RUSH: The media is just salivating today. Politico, the Washington Post, the New York Times. Folks, they can barely keep their pants up, they are so excited. (interruption) Yeah. (sigh) They might not laugh at that, either. Yeah, some of them are wearing pants. They're all excited over Biden's proposals. Nineteen proposals to try to limit the availability of guns. Nineteen proposals to get around the Second Amendment. Many of these 19 proposals will come via executive order -- and if they do, they will be illegal.
Executive orders are not intended to be used this way.
Executive orders do not grant the president the power to break the law.
Executive orders do not grant the president the power to get around or violate the Constitution.
But there are 19 things that Biden is proposing, and the story on my birthday, on January 12th, from the Washington Post: "Sweeping New Gun Laws Proposed By Influential Liberal Think Tank." This is the Center for American Progress. I think it would be worthwhile to go through what their proposals are, because this is a think tank that has a lot of influence in the White House. Much of what this think tank proposes, this White House attempts to implement. So their ideas are probably going to be very close to Obama's eventual list of demands.
The most significant thing on the list here of gun reforms -- "sweeping new gun laws proposed by" the Center for American Progress -- is to back Dianne Feinstein's bill, which, among other things, is a new assault weapons ban. It's preposterous, as the NRA has pointed out in some of its statements. Feinstein's bill would basically outlaw the handguns that most Americans use today for self-defense, and semiautomatic guns with magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. Now, never mind that none of her or the Center for American Progress's proposals would have stopped the shooter in Newtown, Connecticut.
That's not the idea here.
Don't doubt me when I tell you that none of these proposals, and I'm sure none of Biden's 19, would have stopped that. I know that none of these proposals from the Center for American Progress would have stopped the shooter in Newtown, Connecticut. None of them would have. And Dianne Feinstein's bill would outlaw the handguns that most Americans use today for self-defense. She does not have the authority to do that.
This is not the way you amend the Constitution. If it were this easy... Do you realize how easy it would be for them to just pass a law eliminating free speech, which they've done! How do you think Obama was able to tell the Catholic Church that they have no religious freedom when it's guaranteed to them in the First Amendment? Obama, with an executive order, essentially granted amnesty to a million children of illegal immigrants. That's not what the executive order is for, but he used it that way.
He did it during the campaign. The Republicans didn't have the guts to oppose it, because the Republicans are convinced they lost the election because they oppose amnesty. They believe the notion that they don't like Hispanics, and that people think they don't like Hispanics. Hispanics, therefore, hate Republicans. So what the Republicans have to do is become more like Democrats in order to be liked by Hispanics and maybe ever get their votes.
So there is no opposition to what Obama is doing. You can't outlaw handguns with a piece of legislation! It's not that simple. The Constitution is not easy to change. But here's what the Washington Post said about the proposals from The Center for American Progress. "The Center for American Progress is recommending 13 new gun policies to the White House -- some of them executive actions that would not require the approval of Congress -- in what amounts to the progressive community’s wish list," a wet dream list.
I remember there were some people during the campaign who were laughed at, mocked, and made fun of for saying the Second Amendment might be endangered by Obama's reelection and executive orders. People laughed when we said that. "Ah, you're paranoid! Ah, you got him wrong! Obama, he doesn't care about the Second Amendment." Now look what's happening.
"CAP's proposals -- which include requiring universal background checks, banning military-grade assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, and modernizing data systems to track gun sales and enforce existing laws..." Remember that: "a proposal to enforce existing law." Don't forget while you hear all this that it was this administration that created the program called Fast and Furious.
And just to review: Fast and Furious set up -- not just allowed, Fast and Furious designed -- a program whereby guns could be purchased legally in Phoenix gun shops and then "walked" across the border into Mexico and be given to drug lords and vicious crime lords and gangs. Those guns were then obviously to be used by the drug lords and the crime gangs, and they were used to slaughter hundreds of people.
The point of the program? Well, what was supposed to happen after Fast and Furious is exactly what did happen after Newtown, Connecticut. The news was supposed to be this: "Guns, legally purchased -- how could this be? -- in Arizona gun shops ended up in the hands of Mexican drug lords and hundreds of people died in gunfire!" The American people were then supposed to say, "Enough!
"We can't permit this anymore! We've got to tighten the laws down." Meanwhile, the only way it happened was because the administration set up the program to allow it to happen. It was designed to create the same reaction that occurred after Newtown, Connecticut. So this talk about having a proposal to "enforce existing law"? It's absurd. We're not enforcing existing law in a number of areas, particularly immigration.
Obama "has voiced support for many of these measures. Yet it is unclear which policies he ultimately will propose to Congress. Biden is planning to present his group's recommendations to Obama on Tuesday," and you can bet that this wish list is gonna be Obama's eventual list of demands. It's gonna be a combination of Biden and this, and what Biden's come up with is gonna be largely what the Center for American Progress is dreaming about.
It's gonna contain language like, "We'll try to go to Congress and get Congress to pass this and pass that." But lurking over there in the shadows is the executive order. If they're unable to get what they want legislatively, they'll just do it. Now, the big thing from CAP is urging the regime to back Senator Feinstein's proposal to ban assault weapons. She "wants to prohibit the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of military-style assault weapons and ammunition magazines that carry more than 10 bullets."
None of these proposals would have stopped the shooter in Newtown, Connecticut. None of them. There is no such thing as an assault weapon, by the way. An assault weapons ban is a catch-all term but there is no such thing as an assault weapon. That's not an official category. But the fact that none of this would have stopped the shooter in Newtown? Again, that was never the idea. This is simply Rahm Emanuel: "Never let a crisis go to waste."
Everybody knows that the Democrat Party, if they could, would take your gun away from you. This is not a mystery. I can't believe people want to try to make a big cause celebre out of this. I'm 62 years old. My entire life I've listened to them dream. I've been confronted personally by people who have demanded that I see the right way. When I was the guest speaker at the NRA convention sometime back in the nineties -- I think I mentioned this story once -- I was invited to be the guest speaker. I was, at that time, approached by two members of the mainstream media and one member of the Clinton administration.
They said to me, "You can change the world with your speech. You are Rush Limbaugh. If you go to the NRA and you tell them that they've got to change, if you tell them that there are too many guns and that they are responsible and it's time for reform, you can change the world."
So any of you who want to tell me that I am exaggerating or being extreme when I suggest that the nirvana desire on the part of Democrats is to get rid of guns, don't even try it. I know that's the case. If they could write their ticket, if they could, they would eliminate guns. There are a whole host of reasons why, and safety is probably not in the top five. They will say it's number one, but it's not in the top five. But that's beside the point. The point is, even last week and yesterday, all over cable news -- I think it was last week, primarily -- a couple of networks tried to go to town on this notion that I was making an allegation that was never true, couldn't possibly be true. "The Democrats don't want to take everybody's guns away. Who is this Limbaugh guy? Who does he think he is? By saying this, he's creating dangerous tension in this culture."
I'm not inventing this. I have been approached. I have been approached by Democrats and media people who told me I could facilitate this if I would simply go tell the NRA the truth as they see it. But, even besides that, you know it and I know it. Why are these people so focused on 19 proposals? Why are they so focused on executive orders? Why are they so intent on assault weapon bans, this weapon ban, that weapon ban? What's the end result? So to me it's undeniable what their end-of-the-day dream actually is. And I don't doubt how far they would go in order to make it happen. It depends on the level of opposition they face. It's solely a matter of that.
RUSH: I just heard that Obama and Biden -- and now I'm confused -- I just got a note that said that Obama and Biden are gonna present their gun control proposals tomorrow. I thought it was today. But regardless, I have been told that they are going to include lots of children at the announcement. Children who have written to the White House asking the president to get guns made more safely. Children who have asked the White House to protect them. Children who have written to the White House expressing their fear, the fact that they are frightened over the existence of so many guns, and they worry that what happened at the school in Connecticut could happen to theirs.
So there will be a parade of young skulls full of mush to make the emotional connection that we must do these gun reforms for the children. Of course it's exploitation, but it works. It works. Bring a bunch of kids up, we're doing this for them, making guns safer, reducing the a number of guns to enhance the safety of our children, the future of our country. Who could oppose this? Jay Carney said that the children who wrote to Obama after the Newtown shootings will join Obama and Biden. I guess they've moved the announcement to tomorrow. Children who wrote to Obama after Newtown.
To the phones we go, Fargo, North Dakota. We're gonna start with Tim. I'm glad you waited, sir. Great to have you here. Hi.
CALLER: Thank you, Rush. Mr. Snerdley asked me to get right to the point, so I will. You know, we talk about what Obama's doing, but when are we gonna take some action, you know, like at the polls or contacting our representatives or whatever, because he is behaving like a dictator, and he's violating the law. We can talk about it and, you know, wring our hands, but we need to go contact our local representative, our state, our federal representatives. I read that there's a senator in Texas or somewhere who's considering impeachment. I think that's the right course of action. We need to get our elected officials involved in this. And, by the way, those kids at this event tomorrow, if they knew how close they were to... you talk about an arsenal of weapons, I wonder if the Secret Service is gonna be leaving their guns at home for that one.
RUSH: Well, but those are good weapons. And that's a good arsenal. And that arsenal is to protect them. The kids will feel entirely, totally safe. Those are good guns. Those are good guns in the possession of good people.
CALLER: Sure. Rush, we need to get every one of your listeners to contact their representatives.
RUSH: They've been doing that, sir. They've been doing that. My listeners have done everything. They have written. They have called. They voted. They have donated money. They have raised money. They have joined FreedomWorks. They have joined grassroots efforts to get out the vote. They've done all of that. They've been doing that for 25 years. They've done it. The listeners of this program have gone above and beyond. The listeners of this program are not the problem, sir. The problem, we addressed it yesterday. The conservative movement does not have a single spokesman, either elected or in the media, who has credibility with low-information voters.
Every single conservative that otherwise would has been destroyed. Image, reputation, character, honor, dignity, they've been destroyed by the media, by the Democrats.
Whenever one pops up, shows any attempt or any ability, any effectiveness, they immediately join forces, set out to destroy that individual. And the conservative movement never defends the individual under attack, or very seldom does. The Republican Party oftentimes joins in the assault. The Republican moderates will oftentimes join in, as they did with Sarah Palin. They will oftentimes join the assault on the elected conservative.
The people in this audience, they're frustrated like you are. They've done all that, that you suggest, and more. And the level of their frustration is they don't see it making a difference. I understand how they feel. The thing that I think is crucially necessary is unity in the opposition to Obama and the Democrat Party. And there isn't any. There's too much jealousy. There's too much power seeking. There's too much delight when an effective conservative is taken out by the media. Other conservatives, some, "Okay, that's less competition for me to be the big guy." It's just the way things are. Democrats, though, circle the wagon around every one of their people who comes under attack or under assault.
We'll be back.
RUSH: See, right there it is, Fox has it now. Obama to be joined by the children at the press conference on gun control tomorrow, gun control plan. Children who've written the White House after Newtown, Connecticut. Here's why I was confused. Biden is presenting his ideas to Obama today, but tomorrow is when they're going to announce them.
Now, folks, I want to tell you something in as nonthreatening a way as I can. These 19 proposals that Biden has have not been written in recent days. They've been sitting in a drawer someplace. There are actually more than 19 of them. But the -- I say it in a nonthreatening way, in an attempted humorous way -- the wet dream plan for eliminating guns in this country has been a plan that the left has had for years, and it's been sitting in a drawer somewhere waiting to be pulled out at the appropriate time, just like health care was. The Obamacare bill is either 2,200 or 2,700 pages I get confused. It's over 2,000.
Now, they want us to believe that this bill was written in 30 to 60 days, and it wasn't. It was sitting in a drawer. Congressional staffers for years have been writing it, adding to it, amending it, just waiting for the right time to offer it and implement it, and it was determined in 2010 that that was the right time. These gun proposal ideas, they're not new. They're not based on any recent event. That's just the catalyst. They've been around for a long time.
Jay Carney at the White House this afternoon, press briefing, got a question. "There's been some fears among gun owners, Jay, that the president might unilaterally try to restrict their right to bear arms or their access to weapons. Does the president believe that his executive powers give him the ability to restrict someone's right to access certain weapons or ammunition?"
CARNEY: The president, as he has said often and said yesterday, believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. The president will take a comprehensive approach. But it is a simple fact that there are limits on what can be done within existing law, and Congress has to act on the kinds of measures that we've already mentioned because the power to do that is reserved by Congress and to Congress. So I'm not gonna get ahead of the president.
RUSH: Congress didn't reserve that power for itself. The Constitution assigned that power to Congress. It's the Constitution that is the source authority for who it is that writes laws in this country. Congress didn't say, "We want to do that." The Constitution grants Congress that authority. They do not grant the president that authority. But here, Jay Carney refused to say whether Obama thinks he's got the power to take guns by executive order. Jay Carney did not say unilaterally "no" to the question, "Does the president believe that his executive powers give him the ability to restrict the right to access weapons or ammo?" Jay Carney would not say yes or no. He retreated into minutia and boilerplate, 'cause they don't want to get ahead of the president.
The president's gonna announce whatever new ideas he's got on stage with the children tomorrow. US News and World reporting: "A day before President Barack Obama is scheduled to release Vice President Joe Biden's recommendations to curb gun violence in the United States, the National Rifle Association told US News and World Report that they have seen membership grow by 250,000 in the month since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut."
Now, The Politico reported membership in the NRA had grown by more than a hundred thousand five days ago. The NRA says that when Politico reported that story, membership was close to 200,000, but now it's a quarter of a million. Membership in the NRA up... since the shooting. Now, why would that be happening? No, no, seriously, seriously, why would it be happening? Wait a minute. Snerdley said, "Because people are sick of the response." So your theory is that people are joining the NRA in reaction to the government's efforts to limit the ability to get guns.
So just like Democrats, rich Democrats, move their income forward to beat a tax increase, so gun owners are buying guns before it may not be legal to? And ammo. Well, not only is ammo sold-out, Walmart announced yesterday they're gonna have a moratorium on selling it until the regime makes known its plans. Why would Walmart do that? Why would Walmart, on their own, ban themselves from selling ammo? Exactly right, to try to curry favor with Obama, to stay hopefully in Obama's good graces because Walmart's already a target of the left, being nonunion.
There's also another reason I think people are joining the NRA and I think it's another reason people are buying weapons. Safety. To protect themselves against something like this happening in their house. What if this shooter decided to shoot up the people in his house instead of a school? Well, he didn't, because his mother was loaded with weapons. He went to a place he knew nobody had any. That's what happens. You announce gun-free zones, that's where the people that want to use guns go. It's human nature. Criminals are relatively intelligent on certain things. And if, for example, they're gonna rob a bank they do it 'cause that's where the money is. If the bank has no guards, it's even a bigger target.
If a school doesn't permit guns, then the gunman says, that's my place, daddy-O. It's the presence of armed resistance that stops these people. Like the shooter in Newtown. So for a host of reasons, you have people arming up with weapons and ammo. And yet the president and the media -- and this ticks them off -- I can't tell you how it ticks them off, because what they hope is that this many people would be quitting the NRA. They want this many people to be resigning the NRA. They have hoped that they could dredge up such animosity toward the NRA, the way they've been covering the story, they want people to hate the NRA. They want people to quit. They want people to give up their guns because the media's saying that's how we're gonna make our country safer is everybody gets rid of their guns. And the media is frustrated that their influence isn't working here.
When they see a quarter of a million people join the NRA after Newtown, when they see guns marching themselves off the shelves, practically, when they see ammo sold out, I can't tell you how ticked off at you they are. I can't tell you how angry this makes Democrats and the media, the president probably, too. You're not behaving the way you should. You see, this just proves to them that you need to be controlled. This just proves to them that you are inherently not decent people. That you inherently can't be trusted to do the right thing. The right thing here is to give up your guns so that another Newtown doesn't happen. The right thing here is to renounce the NRA. But since you don't do that, since you buy guns and buy ammo and join the NRA, you must be controlled. You can't be trusted. You're not good.
There is not inherent goodness in our society, not in their point of view. There is inherent badness, evil. This proves it. Therefore you can expect them to double down on whatever their restrictions are. Of course there will be a response to that. We'll see. I'm not entirely sure that the left is fully aware, even though it's as plain as day what's happening. I see what they're doing in New York, and Bloomberg, by the way, the mayor, is urging Obama to forget the Constitution and to ignore Congress and just ban guns. Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City, is urging this.
Yes, I know what Governor Cuomo is doing. They've already got the strictest gun laws in the country there in Washington, DC. They still lead the nation in crime with guns. The bottom line is, they just double down. When you don't behave the way they think you should, their effort and their intention to control you compounds. You make them mad and they're gonna really come after you. And that's what they're doing when you load up on guns and you load up on ammo and you join the NRA, you're making 'em mad, you're ignoring them. You're not doing what they think you should do. So they're going to have to control you, and we'll get an indication of how they intend to try tomorrow.
Anyway, here Jay Carney. Here's an official announcement. Here's Carney announcing the children at the gun control ceremony tomorrow.
CARNEY: I can tell you that tomorrow the president and vice president will hold an event here at the White House to unveil a package of concrete proposals to reduce gun violence and prevent tragedies like the one in Newtown, Connecticut.
RUSH: They won't.
CARNEY: They will be joined by children from around the country who wrote the president letters in the wake of that tragedy expressing their concerns about gun violence and school safety along with their parents. That event, uh, will be at approximately 11:45 a.m.
RUSH: Now, if a bunch of kids wrote the president and said that their parents aren't giving them enough candy, do you think Obama would have them to the White House and do candy-control ceremonies? Okay, so a bunch of kids scared to death about what happened to Newtown write Obama; they and their parents are going to be there as Obama will have an event "to unveil a package of concrete proposals to reduce gun violence and prevent tragedies like the one in Newtown, Connecticut."
I'm telling you not one thing I have seen would have prevented what happened in Newtown. I say this in a balanced way and with all humility. You can't stop all of these events from happening. If we could, they wouldn't happen. Now, folks, that's too insensitive and heartless in some people's minds to say that. That's Realville. It's where I get in trouble. I'm too honest about stuff.
Here's Herb in Commerce Township, Michigan. Hello, Herb, great to have you with us, old buddy.
CALLER: Hey, it's great to be here. First, I want to say thanks for all you do and don't ever hang it up. Appreciate it all. To my point, you know, Obama's having children to the White House tomorrow.
CALLER: And, you know, he always does that to pull at the heartstrings. I remember the young black kid that was at his elbow when he signed the, quote, unquote, Affordable Health Care Act. So if he's so concerned about the country's children then why doesn't he propose some real solutions to that debt problem? You know, the debt, when you think about it, is probably much more dangerous to the country and every child in it than guns will ever be. The debt problem is much more dangerous to this whole country.
RUSH: We don't have one of those.
CALLER: Yeah. In his point of view, that's true.
RUSH: No, we fixed that with Obamacare.
RUSH: It's what he told Boehner. He told Boehner we don't have a spending problem.
CALLER: Yeah, well --
RUSH: But he's using these kids as human shields. Obama uses kids as human shields. The Democrats use kids as human shields. He brings these kids who supposedly wrote letters to the White House after Newtown, brings them up there to present a picture of support among the children for the president to do something about guns. It's gonna be very difficult, very difficult to oppose it. You got these little kids there. They don't want to die. (crying) How can you not listen to them? We've gotta do something. That's the picture. That's the image that the presence of the kids is designed to create.
By the way, I want to thank Drudge. Drudge posted that whole monologue. He linked to my whole monologue on this yesterday. I was really gratified that he did that, because the political game in Washington right now, as far as Obama's concerned, is just to get rid of any opposition. That's all he's doing. He's not solving problems. He's not presenting solutions. It's all about eliminating opposition. And the only opposition to him now is conservatives. And the Republican establishment, ditto. They want to get rid of the conservatives and their influence in the Republican Party. That's all this is, is another effort to eliminate any opposition. That's what's going on right now, all this character assassination of conservative spokespeople, elected officials, you name it, it's all oriented toward that.