And now, from sunny South Florida, it's Open Lines Friday.
And here is the telephone number.
If you want to be with us, Open Line Friday.
Telephone number 800-282. 2882.
We don't have a lot of lines.
I'm not going to tell you how many.
We don't have a lot because the average, the average person who makes it on the air spends probably an hour on hold.
You'd be amazed at how few lines we have.
People think radio talk shows have 10, 15, not us.
If we had 15 or 20 lines, there'd be people on hold for a week here.
Anyway, it's Friday, so you can choose to talk about anything that you want.
It does not have to be anything that we've talked about previously.
It doesn't have to be anything I care about.
It doesn't have to be about the news of the day.
It can be whatever you want.
One day a week, we offer this golden opportunity.
You can email as well, lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Speaking of wages, I mean, here's Mrs. Clinton, and she's out.
What is this?
The 2015 Women in the World Summit.
Grab soundbite number one.
Now, you got to hear this again.
And then the facts.
This is the kind of stuff that liberal Democrats get away with constantly.
Here's what she said.
This was yesterday in New York City.
There are those who offer themselves as leaders who see nothing wrong with denying women equal pay.
Offer themselves as leaders who would defund the country's leading provider of family planning.
There are those who offer themselves as leaders who would deport mothers working to give their children a better life rather than risk the ire of talk radio.
All right, all right, all right.
The Hillary Clinton campaign has confirmed.
And Washington Free Beacon analysis has confirmed the accuracy of that analysis that showed women working in her Senate office were paid just 72 cents for every dollar paid to men.
The campaign, the Hillary campaign, told factcheck.org, it does not dispute the accuracy of the report, which analyzed Hillary's office publicly available disbursement forms from fiscal years 2002 to 2008.
So here she is out there caterwalling at some women's convention about how certain leaders claim to be great when they don't even pay women fairly.
And there she is at the top of the list.
And then she went on to make that bogus accusation about hobby lobby.
Hobby Lobby didn't deny anybody anything.
Hobby Lobby just said, there's one thing in a health benefit that we're not going to pay for.
We're Christians and we don't believe in killing babies.
So if you're going to do it, you're going to pay for it yourself.
We're not paying for it.
And for that, they were taken all the way to the court.
They were demanded.
They were threatened.
They were targeted and everything.
What happened to this concept?
If you want it, pay for it.
This whole notion that everybody ought to be buying everything for everybody else, some people ought to be able to get whatever they want free.
It grates on me.
Don't know why it's, but it's becoming really irritating to me, particularly when I hear young people celebrating things that are free and asking and demanding that more things be free.
So I guess Hillary figures she's not qualified to be a leader.
Is she being Freudian here?
Since we're talking about wages from the Daily Caller, wages and share of income for the bottom 90% of American wage earners declined over the past 40 years as the foreign-born population increased dramatically.
This is from data requested by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Since 1970, the foreign-born population of America has increased 325%, while wages for the bottom 90% of earners decreased by 8% and their share of income decreased by 16%.
And I saw this, and you can understand my initial reaction based on the news every day.
This just simply can't be right.
Because we are constantly told that these gifts of love from south of the border are great for our economy.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page has told us this.
The Chamber of Commerce tells us this.
La Raza tells us this.
Jorge Ramos tells us this.
Univision Telemundo the Democratic Party tells us.
No, no, you're wrong.
These gifts of love, otherwise known as illegal immigrants, are great for the economy.
Yeah, because they're coming here and they're doing the jobs that defeat snob Americans won't do anymore.
Yeah, and they're coming here and because of that, they're raising everybody's wages.
And then they say, just look at California.
Yeah, just look at California.
Oh, speaking of which, do you know what has just been learned?
San Francisco, here we go again, folks.
San Francisco, mecca, modern-day cultural enlightenment, right?
Mecca, pop culture, everything cool.
They're the ones doing it right.
They're the sensitive ones.
They're the honest ones.
They're the truthful ones.
They're the tolerant.
They are the ones saving the environment.
They're out buying all of this experimental crap that's supposed to save the climate.
Guess what has been learned?
San Francisco City Hall.
Who works in city halls, nerdly?
Yeah, but yes, Democrats at San Francisco, but who is it?
Elected leaders and their appointees, the mayor and all of the corrupt commissions and bureaucracies, the leaders.
The Board of Supervisors is in there.
James Bond once had to put a fire out in there in a view to a kill.
I mean, the people that run land management are in there.
The people that control the California Water Resources Board for the San Francisco area, they're in there.
I mean, the cream of the crop of American liberalism works at San Francisco City Hall.
And it has been learned that they have been using drinkable water to heat and cool the building in the midst of a drought.
What kind of drought they're calling it end of world drought, you know, once in an apocalypse, apocalypse drought.
You don't have to use drinking water in those water-cooled heating and cool systems out there, but they've been doing it.
Drinking water.
How selfish.
Why, how unthinkable.
And yet, who again is it that's doing it?
And now we're being told that illegal alien gifts of love are great for the economy when, in fact, the last 40 years, wages and share of income for the bottom 90% of American wage earners has declined.
The Congressional Research Service charted the correlation between wages and the number of foreign-born workers in America between 1945 and 2010.
Now, before 1970, wages rose sharply as the number of foreign-born persons declined.
But after 1970, that population increased dramatically as wages stagnated, increased slightly, and then dropped.
1970 is magic because do you know there was no immigration in this country from 1926 to 1970, 65, something like that?
You may not know that.
We totally stopped it.
There wasn't any immigration.
You know why?
Because after the massive immigration that had taken place post-world wars and at the turn of the century, we stopped and we took time to assimilate all of the new immigrants.
They came here wanting to become Americans.
They wanted a taste of American culture.
So we suspended immigration for like 50 years.
Nobody knows this while they assimilated.
And then Ted Kennedy came along.
Ted Kennedy came along and started pushing for the revival of immigration because the Democrats realized they were starting to lose their permanent underclass.
As these newly arrived immigrants began to assimilate, become members of the American culture as well as American citizens, they became more qualified.
They became more competent.
They got better at what they started earning more money.
And they started climbing the ladder.
And they went from lower middle class to upper middle class.
And in some cases, they went outside the middle class, upwards of it.
And that left the Democrat Party in a lurch.
The Democrat Party needs a current level and a constant level of poor people that are uneducated and ill-equipped to improve themselves.
That's what the Democrat Party's for.
And so Senator Kennedy got the ball rolling to reinstitute immigration, and this is what happened after he did so.
As more immigrants came to the country, and illegal immigration spiked, by the way, it only makes sense.
The wages of the bottom 90% in this country began to fall because it became cheaper to hire the gifts of love.
Well, the illegal immigrants.
Meanwhile, for the Washington Times, immigration agency says that single Hispanic females deserve asylum in the U.S. Being a single mother or witnessing a gang crime could be enough for Central American illegal immigrants to get on the path to asylum under guidance of the Homeland Security Department issued last week, opening new ways for the surge of illegal immigrants to gain a legal foothold in the U.S.
The guidance is a 27-page training document from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service.
It says women who flee Central America because they fear being single heads of households can be deemed part of a targeted social group and can make claims of credible fear of being targeted in their home countries.
Now, why should any woman fear being the single head of a household, especially in the era of women?
Why, I've been under the belief, don't mean to sound caustic here, but I mean, I'm a product of my conditioning and education, too.
And I've thought since the late 60s and early 70s that being a single parent household was exactly what women were supposed to shoot for.
They weren't supposed to be dependent on a relationship for their happiness or their income.
They weren't supposed to require the need or the desire for a man.
But now look, I mean, you talk about a step back.
All a Central American woman has to do is be a single head of household.
Take it back.
All she has to do is say she's afraid of being one.
That she fears being a single head of a household because that can be deemed part of a targeted social group that could make claims of credible fear of being targeted in her home legitimate.
And thereby she should be and could be qualified for immigration asylum in the United States.
I wonder how many of these women, I'm just wondering, how many of these women happen to have kids who in the last year and a half got on a train and came up from Ecuador and Guatemala and arrived at our border unaccompanied and got dispersed all over the country by the regime and they're now in homes and institutions all over.
I wonder how many of it is their mothers who are now, gosh, you know what?
I'm a single mother.
I'm afraid of being a single mother.
I could be a target for gangs and thieves.
I need political.
Come on in.
That's what's going on while all this other stuff is happening as well.
And back to the phones we go, Rush Lindbaugh, once again meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
It is Shauna in Los Angeles.
Great to have you on the program, and I'm really glad you waited.
Hi.
Hi, how are you doing, Rush?
Very well.
Thanks much.
Hi, thanks for taking my call.
I wanted to talk to you this morning.
I was watching the news, and I saw an interview that Chelsea Clinton had given in response to the allegations of the upcoming book.
I think she was at a conference this week.
I didn't get the details on it.
And her response was interesting because she said, well, now that they're in the throes of this, she finds that now they need to start making things more transparent for the activities of the charity.
And, you know, I found two things really interesting with that.
One, I thought to myself, Clinton's been running for like years thinking she's going to be running.
So why now?
Why would you think now is the time to start making that transparent?
I mean, common sense would give that you would, you know, do this earlier in preparation for it.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Common sense for the Clintons is to keep it covered up forever.
Look at what they're doing.
They're being bribed here.
Well, and that's the second thing that I thought after listening this morning to the program that you were giving.
And I thought, you know what, that really is the answer to the millennial of that is how they get away with it.
Because you have to think, well, they are being transparent now.
And that's what the average person is going to think.
Oh, that's what the clip they're going to see.
That's the only clip that the news showed was, well, now they do think they do need to be transparent.
And of course, well, everything's going to be okay because they realize that they need to be working on that.
That with the millennial population, that is it's possible.
It is very, although, although, I'll tell you, I've got a poll here in the Hillary Stack, and it's specifically of millennials and young people, and an overwhelming percentage of them do not think Mrs. Clinton is trustworthy.
So we may not, now the same poll, these same kids do not know who Ronald Reagan is.
Well, that may be the case.
It's true, but it is how they get away with it.
The news only shows them that one clip, that one sentence.
You know, I've got kids in college, and they know they see that one sentence is not.
That's what's different here, Shawna.
That's what's different.
When you say the news, you may be talking CNN or your local TV news.
They're not covered.
But the rest of the drive-by media is hammering this.
Oh, this was CBS Morning News, national television.
You know, the CBS mornings, and they are trying to overlook it.
Let me ask you one quick question about this that you brought up, Chelsea.
What do you think, Shauna, of the Clintons trotting out their daughter to basically take the arrows on this and to explain it and try to make it right?
What do you think of that?
Because for the entire time they were in the White House, they told the media, you can't go anywhere near Chelsea.
You can't talk about Chelsea.
Chelsea's off limits.
Now there's a little trouble, and who do they trot out there?
Well, I thought it was interesting that Chelsea was giving this speech at this conference.
So, you know, from a standpoint of, you know, she's got to make her own funds.
She's got to make her own way in this winner world.
And it doesn't surprise me that they're bringing Chelsea into this because, you know, she's been brought up into that atmosphere of, you know, being the good speaker, of coming in and protecting the family.
It really wouldn't surprise me.
And also because Chelsea is young, she's in that young age.
And, you know, that's the person you're going to want to bring to to get those, you know, younger kids to come to the table.
Yeah, all those younger kids can really afford a $10.5 million New York home like Chelsea just bought.
Right, exactly.
I mean, she's not in the realm of, you know, the average day common kid, but that's not something they're going to be presenting.
They're going to be presenting their daughter who grew up in the White House, who had to endure all of these things.
And yet, here she is still supporting the family.
She understands what you guys are going through.
She understands what it's like to be 20s.
I mean, it is a perfect play, you know, when you're running for presidency, if your family's willing to do that.
And, you know, it's a lot of people who are.
You talk about Chelsea making her own way.
Look, I know this happens in a lot of families.
I know it does, but still, Chelsea, you talk about it.
You know what her job is?
It's the Crime Family Foundation.
85% of the Chelsea's one of the people that's being paid.
Chelsea's living off those donations.
She's one of the 60% that is siphoning donations off as other expenses.
That's where her salary comes from.
That's her job is living off money given to her parents.
What is the acronym?
F-U-B-A-R mean?
No, it can't be beyond belief.
Okay, okay.
I thought it would have the F-word in there because I got an email here from an engineer, a female engineer, who heard me discussing the San Francisco City Hall.
She said, no, Cheryl, Cheryl Woman Engineer, Rushbabe.
The whole story about the San Francisco City Hall is foobar.
So it's screwed up beyond all reason.
Is that what you said?
Recognition.
Screwed up beyond all recognition.
She said the city hall San Francisco is heated by steam.
Fossil fuel is used to generate the steam.
She says, even worse.
Most of the steam is returned to boilers as condensate.
Now, some of the water has to be drained to keep minerals from building up in condensate.
It's called blowdown.
That water is called makeup water, and makeup water must be cleaner than drinking water to protect the boilers.
And it's signed Cheryl, woman engineer, and rush babe.
And she's making the point that it's not entirely true that they're using drinking water.
It's that they're using fossil fuels to generate the steam.
And the point is, they're a bit of hypocrites.
These are the people supposedly leading the way on saving the planet and dictating to everybody else how they must live.
And by the way, some of you people out there are very eagle-eyed watching on the Ditto Cam today.
You have noticed that in one of the commercial breaks, I slipped on my new Apple Watch sport with white band.
There it is.
I haven't paired it.
I just put it on.
I just wanted to see if any Ditto cameras would notice it.
I have not paired it.
And I want to make a point.
It would take longer than a commercial break.
And my point is, I could very easily, I could take the time to pair this while I'm doing the program, but I respect the audience more than that.
I am not going to distract myself by pairing this watch with my phone.
While the program, I could change, I haven't said, yes, you could change it.
I could change it to a Mickey Mouse face if I want to put any of the 10 or 13 faces in there.
But one thing, Apple's not going to let you make your own faces.
That's how they're going to maintain quality control and image control.
You're not going to be, you'll be able to adjust theirs by adding colors, but you will not be able.
They don't think, people think never will you be able to import your own faces.
They don't want to lose control over the look of the watch.
Anyway, that's all they need to see.
I can't show them what it looks like.
I can't show them what it looks like on.
You're missing my whole point here.
I'm not activating this yet out of respect for the audience.
I could very easily take the time while I'm talking to somebody on the phone.
I can start pairing the watch with my phone and half pay attention to the caller, say, yeah, yeah, good point.
Not even knowing what they're saying, and then move on and finally get the watch paired, then start playing with it while taking the next call and not hearing what anybody, as most hosts would.
I am putting the audience first.
I am relegating.
I am subordinating my passion to the audience here.
All I've done is put it on.
I just wanted to see if it fit.
I wanted to see what it looked like on.
I've charged it.
I did that, but that didn't require any distraction.
Put it on the charger.
It only needed an hour's charge, so it comes a little bit more than half charge.
What?
I don't know if I like the watch yet.
I haven't seen what it does.
I'll tell you this.
That's a good point.
Apple yesterday published as a web page, and they'll probably be making an e-book, the user's guide for the watch.
And for the first time, I actually am excited about what this thing can do.
All of the demos I've seen and all the commentary I've read has not excited me.
But going through the user's guide, which teaches you how, it's more complicated than any device they've got.
And you go through the user's guide and you, in order to learn how to use it, you see what it can do.
Now I'm intrigued.
I mean, even today when it arrived, you know, I was ho-hum.
I mean, I hate to tell you people, I didn't even order this as a powerful, influential member of the media.
Friends of mine who suck up to me ordered one for me.
I actually got two.
I put on the cheap version for the DittoCam, not wanting to laud it over people.
And it's not a gold one.
I have the Milanese loop, the stainless steel Milanese loop over there, too.
They're both charged.
But the user's guide's incredible.
Makes this thing look incredible when you look at how small it is.
The battery, the battery in an iPhone 6 Plus is 2,600 milliamps.
The iPhone battery in an iPhone 6 is 1,810 milliamps.
The battery in this watch is 215 milliamps, and they still get 18 hours out of it.
It's tiny.
I mean, it's half the size of a domino.
Stands to reason it would be.
Here's Chelsea Clinton.
We have Chelsea Clinton audio.
This is Chelsea Clinton yesterday, New York City.
She was in the Council on Foreign Relations.
Do you know what this is?
The Council on Foreign Relations is, of course, the sister organization to the Trilateral Commission, which, as you all know, was started by my good friend and fellow conspirator David Rockefeller and Zbigniew.
The Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations together basically run the world.
And there's Chelsea speaking at the CFR for crying out loud.
How old is Chelsea?
Is she 30 now?
Is she that old?
Don't bother looking it up.
It doesn't matter.
I know that she has a child.
I mean, this...
Oh, I don't know.
I don't want to get sidetracked here, but Council on Foreign Relations?
Anyway, she's speaking at women's.
You're kidding.
35.
Chelsea Clinton is 35.
I guess it makes sense.
All right.
So anyway, the Council on Foreign Relations during a panel discussion entitled Women's Rights as Human Rights, The Path to Full Participation.
What kind of fools do they think we are?
Over in the other part of town, there's her mother talking at the women's conference of 2015, complaining about women's pay.
Here's her daughter at the CFR at another women's panel on women's rights as human rights, the path to full participation.
The moderator is Juju Chang.
J-U-J-U.
Juju Chang.
Not to be confused with Jar Jar Binks.
Juju Chang spoke with Clinton Foundation Vice Chair, Chelsea Clinton, during a discussion on the Clinton Foundation accepting money and bribes from foreign governments who have questionable records on women's rights.
Juju Chang said the Clinton Foundation keeps bubbling up a little bit.
And as vice chair, I felt I needed to ask you this.
I know that there's been a rules change in terms of money and donations, but a lot of people have questioned, for example, why did the foundation take money from Saudi Arabia when they don't treat women as well as perhaps they should?
You think?
Perhaps they should.
And there's a question, Chelsea, even this morning in the New York Times about the money coming from Ukraine.
And there's this question, were favors done in exchange for funding?
So what the Clinton Foundation has said is that we will be kind of even more transparent, even though Transparency International and others have said we're among the most transparent foundations.
We'll disclose donors at a quarterly basis and not transportation.
Wait a minute, stop.
Transparency International?
Every day I live and learn.
Transparency International.
What fraudulent bunch of people runs that?
Are you telling me that there is a group called Transparency International that studies the transparency of other organizations and reports, kind of like fact-check organizations, fact-check speeches?
And Transparency International has examined the transparency of the Crinton Clinton crime family operation here, and they found that they're among the best.
What kind of suckers do these people think that we are?
All right, let's listen to the rest of the annual basis.
As the vice chair, I have a fiduciary responsibility to the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people being impacted by that work and our staff on the ground in 36 countries, thinking across the Health Access Initiative and the foundation.
So I very much believe that that's the right policy.
I think that's the right choice for the people who are being affected by that work.
What is the right policy?
Favors done in exchange for funding?
Is that the right policy?
What is she talking about?
This is what I mean.
People start talking gobbledygook, Duke.
And we're supposed to sit there and be dazzled by, yeah, we get people on the ground everywhere.
Oh, yeah.
Our staff on the ground in 36 countries thinking across the Health Access Initiative and the foundation.
And I very much believe that's the right policy.
What policy?
Bribery?
She's been asked here about bribery, essentially.
I think that's the right policy.
Of course, we're taking money from criminals and trying to keep it hidden.
You know, these people, do you know what they did?
We told you yesterday they had to refile their tax returns.
For three years, they said they took zero money from foreign governments.
Zero.
Now, the last time I looked, when you filed a fraudulent tax return, you don't get the chance to redo it.
You might be able to amend, like you might, when you file your return, you might have taken a charitable deduction when it wasn't a charity.
It was a nonprofit, and you have to take it as a business expense rather than you could amend, but for crime, you filed a tax return for three years that shows zero income.
You know, we just discovered $300 million that came in from foreign companies.
We need to be filed.
Oh, okay, fine.
Here's the form.
Well, I don't know anybody who gets to refile.
You know, Chelsea, she knows that big word fiduciary.
You're not supposed to dazzle us too.
Didn't work on me.
Open line Friday, Rushland Boss serving humanity.
And this is Mia.
Oh, you know what?
We haven't heard the down in the hole bumper theme in a while.
And Mike, I got something else for you to find out there and put in a bumper rotation.
That would be the post on blood on the dance floor, Michael Jackson.
That'd be a great bump.
I would have Johnny Donovan do it, but he's recovering from brain, hip, knee, and shoulder surgery or some such thing.
So anyway, here's Mia in Miami, Florida.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you for taking my call.
You bet.
We were out of the country for two weeks, and I turned you on Tuesday to start catching up on our political soap opera.
And here's my thought, because this whole thing with the Clinton-Canadian Russian triangle, my first thought was the reset button moment Hillary had.
I mean, it was just an image that popped in my head.
And then earlier on the show, you mentioned their hunger for money.
So when this talk went down, because obviously somebody, it just didn't happen through osmosis.
I mean, and I wonder if was whom the negotiator here.
Was it their arrogance or their ignorance?
Because the way I see it, by giving Russia this control of uranium and the way they've received that tremendous amount of money, which is totally corrupt, the question in my head is, that transaction, couldn't it potentially put all Americans at risk?
And can it not be said that it's kind of a treasonous act that they just thought of their gain by this?
Because we're talking about the Secretary of State, who the number one interest is the safety of the citizens on this country and the interests that the country she represents.
So, I mean, you know, put everything aside about the money.
Yeah, that, but what about that whole act there?
Well, you can't.
It's a great question, but you can't put the money aside because the money is relevant.
The money is what gives your question its power.
Would she really risk putting the country at greater risk for personal enrichment?
And yeah, the answer is obviously yeah.
Whether it's treasonous or not, Obama signed off on it.
He was okay with the deal.
You got to understand, these are people, Mia, I don't think people take me seriously, or a lot of people don't.
You have to understand, these are people who believe that this country is an illegitimate and undeserved superpower.
They don't believe that we were legitimately founded.
We're founded on a flawed basis because of our human rights violations and slavery and all that, mistreatment of people of color, what we did to the Indians when we got here in the first place.
And they really think that this country needs to be dialed back and letting Vladimir Putin wasn't going to be able to corner the market uranium, but he was going to end up being able to control quite a lot of it.
I'm sure they're sitting around thinking we've got all we need and they're not hurting.
We're not harbing ourselves by letting others have some because we've got everything.
We've got all the uranium we need.
We can make more if we want it.
So it's just in their minds, you can't take the money out of the equation because that's why they did it.
Well, no, I understand that they, you know, the money should be in the equation, okay?
Obviously, that was their, that was probably their number one incentive, okay?
Aside from the fact that, you know, they are power of hungry people.
But it's just that, I mean, this has to come into investigation because really, I wouldn't want her, really, for her to be the next president to take that 3 a.m. call.
She ain't going to take that 3 a.m. call.
You know, she's just going to let it ring.
I'm sorry.
But, I mean, people have to be aware of this.
And she has to be taken out of this picture because what kind of a leader do are we?
I see your point.
And I'll tell you the truth.
When I saw this story the first time, it's exactly where my mind went.
Is this treasonous?
What the hell is this?
It is borderline trees.
You want to hear something worse?
Where do you think a lot of this uranium is going to end up?
Iran.
Exactly.
By way of Putin, by way of Russia.
Exactly.
Of course.
And then, but then the other thing is that, I mean, you just put everything else in perspective, what the Russians are doing, okay, as far as what's happening in the Ukraine.
Right.
Well, don't forget the North Koreans.
Anybody that comes up with money, Putin will sell it to them.
Well, this is true, but it's also by the same token.
I mean, of course, yeah, he could be also negotiating with Iran just to take us out of completely out of the Middle East and get rid of and do something with Israel.