All Episodes
Previous Next
May 28, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:31
May 28, 2010, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, it's funny you're looking at the uh television news networks.
They're all breathlessly awaiting C stack's response to the White House report on the job.
And I have it.
I got it right here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
I got it right here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
As we get you into the Memorial Day weekend.
The last hour of open line Friday, telephone number 800-282-2882.
Here's here's Sestack's response.
And this from NBC.
Last summer, I received a phone call from President Clinton.
During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democrat primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background.
He said that White House Chief of Staff Ram Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a presidential board while remaining in the House of Representatives.
I said no.
I told President Clinton my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families and not any garbage makes me want to throw up.
Pennsylvania's working family.
Yeah.
My only consideration here, the only consideration I had to consider this offer was for Pennsylvania's working families.
Now the real concern is for people in Pennsylvania who don't work.
If you're a Democrat.
Anyway, I told President Clinton my only consideration of getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families and not in the offer.
The former president said he knew that I would say that, and the conversation moved on to other subjects.
There are many important challenges facing Pennsylvania and their working families and the rest of the country.
I intend to remain focused on those issues and continue my fight on behalf of working families.
I kid you not.
Working family that's Democrat code lingo for unions.
Working families?
What about the unemployed?
What about those who really want to work but can't?
No, I'm not nitpicking this.
This kind of language is what makes me cynical.
Uh no, doing the right thing for Pennsylvania working families is what's important to me, not uh not in the offer here.
Now, we know that Bill Clinton has a history of going to Democrats and trying to get him out of races.
He went to Torcelli and Torricelli quit.
He went to Andrew Kumo, told Andrew Kumo, look, don't try for governor now.
It's not your time.
And Andrew Kumo bowed out.
So Sestack says it.
Emmanuel called Clinton, Clinton called Sestack, said, Why don't you come on a presidential board and stay in the House of Representatives?
I said no.
And the former president said he knew I'd say that.
Well now, if Clinton knew that Sestack would say no, then why go to the offer?
Here's the big question.
This is the real question.
And this is a question for all of you, Pennsylvania working families.
If this explanation is so clear-cut and simple and legal, why has the White House not put out an explanation about this before now?
Why is this how many weeks has this been going on?
How many months has this been how long how long ago was it that Sestack said he was offered a gig?
And we haven't had anybody say anything more.
Sestack was there.
What do you mean?
I'm not saying any more.
White House was not answering the question.
If this is the way business is done, why not just come out and tell us?
This guy, this story's been percolating since February.
And this is the best they can come up with.
That's right, Limbo.
This is how it works.
I went to this guy and I said, Look, I really don't want you that Senate race.
Uh you know, you don't stand a prayer.
He wants to keep you in the uh keeping the house, maybe come on some presidential advisory board now and then.
Uh but I understand you got concerned for Pennsylvania's working families.
And if you want to say no, that's fine.
I just I'm just conveying the office.
Right?
Is that how you know if if it's this simple?
Why do they take all this time and a lunch yesterday with Clinton and uh and Obama to come up with this?
I, for one, I'm not buying it.
Um, grab audio samba number uh uh Cumber 19.
This is Wednesday in Wash, excuse me, Washington, D.C. Remember, um we had no grab number 20, grab number 20.
First, did John Brennan, you remember this?
We had this last week or a couple weeks ago, but this is a uh a look back.
He made an address to some Muslim students at New York University Law School, hosted by the White House Office of Public Engagement and the Islamic Center at NYU.
Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, John Brennan spoke.
He spoke in Arabic.
Safarit illa alden with Felestine, well Kudz and Tunis, Lakin Elan Nasit Akriat Aloga.
Kislan, uh Lisen Kislan.
Lakin Mumkin, inshallah uh beyond Maratani, inshallah.
Afuan.
Now don't tell the folks way we don't speak Arabic, what I said, okay?
So now this guy's from the George Cannon School, you know, appeasement.
They're just insecure.
Well, he's back now Wednesday in Washington at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, C SIS, think tank.
John Brennan, assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, spoke, and this is what he said.
Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic.
Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind.
And as Americans, we refuse to live in fear.
Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists, because shahad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of Islam, meaning to purify oneself of one's community.
And there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women, and children.
We have never been and will never be at war with Islam.
After all, Islam, like so many faiths, is part of America.
So we're we're distracted here uh by the oil spill, and this guy's out there uh going on a tour praising the enemy.
Well, I know I don't know.
I that's the question who are we at war with then?
I I I really I don't know.
Uh I really don't know.
And they don't either, apparently.
Hillary Clinton, she's Secretary of State, you know that.
Hillary Clinton.
But she went off the reservation yesterday in Washington at the Brookings institution.
She spoke uh about the Obama administration's national security strategy, and a reporter asked her during the QA, how do you think that we can manage the balance between fiscal responsibility, which is, of course, very necessary, but also attention to the most vulnerable, the poorest segments of both American population and worldwide population, and the need still to strengthen this recovery to strengthen employment, which remains a key issue.
Now, you want me to translate this question for you?
Let me read this question.
This is a reporter.
And I want to read this question to you again.
This is what passes for brilliant journalism.
How do you think we can manage the balance between the fiscal responsibility, which is of course very necessary, but also attention to the most vulnerable, the poorest segments of both American population and worldwide population, and the need still to strengthen the recovery, to strengthen employment, uh, which remains a key issue.
Do any of you know what this question means?
You have the slightest idea what the question.
I'll tell you what it means.
Mrs. Clinton, um, How can we manage the balance between fiscal responsibility?
Which, of course, we must be fiscally responsible.
But then we've also got to make sure that the poor aren't poor, both here and in the world.
So how do we manage fiscal responsibility and yet bring people out of poverty while at the same time strengthening employment?
Meaning employment has nothing to do with bringing people out of poverty.
And here's her answer.
This is my opinion.
I'm not speaking for the administration, so I will preface that with a very clear caveat.
The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues, whether it's individual, corporate, whatever the taxation forms are.
And I go back to the question about Brazil.
Brazil has the highest tax to GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere.
And guess what?
It's growing like crazy.
And the rich are getting richer, but they're pulling people out of poverty.
There is a certain formula there that used to work for us until we abandon it to our regret, in my opinion.
Now, uh, ladies and gentlemen, this is um uh important because we need to remind people how the Clintons have avoided paying millions in taxes through their foundation.
Now it's not the William J. Clinton Foundation at the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor.
They have another foundation, the Clinton Family Foundation.
And they have they've sheltered a lot of money in these foundations and have avoided paying taxes.
So nobody, the rich anywhere not paying their fair share, nobody in any country except in Brazil.
And while the rich are paying higher taxes there than anywhere in the world, they're still getting richer.
And everybody's this never has happened in history, and it's not happening in Brazil.
There you have it.
Once a liberal, always a liberal, and liberals believe the same things over and over again, and they never change.
High taxes, people aren't paying enough, and we're gonna get you one way or the other.
Okay, I went to the uh what I went to the uh email, checked email as I always do during the commercial breaks.
And I can always I can always predict what I'm gonna get.
What do you mean?
How can you say that Clintons are dodging taxes by funding a foundation?
All right, let me explain it.
I have nothing against foundations.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen.
But what's the topic here is hypocrisy.
Remember, Hillary said the rich are not paying their fair share.
What does that mean?
What she means when any liberal says that, what she or they mean is that individuals are not giving the government as much as they should be.
Remember, government is God, and if you skip out on your taxes, you are screwing God.
You are screwing government.
Your taxes should be paid to government.
And if you are rich, you should be paying even more.
Now, what is a foundation?
The foundation is a good thing.
But you can shield all kinds millions of dollars from the government by putting it in a foundation.
Let me read you a story, give you an example.
According to a 2007 Washington Post article, the Clinton Family Foundation has enabled the Clintons to write off more than five million dollars from their taxable personal income since 2001.
Who knows how many more millions they have saved on their taxes since 2007, and they kept this foundation a secret.
Everybody's known about the library and massage parlor foundation.
But from the Washington Post article, Clinton's spokesman said that her failure to report the existence of the family foundation and the senator's position as an officer In it was an oversight.
This only came out when Hillary decided she had better amend her Senate financial declarations before she ran for president.
The Washington Post article also noted Pelosi had a similar family foundation, and she too was allowed to amend her declarations without any penalty.
Tax records showed that the Clinton Family Foundation was created during Hillary's first year in the Senate, and a couple gave $800,000 to launch the organization early in December 2001.
The charity distributed no funds that year.
Now here's the truth.
Let's say you have the kind of wealth the Clintons have.
The way these foundations work, you set it up, uh I'll use myself if I if I wanted to set up a foundation, set up the Rush H. Limbaugh Foundation for Working Families in Pennsylvania.
And you call it anything you want.
And let's say I want to put five million dollars in it.
I can do that.
And I get to write off that five million dollars.
I don't have to pay taxes to the government, which is God, on five million dollars.
I'm setting up the foundation to make sure somebody else gets the money rather than government.
This is the hypocrisy.
Mrs. Clinton thinks the government's getting shortchanged when she says the rich aren't paying their fair share.
She is the rich.
Now, the foundation the rules of the and it's a charitable deduction, and you get to take it all in one year.
If you give five million, if I if I put five million dollars into the Rush Limbaugh Foundation for Pennsylvania working families this year, then I get to deduct that five million bucks.
I forget what the number she didn't pay anything, and that's a violation.
You you have to distribute, it's a small percentage, I think it's 10% of it, not even, maybe not even that.
So all it it's to be legal, I could set up a five million dollar foundation for Pennsylvania working families, get a five million dollar tax deduction, meaning that five million is shielded from going to government God, it goes to whatever charity I want to give them.
I lose control of the money, don't misunderstand.
I can't use it to go out and buy a bunch of iPods or anything else.
It's gone.
I can only give that money to whatever I want to give it to, some charitable group, but I don't have to give the five million away in one year.
I can give away 50,000.
And the next year I can put another five million in.
So in two years I've shielded 10 million dollars in taxes at whatever my marginal rate is from the government God.
This is what the Clintons are doing.
It's what Nancy Pelosi is doing.
So it's it's not that they're pocketing the money, don't misunderstand.
They are taking the money away from themselves.
They're just making sure that government doesn't get it.
They're making they they remain in control of it.
Now, if you are the Clintons and you have five million dollars sitting, what can you buy with that?
If you want to run your foundation's, you want to donate X to some other politicians uh charity, what will that politician give you to quid pro quo if you want if you want Joe Sestach to quit his bid for the Senate, as this is a figurative example here, of course.
Uh you might take some money from your charitable foundation and give it to something that Sestack cares about, like Pennsylvania working families, and SysTaq will owe you.
Let's be clear about this.
This is pure unadulterated hypocrisy.
I am not opposed to charity, and I think it's a fine thing for anybody to set up a foundation, but make no mistake why people do it.
It is not purely altruistic.
It is to make sure the government government doesn't get the money.
I've you know, you you go talk to any you know what you ought to do just to have fun.
Pretend that you have gazillions of dollars.
Just do this.
Pretend that you have gazillions of dollars and go for just for the exercise of it, to a family planning lawyer or somebody At your bank that does family planning services.
And tell them why you're there.
You know, I I'm here.
I want to make sure that upon my death, uh, the people I care most about uh benefit from uh from my estate.
And without exception, the first thing, the first thing the family planning guy will tell you is, okay, we've got to make sure the government doesn't get it.
That's the objective.
It's normal.
It is natural.
The government sets up these legal foundations for this purpose.
So it's pure hypocrisy for Mrs. Clinton to run around and say the rich aren't paying their fair share when she and her husband and Pelosi are short-changing their very government god that they claim we are not servicing enough.
And that was my point.
And that's easy.
It's easy.
The truth comes naturally here on the EIB network.
Now, between 2001 and 2005, the Clintons ceded their family foundation charity with $5.16 million of their money.
I got a question during the break in an email.
Do they do you get, if you if you fund a foundation with your own money, do you get to reap the rewards of the interest that it earns or whatever gains?
Because you invest it.
You invest it in whatever you want to invest in.
You know, financial manager put it in stocks, bonds, whatever.
You want it to grow.
You do a golf tournament, you ask people to contribute to.
No.
The money stays in the foundation.
You have no control over it.
All you're doing is shielding it from the government and from taxes, and instead directing it to charitable causes that you believe in.
And when you're a politician, a charitable cause you believe in could be a freaking groundhog.
I mean, I don't know if it'd be anything.
Now, Hillary, lest we forget, this is the same woman who took a $4 a pop deduction for giving thrift stores their used underwear when they were governor and first lady of Arkansas.
You remember that, Dawn?
They would take stuff down to the goodwill bin and they would write off four dollars for dirty underwear.
I mean, these people have long been into taking advantage of every tax deduction that's out there.
Now, one of the few things they haven't they haven't distributed a lot of money from the foundation.
You don't have to do that.
It's it's it's a minimal requirement every year.
But one of the few things that the Clinton Family Foundation gave grants to was a charity connected to the Arkansas businessman who helped Hillary Clinton make a hundred grand in a commodities deal.
That was uh Robert uh Red Bone, I think.
That is so many Arkansas names, I've forgotten them now, but I think it was I think it was Red Bone.
I I forget, I forget who it was.
Remember, help Hillary turn something like a uh a dollar into a hundred thousand, maybe a thousand dollars or ten thousand dollars into a hundred thousand dollars in cattle futures.
And she said she learned about that by reading the Wall Street Journal.
Go forth.
Uh but she gave that money, she gave a grant to a charity connected to that guy who uh who ran what turned out to become Cattlegate.
And all of this is in the 2007 Washington Post story.
I mean, it's it's all there.
It was a part of the you know, the run-up to Hillary's presidential campaign.
In any case, folks, in any case, it's nice to see that the Clintons finally got around to paying off the gentleman who scammed them a cool $100,000 when they were earning a merely 30 grand a year when he was remember, she was the big money winner, she was the she was the um uh uh well, he was making some paltry sum as governor, 30 grand.
She was the breadwinner at the Rose Law firm.
And I'm convinced that the the Clintons went into into Whitewater and all this because they really believed that people that got rich did it by scamming the system.
They didn't believe it was genuine hard work that got anybody anywhere.
So the cattle future scam and so forth.
Um at least at least they had the uh the class to pay off this guy in an indirect route from the Clinton Family Foundation, which nobody knew about, it didn't report that it existed because they didn't want people to know they're shielding another five million dollars from government God.
Make no mistake, folks.
Make no mistake about this.
These people are hypocrites from day one.
When they start talking about the rich not paying their fair share, they are at the top of the list.
Showing everybody how it's done.
I make mention of the Heritage Foundation often on this program.
I refer to research and writings from their highly competent staff.
But I haven't spent a whole lot of time telling you where they're based.
I mention it in passing now and then, where they work from, and how that becomes all the more valuable to uh those of you who are members of the Heritage Foundation.
They're located in Washington.
They are but mere blocks away from the offices of our nation's leaders.
And that location, the Heritage Foundation location, has become the source of many of the good ideas coming out of the Capitol.
So much so the Heritage held 600 briefings with members of Congress and their staff, providing all the ideas and research that they have.
They are actively involved.
I know they're a think tank, but and they do have people that sit there and think.
And then after they've thought about things, and after they've thinked a lot, and then they write it.
But then they don't just go home.
They take what they've thought and what they've written and they apply it.
And they share it with those in various branches of government in hopes that it will be implemented.
I mean, even those people who uh vying for a seat in Congress reach out to the Heritage Foundation.
There are about a hundred briefings with potential congressional candidates during the course of a year.
They're teachers, they are advisors, and as such, they work very closely in getting the right conservative candidates informed and elected.
And that's one of their goals this year.
They are working behind the scenes, they always have been, to help get the right candidates educated, informed, and armed and ready to go, making sure they have the facts, the research, and the policy ideas once elected, uh, to implement these things.
So when you hear me talk about the Heritage Foundation, I'm talking about an organization that's in the thick of the fight, right there in Washington, and they remain uncorrupted, which is key.
So few people can say that that they remain uncorrupted.
Make yourself a member and support their work.
It benefits you, it benefits us all.
Go online to join.
It's $25 a year, it's a minimum.
Ask Heritage.org, make yourself a member today.
That's AskHeritage.org.
Call in Shreeport, Louisiana, as we head back to the phones.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, man, it's great to talk to you.
I appreciate you taking my call.
You bet.
Hey, uh, I'm gonna get straight to the point.
I've asked all my local mentors about this, and you know, they haven't rebuted me or rebuked me.
And uh so I'm I'm coming to you.
Uh I've been kicking this around, and I don't want to even think about it anymore, but I can't help it.
Uh, BP, you know, they've they've got a great track record, environmental record, uh, with the public.
And uh I'm worried that you know, it's a possibility that maybe they cashed in uh, you know, in this situation.
We already know that they're willing to cooperate with uh, you know, the amend, you know, with the regulators.
They have a pretty uh, you know, that doesn't happen.
The government doesn't give you a break unless you know they're getting something in return.
And uh this news, you know, they I'm just w this is what I think.
Uh Obama needed a Katrina, except to go the other way for him.
He needed experience.
He needed something to say, look what I did.
I fixed this problem.
You know, he can't lower the seas.
He can't, you know, fixed.
Cole, let me ask.
Let me jump in there and ask you a question.
Are you Are you asking me if I think that BP was in collusion with Obama in staging this press conference yesterday with the illusion that the topkill method was ongoing and working when we now know that it wasn't.
Is that your basic question?
Uh no.
It goes deeper, and I uh I really regret to even be bringing a conspiracy.
This is much greater of a conspiracy that I'm talking about.
Okay, well, make it make it plain and simple for me.
What's the conspiracy?
Okay, I think that, you know, they're saying that I think that they did this change in policy when they're drilling.
They're supposed to wait six hours, they didn't.
They sent it to the regulators, they approved it.
I think that was on purpose.
They knew what the outcome was going to be.
Um, wait, wait, I'm losing you.
They knew the rig was gonna blow.
Yeah, I think that it was a move.
I think that it was it was you think they wanted the rights.
Obama needed it.
He needed that.
You think they wanted the rig?
You think Obama needed a catastrophe, like Bill Clinton said, damn it, I wish 9 11 would have happened on my watch.
Yes.
See, he can't he can't do anything great on his own.
He can't take natural uh problems that arise and fix them.
He has to create it.
He he okay, it's only let me let me jump in there.
The only way, the only way that I would even give credence to this is if Obama had been on the scene from day one and looking like he cared, but Obama took five weeks off.
If this was a planned disaster to make Obama look good in handling a disaster, in contrasting himself to the lackadaisical attitude of Bush, this has been a huge bomb out.
A huge failure.
And I I must I must tell you, Cole, I know you're a great American out there.
I can hear it in your voice.
But I can't what have we come to, my friends, when we have decent, hardworking citizens thinking this kind of conspiratorial possibility about about our president.
Now look at what we have just heard here.
Cole, thank you very much.
We have just had a man call us, and he's embarrassed to be thinking this.
But he's troubled.
He's this thing doesn't just happen.
And there are a number of things here.
Why didn't they plug the well with the cement?
Why did they do it in a way totally opposite the way it's normally done?
And he's wondering, he knows BP gave Obama a billion bucks or a million dollars, he contributed a million dollars over the course of a uh campaign period.
Uh and so he's asking, is it possible there's collusion between BP and Obama to have this disaster to give Obama a crisis on which to look big and tough and strong and competent.
This would be ten amount to the liberals saying Bush purposely steered Hurricane Katrina into New Orleans and then purposely had the Corps of Engineers sabotage the levees in the dikes so the flooding would happen and drive black people out of Louisiana over to Houston and thereby make Louisiana Republican state.
Uh I I really uh the the caller look at let me boil this down to his essence.
The caller here is suggesting that British petroleum blew up the rig to help Obama.
I I I I I think it's uh it's in unfortunate that we have uh an administration that would make people come to think like this.
Decent, hardworking American citizens.
Uh this would be like claiming that that Bush knew 9-11 was coming and did nothing about it because he wanted the crisis.
Oh no.
In fact, there are people think Bush not only knew about it, but that Cheney and Bush and Rumsville actually planted the charges.
Halliburton helped out because the experts in uh blowing things up.
Halliburton's involved here.
Uh I think it's tragic that we have uh president who could inspire such thoughts.
Not among Cole doesn't sound a kook to me.
I mean, the leftist kooks that came up with the 9-11 conspiracy theory.
Obviously, cooks.
But Cole, I must tell you, I I don't think there's any proof to this because if if if if if this if this was done to make Obama look good, there has been no bigger failure in the history of conspiracies than this.
Snerdley is in there playing with the iPad.
I know you are.
Let me give you, there's a web browser that you can get at the App Store.
It's called AtomWeb, A-T-O-M, AtomWeb.com.
And sad to say it puts Safari to shame.
It has tabs.
You can increase or decrease font size.
It's amazing.
Go to the app store Atom A T O M Adam Web.
There's all kinds of great apps out there for this iPad thing.
You're gonna love it.
Now back to C stack uh or Sestack.
I'm not one of it looks like it ought to be C stack, but it's Sestack, and I often screw up the pronunciation here.
Let's let's take some things, the people at their word here.
Even if what the White House is now claiming is true.
And even if it's business as usual, that people are offered jobs all the time to give up something else.
Didn't Obama pledge to change business as usual in Washington?
Wasn't that part of the campaign?
We're gonna change business as usual.
Isn't this the exact kind of corruption Obama promised to end?
Instead, just like with all his other promises he has or his minions have done the very things he condemned in splendid spades, but I and about Sestack.
The timeline, the timeline is suspicious.
Because if this is all there was to it, why not just call Clinton and tell him to get in front of a camera and laugh it off the way back in February when this thing came up?
None of this just fits.
If this is all that happened, why do you take all this time to conjure this up?
There's nothing to it.
Have Clinton go out there, hey, hey, that's no big deal.
I called his brother.
I said, hey, how would you like to serve on a presidential commission?
Uh and and and stay in the house.
He said he wanna do that.
That's all there is here.
There's nothing to there's nothing here.
But no, they had to conjure something up.
There's something about this is still not right, folks.
It just doesn't fit Bakersfield, California.
Daniel, welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
It is a pleasure.
You bet.
Um something that I haven't heard discussed from uh uh from any planet, really, is the fact that uh uh Governor Gindall has been begging the government to come in and get something done or offer him help.
And then uh our liar-in-chief says, well, we have to analyze all of this prove that's cost effective, but then he turns around in the press conference and says that we have spared no expense.
I don't understand the hypocrisy here, and he does it in a matter of a couple of days.
Well, you know, that's a good point.
We have to do a cost benefit analysis here to Governor General's idea, uh, and then says, but we're gonna spare no expense here to get this right.
And look at they're not they don't care about the cost of anything else.
Why this?
Exactly.
Like what happened with uh you you played a soundbite earlier with uh Obama in uh his campaign saying, well, you know, uh uh uh Bush took forever to get in here and whatnot, and that will never happen uh under my administration, but yet he hasn't done anything under his administration.
I gotta run I misread the clock.
You're right, I gotta go.
Back in a second.
Okay, we got a best of show on Monday, and I'm told that I am the host of the best of show on Monday.
We'll be see you back here on Tuesday.
Look forward to it, folks.
▲
Export Selection