RUSH: Joel in Morristown, New Jersey. Joel, you’re up first. It’s great to have you on the program today, sir. How are you doing?
CALLER: How are you, Rush? You had asked a question before —
RUSH: You know what? Wait. Let me answer. I am ticked! I am ticked off like you can’t believe, and I’m trying to keep it with measured tones here, but I’m livid.
CALLER: Well, perhaps I can help you feel better. You had asked a question that was not rhetorical, namely if the right approach for President Trump is to appeal the overturning of his proposed ban to the Supreme Court. I actually believe there’s a superior solution and that is for the president to rewrite the ban so that it is a ban of individual immigration from all countries to the United States. By so doing, three objectives would be achieved. First, it would force the left to realize that they can’t overturn it in the courts as being discriminatory against Muslims because most of the people from other nations are not Muslims.
Secondly, it will force them to sue — to come to the table, that is — in order to propose a compromise alternative, because they don’t want to see… Especially the corporatists who want cheap labor as well as the left that wants to see others come to this country who are less educated and will go on the dole to vote Democrat, they don’t want to see a total ban. They have a vested interest in insuring that that does not happen. Third, it will show that President Trump is understanding the need to double down, that the best approach is what Roy Cohn had suggested to him years ago, which is: If someone hits you, hit back twice as hard.
RUSH: Right. Let me… You launched into this, and I want to go back and explain to people what it is that you are bouncing off of me. I said in a throwaway comment — although I meant it. But I was vamping ’til the end of the segment. I was heading up to the ear-splitting tone signifying a new commercial break. I was talking about Trump has said he was gonna appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court, and I said, “I don’t think that’s the way to deal with this.” I mean, why do you keep going back to the people that keep slamming you? Why do you keep doing it? So now we got the call from Joel here who says the remedy is to rewrite this so that you ban any potential jihadist from every country in the world including the Caribbean superpower of Belize.
RUSH: Right? You would include them in this?
CALLER: Absolutely so.
RUSH: All right. So let’s go to the statute that enables the executive order. The statute gives the president full and total power to ban people from anywhere who he believes constitute a threat. It’s his by proclamation; he can sustain the ban for whatever length of time. Are you at all worried that an executive order that would apply a vetting test to all immigrants from every country in the world…? You think that would pass muster?
CALLER: I feel it would have to because the basis on which they are in the court, ruling against the president, is that he’s looking to be discriminatory against individuals because of their religious preference. What this —
RUSH: This judge in Hawaii… Pardon me, this judge in Hawaii would simply say that he knows there are Muslims in every country that the president has signified —
CALLER: Well, actually —
RUSH: Well, wait a minute, though.
RUSH: He would still hearken back to what he heard Trump say, and then he would use his power as a judge to issue a TRO, no matter what. That’s the point. This judge is not basing this on the law. He’s not basing this on the executive order itself.
CALLER: I fully agree with you. However, I think there are two points that should be kept in mind. The first is, certain of the countries in the world do not have any Muslims. For example, Japan, which basically looks to ensure that folks are —
RUSH: Well, not that we know of.
CALLER: Not that we know of. But secondly, because the president would be able to argue he agrees with the court that he doesn’t know if the people who wish America poorly are related to a specific religion. He would be able to flip on the head their own logic, and if the court again upheld a ban — if it were revisited in the Ninth Circuit or elsewhere — then I think the president would have such a strong argument before the Supreme Court, that even as leftist as they are, it would not be possible for anyone to overturn it.
RUSH: Pshhh! That’s… See, when you say it would not be possible? When there is a liberal anywhere, it is possible.
RUSH: Look, I’m not gonna argue with you about your legal strategy here and the effort to thwart these hack judges. I mean, it sounds reasonable to me on first glance. You know me; I want to think about it more, run it by some people and see if it’s practical, applicable, or if it’s just interesting theory. Don’t be insulted by that, please. These are things I have to do as a responsibility I have to the audience.
But what bothers me about this, Joel, is it’s the legal system where the silent coup is taking place that is thwarting Trump here, in this instance, and they’re gonna be able to shop and find a judge like this for any EO he comes up with. And they’re gonna find a judge that’ll issue a TRO — whether it’s legal, relevant, or not — because these people are political, not legal. If we don’t fight ’em on political turf, we’re gonna have this continue to happen.
RUSH: You might remember a federal judge ruled that Obama’s moratorium on drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico was unconstitutional. Obama just ignored the guy. He just ignored the guy and kept the ban on drilling, and nobody did anything. Why doesn’t Trump try something like that? Just start vetting.
RUSH: This is Zoe in Champaign, Illinois. Great to have you here. How are you doing?
CALLER: I’m fine, Rush. I’m so excited. I don’t know whether I’m more excited, frustrated, irritated, or what, but I’ve tried to call your show for years. I happen to be blind. And then I tried to call when you were giving away the iPhones, but I have something that’s even bigger. And it’s that I’m upset about our Constitution. People who are overseas foreigners — despite what the internationalist law crowd thinks — do not have rights under our Constitution, at all.
RUSH: That’s exactly right.
CALLER: And I’m really irritated about this, because this isn’t being talked about enough.
RUSH: Well, you… I’m irritated by all of it.
RUSH: You know, I found out that I am being criticized recently as a phony conservative —
RUSH: — because I have become too focused and too anti-left.
CALLER: (laughing) How’s that possible?
RUSH: Can you believe that? (laughing)
CALLER: No, I don’t believe it.
RUSH: That means I’m not a good conservative.
CALLER: You know what I think? I think it means you’re effective.
RUSH: I’m too anti-left. Ah, but the point is all of this stuff frustrates me and ticks me off, from a strategic point, okay?
RUSH: Okay. We’ve gotta have answers for this stuff, like when a judge goes rogue like this, or when the deep state starts running a silent coup.
RUSH: We find ourselves in much the same situation. We’ve gone out and voted. We’ve overcome the left in the presidential election and the shock and the surprise. And still there doesn’t seem to be a way to stop them, because they’re willing to behave outside the Constitution as Obama demonstrated and these judges are demonstrating.
RUSH: And there’s no outrage at that!
CALLER: No. Would I be really out of line to say I think that Trump should defy this order?
RUSH: Yeah, I know, but you see the problem with that is there is this important thing called the rule of law, and even though they are abandoning the rule of law and flouting it, I don’t know that the remedy is for lawlessness. In fact, I know that that’s not the remedy. That’s a barrier you don’t want to cross. If you win by violating the rule of law, why ever pay attention to the rule of law again? So it’s a slippery slope to go down, but I understand the temptation.
RUSH: Here’s Greg in Sloatsburg, New York. Great to have you with us, sir. How you doing?
CALLER: Very good, Rush. Thank you. It’s an honor and dittos. Rush, if refugees without a green card or a visa have a constitutional right to come to the U.S., what other constitutional rights do they have, such as the Second Amendment right?
RUSH: It’s an interesting question. That is a fascinatingly interesting — let me tell you why that question matters. The first executive order also prevented green card holders from getting into the country if they didn’t get back in before the 90 day ban took place, and green card holders are almost required to be here, folks. It’s part of the process of getting a green card. You’re required to be here. It’s not citizenship, but it’s close. But without a green card, you are not a citizen and yet these judges, like this guy in Hawaii, are all treating them like they are and that the Constitution applies to them. So that when Trump says he wants to ban Muslims he can’t because they have constitutional protection.
So it’s a great question. If they are not citizens and they are afforded protection by say the First Amendment establishment clause, could they come into the country with a gun and claim the Constitution guarantees them one even though they’re not a citizen? Now, you know what the left would do, they’d take the gun away and send ’em to retraining somewhere, reeducation center. The left would not go for that. Depends on what they like in the Constitution and don’t. It’s a great theoretical question to make the point. I applaud you for that. That’s really good thinking out there, Greg.
CALLER: Thank you, Rush.
RUSH: You bet. It’s a great way to illustrate it.