. Clearly the Republicans will use that kind of power.

But they will allow it to be watered down during debate, and they’ll make every vote close or what have you. It’s why so many Republican voters are constantly nervous. The Democrats, however, when they win and when they acquire power — and even when they’re out of power — they use it as though they’ve won it. You know, people ask me about a third party.

A third party would not be necessary if the Republican Party would simply coalesce around principled conservatives who don’t fear anybody, especially radical leftists in Washington. And this is part and parcel of using power when you have it. Now, we’ve got some people on our side who know how to do this. One of them is Kristi Noem.

She is the governor in South Dakota, and she said in BizPac Review that the “Republican Party needs to toughen up [and] ‘self-evaluate’ for not following through on key issues.” Now, here’s an elected Republican who gets it. This is the blueprint. This is using power when you have it, which is what we’re up against.

The Democrats use it constantly. They bludgeon us with it. Greg “Kelly moved on to former President Donald Trump, touting his accomplishments despite tough Democratic opposition before asking Noem to respond with her thoughts on his term. ‘President Trump did things of great magnitude for this country. What he did on tax reform, on trade deals … his support of Israel, his protection of our national defense, his enforcement of our laws,’ Noem said.

“‘This man [Donald Trump] got up every single day and fought for the common everyday American so that they could have a chance to be successful and pursue the American dream,’ Noem noted further, adding that she believes Trump’s ‘legacy is going to be remembered as one of the greatest presidents’ in the country’s history.

“That is due to ‘the actual policies he pursued and the fact that he actually did what he campaigned on and he followed through on it.'” So she believes that the Republicans need to toughen up, and what are the Democrats doing? Try this: “Democrat Lawmakers Introduce Bill for Nationwide Mail-in Voting: Necessary to ‘Make Real Progress.'”

I, The Big Voice on the Right, warned everybody this was coming. It should not be a surprise. I told you Democrats are hell-bent on making elections meaningless. They know they can’t eliminate them. They know they cannot wipe out elections. They’ll never succeed with that. But the next best thing is making elections foregone conclusions; therefore, making elections meaningless.

That means using whatever they can — such as mail-in ballots, mail-in voting — to give themselves an advantage. Now, some of you might be saying, “Rush, wait a minute. Why does mail-in voting automatically give them an advantage? Republicans can do it, too.” Yeah, Republicans are trying to stop it — and I don’t blame ’em, by the way. Republicans are standing against mail-in voting.

We ought to have one Election Day like we did for decades. We’ve had Election Day where all you did was show up at the polls and vote. There was no early voting. There was just Election Day, and absentee for people who literally couldn’t make it (it was a very tiny percentage of voters). And we were able to do it, and we were able to count the votes and know who won by the end of the night on Election Day.

And then all of a sudden, we stopped being able to do any of that, for whatever reason. We weren’t able to have show-up-in-person voting. No. We needed early voting and then we needed mail-in voting, and pretty soon there’s gonna be some other kind of virtual voting because of COVID.

“Well, Rush, that’s what mail-in voting is.” No. They’ll come up with something in addition to it. They never stop. Their objective is to make elections meaningless. There’s a way it happens, and they have got it down pat. So now they’ve introduced a bill for nationwide mail-in voting. They’re expanding on it. They’re not content for how it worked in 2020.

Mail-in voting and voting for several months before and after Election Day, this is what they’re aiming for. “What do you mean, after Election Day?” Oh, yeah! They’re gonna move for this. “Some people can’t vote on Election Day, even with mail-in ballots. We need to make sure every vote counts.” You’ve heard their mantras. This is called using their power as a bludgeon when they have it.


RUSH: You know one of the greatest illustrations of the Democrats’ use of power versus the Republicans’ is look at all the hypocrisy they get away with. Hypocrisy doesn’t even touch them. It doesn’t even attach itself to them. Yet it can destroy a Republican. How is this? In large part… It’s not solely this, but, in large part, it’s the way they have marshaled the use of power.

They’re not afraid to use it, they’re not afraid of the blowback to it, and I really think Republicans are. I think Republicans… Maybe “afraid” is too strong a word. They’re just uncomfortable with the media constantly yapping at their ankles. They’d just not… They’d rather have the media not questioning their motives and their actions and what they’re doing, and so the Republicans do not use power even when they have won it.

The Democrats are totally different. They’re not afraid at all. They’re not afraid of the backlash against it. They don’t care. It’s all oriented around the fact that they, in their minds, are entitled to power; that we aren’t, that unity is only defined by us accepting they are the legitimate people entitled to power, that we’re not. That’s what “unity” is. Unity is us conforming to them.

We have to be a bunch of conformists. We have to agree that “unity” means them in power and using their power. Now, there’s a piece I could illustrate this with before we get back to the phones. There’s a piece here at Frontpage Mag, which is David Horowitz’s magazine. “When Resistance Became Sedition and Sedition Became Resistance.”

This is simply a story on how the Democrats get away with rank hypocrisy.

Here’s the pull quote: “The difference between resistance and sedition, between protests and insurrections…” For example, none of what Antifa did is ever called an insurrection, none of what Black Lives Matter ever does. That never is an insurrection. But when the people protested at the Capitol, it was not a protest. It was an insurrection, and those people need to be flogged!

They need to be put in jail and they need to be tried, and they need to be convicted and they need to be sent packing. “The difference between resistance and sedition, between protests and insurrections, is who’s in charge. Democrats resist Republican elected officials. Republicans however,” they don’t resist. They are said to be “commit[ing] sedition against Democrat elected officials” when they criticize them.

Oh, yeah.

This is how it works.

“Democrats protest; Republicans riot. These are not distinctions in law. The only real distinction is who is in power and who’s on the barricade. Political hypocrisy is not a new phenomenon, but the Democrats have weaponized the national security state to suppress political opposition over the same behavior they engage in as a serious threat to the survival of the country…”

The very things they do are said to be no big deal. They are simply practicing dissent. When Republicans do those same things, it is said to be a serious threat to the survival of the country and the people of this country. What do you Republicans think you’re doing! And they gin up even more hate. And this is all about knowing how to use power when they have it to define us.

When is the last time you ever heard a Republican seriously try to define the modern-day leftist, liberal, or progressive? I mean, they throw around words like socialist or Marxist or what have you. But actually explaining to people how they are bad for the country? Why, they…

If any of them try that, you know what would happen to them. And yet they get away with doing that exact thing to us. And we’re left to have to defend ourselves and to explain it or to say that, “No, the charge is bogus. You don’t understand.” You boil it all down and it comes down to power and the use of it and how they are not afraid to use it.

Anyway, let me get back to the phones. This is Toni in central Pennsylvania. Great to have you here. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. It’s so good to hear your voice.

RUSH: Thank you.

CALLER: You’re welcome, and I pray for your healing on a very regular basis. So I wanted to ask you… You’re on a topic that I wanted to ask a question about, and that is the Republican Party. You said that Governor Noem said we just be need to toughen up, the Republicans. But I view the Republican Party largely as RINOs and elites not willing to really get a backbone. I haven’t seen a backbone in the Republican Party since I’ve been a Republican, and your first caller of the day —

RUSH: Well, I think that’s what she means, but she can’t come out and say it as you want to hear it.

CALLER: Okay. Well —

RUSH: I think she means the same thing you’re saying here.

CALLER: Okay. I can say it because I’m on your program, and I’m just an average person. I personally think that the 75-plus million Trump voters would certainly entertain the idea of a third party, one that is basically the America First Party, the people who believe that the established political parties are failing us or working against us such as the Democrats.

RUSH: Now, I could be wrong on this, Toni. I’m not certain. I’m somewhat confused because I’ve read a bunch of different things. My opinion, based on what I’ve read, is that Trump is not in favor of third party. Am I right about that? Is that…? (interruption) Okay. Trump is not in favor of third party, and the reason is that there’s already a party that he can say that he has commandeered or is the leader of.

And, believe me, having 75 million voters is no accident. It took a lot of hard work, and if you have a third party based on a presidential candidacy, then you don’t have a third party on congressional seats and Senate seats. And even if your third-party president wins big, he still isn’t gonna have any infrastructure in the Congress — in the House and the Senate — to help him legislate.

Because starting a third party means you would have to start a third party among the Senate and the House. You’d have to have these people all running for reelection or election on this new third party. Trump is looking at it as, “Why do that when we already have it?” and he thinks that he’s already succeeded in… I say “commandeering” it.

That implies taking over. But he leads it. And I think the real question that a lot of people are asking right now — when I say a lot of people, I’m talking about friendly to Trump — is Trump the guy to carry us forward, is Trump the guy to lead us forward, or is the agenda enough. We need to find somebody to advance the agenda, that Trump has been so damaged.

I mean, it’s an ongoing conversation. It’s not about selling Trump out. It’s not about cutting him off at the knees. It’s not about disloyalty or any of that. It’s about how viable is Trump going forward, particularly if these Democrats succeed in this asinine attempt of theirs to make sure that he can’t run for office ever again. But that discussion is for another day, and I don’t want anybody misunderstanding me on this.

I’m just telling you there are some people who love Donald Trump who think he’s the greatest thing and want to grow what Donald Trump did. They want it to get bigger. They want it to win more elections. They want it to become dominant. And they’re talking about how to go about making that possible. And when you get to Trump, you’ll find he’s not in favor of throwing all that away and starting from dead stop to create a third party.


RUSH: I get it. Somebody wants to ask me what I think Republicans ought to do about electing the next nominee and all that. I want you to listen to what the Drive-By Media thinks the Republicans need to do. This is McKay Coppins on NPR last night.

COPPINS: The gatekeepers that used to be in charge of making sure their party didn’t nominate somebody like Donald Trump have lost power. They’ve been overrun by people like Rush Limbaugh. I do think we need to start thinking in the post-Trump era more about how to reinstitute gatekeepers to our politics, how to make sure that there are still guardrails in the Republican Party so that the party doesn’t continue in this kind of spiral —

RUSH: Okay, stop the tape. Look. This guy is a writer. He’s a journalist for The Atlantic. And this guy is presuming to tell the Republican Party what it needs to do. We’ve been overrun by people like me. He says we need, “we” need to start thinking in the post-Trump era about how to reinstitute gatekeepers in the Republican Party to make sure they don’t go off the rails again. A journalist presuming to think that this is what the Republicans need — actually what everybody else needs to do, despite what the Republicans want to do.


RUSH: Here is Ed in Hudson, Wisconsin. We head back to the phones. How you doing, Ed? Great to have you.

CALLER: I’m doing great, Rush. Such an honor to talk to you. We thank you for all your wisdom.

RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much.

CALLER: Basically I’m a 63-year-old United States Air Force veteran, semiretired, contractor. We live right on the border of Minnesota, and we experienced the Al Franken, Norm Coleman fiasco. We all knew what was gonna happen with this election. We elected not to do anything about it. It’s our fault. I’m involved with several groups. My wife’s big time involved with the local Republican Party. And we suggested the third-party thing and everybody’s like, “Let’s go, let’s go, let’s go.”

So I went to the state of Wisconsin to find out what I needed to do to get people on the ballot and start a third party. Rush, it’s impossible. People have no idea what all’s involved with even getting somebody on the ballot. And then I looked into some third parties that exist out there. We’ve got one called the Constitution Party that actually cost Walker the governor election, and now we got Ebers, who’s, you know, we’re not quite as bad as the people in Minnesota thanks to the Supreme Court that Walker put in there. But we don’t need a third party. We need to clean up the Republican Party.

RUSH: Well, third party just gives people another option to vote for that ends up watering down the Republican Party’s chances of winning, like the libertarians have always done.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: But you’re right. Creating a third party that has tentacles with Senate and House of Representative — people do not know how difficult it is to literally start a third party that —

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: — that stretches beyond the presidential race.

CALLER: Yeah. Just local. We’ve been going to the school board — you know, they had a meeting here to vet the conservative people for the school board, the city council, the county. We’ve been going to all those meetings, we being my wife and I. And what we’re finding, there were 300 people at a political party here two weeks ago Friday. There’s 60, 70, 80 people going to vet the people that are running for the school board. People are active right now, and somehow we need to figure out a way to unify that and come together and we need to clean the swamp up, and we need President Trump, no doubt. He needs to be our leader. Anyway, thank you so much.

RUSH: You bet, Ed. I’m glad you called.


RUSH: Here’s League City, Texas. Jim, great to have you with us. How you doing, sir?

CALLER: Fine. Happy Friday to you. Right to my point. I’m not a radical person. But I have a radical idea for elections, and I just thought I would throw it out there for you. If there was an amendment that said voters have the right for U.S. Senate and the U.S. House to choose none of the above and rather than, you know, the candidates on that with a procedure whereas if none of the above selection got a plurality, certain processes would then take place, like namely for U.S. Senate, the “none of the above” the bottom the plurality, then you’d go back to pre-17th Amendment where the state legislator would then choose a Senator to serve one term and for the House —

RUSH: Why do you want to do this?

CALLER: I would just like for people to have that choice, because I think you have situations where people go in to Congress and with maybe the best of intentions and they become a part of the elite, the establishment.

RUSH: Yeah, but you can make bets on who’s gonna do that and who is gonna resist it, but you don’t know before the election who’s actually gonna succumb to those pressures and become a denizen of the deep swamp. You just don’t know who’s gonna do it. And I guarantee you what would happen in a circumstance like this, if you put — well, it would never happen. This would never happen. But if you did, since we’re discussing a hypothetical, if you put “none of the above,” whoever ends up getting the most votes is gonna be said to have won. And you said, “Well, but not if they don’t get a plurality.” Well, I guarantee you if we change the law that people could vote “none of the above,” the law would include whoever ends up with the most votes still is gonna win. Nothing’s gonna change.


RUSH: Andy in Clarksville, Indiana, glad you waited, sir. You’re next. Hello. Great to have you here.

CALLER: Hello, Rush. I love your show, and I’ve been listening to it for years. And I just pray to my Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ that you’ll be healed. And my question is why these governors in these Democratic states are able to walk around Trump’s executive orders and I don’t understand why the Republicans —

RUSH: A great point. A great point. I mentioned this I think it was the week before last. Andy, I’m so glad you reminded me of this. The point that I made was whenever Trump tried to do anything via an executive order, what happened? The Democrats found some lackey judge in Washington state or in Hawaii to issue an injunction preventing Trump’s executive order from going into effect.

So Trump would rewrite it based on the judge’s objections and resubmit it. And I asked a question last week: How long will it be before the Republicans do the same thing? How long before the Republicans go find a judge anywhere to grant an injunction against any of Biden’s executive actions or executive orders? And guess what, Andy? Hasn’t happened, has it?

CALLER: No, it hasn’t, but the thing is these Republicans need to grow some nads and remember that we are one republic, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. And I think America’s forgot that.

RUSH: Well, I don’t know. I’m sure many of them think that, but this is a matter of pure politics. This illustrates they don’t want to go to the trouble. It may be a hassle to go out and try to find a friendly judge and then ask the judge for an injunction against a Biden executive order. I’ll guarantee you — well, I’ll get as close to guaranteeing you as I can that the Republicans don’t want the hassle of the media ripping them to shreds for doing it ’cause I guarantee you, again, if the Republicans did this, the media would cream ’em.

Now, back when the Democrats went out to find friendly judges to invoke injunctions against the Trump executive orders, the media praised the judges, praised the Democrats, made them out to be great heroes. Republicans know that if they try the same thing the media is gonna rip ’em to shreds. And they just don’t want to have to deal with that.

I’m so glad that you reminded me. Because this is another great illustration of how they use power even when they don’t have it. They were doing this in 2017 after they lost the 2016 election. I do believe that in Texas, a judge in Texas put a temporary stay on Biden’s executive order ending deportations, and I think that’s Greg Abbott, the governor. I just had the story in the Stack here. Yeah, I put it at the back of the Stack. (interruption) It was the AG? Okay. Paxton, the AG, did it. I’m not surprised that it’s happening in Texas. But I’m glad that it happened. I’m glad you reminded me of that. I’d seen that in the stack and I had forgotten it.

But still, the Democrats did it with every Trump executive action, every Trump executive order. So we’ll see. Andy, thanks for the call, and I really appreciate your prayers. Everybody’s prayers, more than you know.


RUSH: Here are the details on the Texas judge. “Judge Drew Tipton, a Trump appointee, granted a temporary restraining order sought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, saying the state had demonstrated a likelihood of facing immediate harm from Biden’s pause” on deportation. So I was getting this confused with something that Greg Abbott was asking.

But this is the equivalent of the Republicans trying to stymie a Biden executive action or executive order with a federal district court injunction. Again, Drew Tipton — federal judge, Texas, Trump appointee — “blocked President Biden’s 100-day deportation ‘pause’ [executive order] on Tuesday in a ruling that may point to a new phase of conservative legal challenges to [Biden]’s immigration agenda.”

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This