Rush Limbaugh Program - May 11, 2015, Monday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 11, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program

33:59

May 11, 2015, Monday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi folks and welcome back.
	Great to have you here, Rush Lindboy.
	And we uh reach our third hour, and it seems like every time we get to the third hour, it's like a race.
	I got so much stuff here I want to scream in here, scram in here, cram in here that I want to go pretty quickly.
	Clinton fine uh Family Foundation here.
	All this talk about whether Bill wants Hillary to win or not.
	You can come up with uh with feasible theories on on both sides of this.
	But there's one thing.
	The one thing is like the previous caller talked about Bill is living the life.
	And there's one thing making that possible, and it's that foundation.
	Whether you call it the Clinton Global Initiative, whether you call it the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, whether you call it the Bill Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, whatever it is.
	All of the money and all of the activity taking place is rooted in those two things.
	And the and the Clinton Family Foundation exists for one reason.
	And that is the thought that Hillary Clinton's going to be president someday.
	That's why there's so much money in that foundation.
	It's the only reason.
	A lot of donations came into it when she was Secretary of State.
	There's no question the money is being used to influence Hillary Clinton.
	That's who they are.
	There's no question about this.
	The drive-by's are doing everything they can to cloud that and obfuscate that, but there's no reason for these people all over the world to give these people 10 million, 20, 30, 50, 100 million dollars just because they like them.
	They would love you to believe that that's the case.
	The Clintons and the media would love you to believe it.
	They're so personally popular that all of these people just throwing money at them.
	But that isn't happening.
	She's getting massive donations while she's Secretary of State, and Bill is out hustling them.
	And massive donations on the basis that she might be president because the people giving that money expect to be paid back.
	They are there's no question they're purchasing influence.
	Now, Bill is doing something else on the side.
	Bill is collecting speech money that he is not giving to either the Clinton Global Initiative or the Family Crime Foundation.
	Some of that money he's keeping for himself for his skirt chasing and whining and dining and whatever it is he's doing out there under the guise of doing charitable work.
	And all of this money is coming in predicated on the fact that Hillary is at some point going to have the power and influence to be able to pay it back.
	If Mrs. Clinton resigns Secretary of State and is not running for president, I'm telling you, Clinton doesn't have as much fun money other than what he can generate speeches, which is significant, because apparently he can still charge half a million dollars a speech.
	So it could go either way on this.
	There are reports today that a Hillary presidential win might screw up that foundation completely by eliminating it.
	You can't give a sitting president that kind of money or his foundation.
	You just can't do it.
	Well, I say can't hell.
	It's the United States and make maybe allowances for anything.
	I mean, stuff that you used to be able to guarantee would not be allowed to happen now happens routinely so.
	But on the surface, that foundation would dry up.
	You might think, well, no, Rush, I mean, if they're if they're donating money so that they can be buying influence.
	Yeah, but not when she's in the office.
	That's I mean, it's too easy to track.
	The um the other thing that that is obvious out there, Bill has not shown up anywhere with Hillary since she has announced.
	Not as far as I've seen.
	I haven't seen him campaigning for her.
	But I also saw a story that that uh reported that Bill Clinton could be a liability to Hillary, and that that's why he is staying away.
	Now there's an AP story today.
	If Clinton is elected, Family Foundation could face changes.
	From the article says among the unresolved questions, who would be able to raise money for the Clinton Foundation?
	Could it begin new projects, both at home and overseas?
	Is there any way it could operate unburdened by conflicts of interest, real or perceived, while one of its founders sits in the oval orifice.
	Some people close to the Clintons and the Foundation say it's unlikely the former president could continue directly raising money if his wife wins election.
	But they say that could be a difficult realization for him to come to, given how much of his post-White House legacy is linked to the Foundation's work.
	And make no mistake.
	This all this foundation stuff, the Clinton Global Initiative, that is to rebuild the image from Lewinsky.
	Everybody wants to think it's because the Clintons are naturally charitable, naturally well-intentioned, and as they're good liberals.
	All they want to do is help people, and especially the poor.
	But make no mistake.
	Clinton was disbarred, lost his law license.
	He was convicted of perjury, lying during an investigation.
	There's a lot of reputational damage to overcome there, and that's primary reason for the Clinton Global Initiative.
	We learned today from the political that Bill got 1.3 million dollars for just two speeches in China.
	And that that money is his.
	He's not donating it.
	It went right to his pocket.
	He's not giving that money to the foundation.
	And the global initiative, they're not two separate things.
	The Clinton Global Initiative is a subset of the Family Foundation.
	You could say a shell corporation in modern-day primetime TV parlance.
	The global initiative is the Family Foundation is the global initiative.
	It's just part of it.
	Like the children's health thing is all part of the Foundation.
	And some of the money raised goes to the global initiative, which is uh basically that happens at the same time every year as the UN meeting, General Assembly, it's every October, September, and October.
	And it's it's a reason for all of Clinton's uh girlfriends and foreign leaders from around the world to come into New York so that he doesn't have to travel to see them.
	You can't fool me on any of this stuff.
	Now, what it all adds up to in poor tens for for Hillary's presidency, that foundation has got all this money in it.
	Make no mistake because people are donating on the cum, the expectation she's going to be president someday.
	And that she was Secretary of State.
	And Bill's been out there hustling some of it up.
	He doesn't have to appear with her in order to be supportive of the campaign.
	And here's a New York magazine story today about the um Clinton Foundation's behind-the-scenes battle with a charity watchdog group.
	And this is Charity Navigator, which originally gave them a stinking number.
	Oh, speaking of that, we get soundbite.
	Um Grab Soundbite Ape.
	They're they're still doing this.
	Lanny Davis, they're still lying about me and some numbers that came from the Federalist.com and our old buddy there, Sean Davis.
	This is uh C-SPAN's Washington Journal just this morning.
	And the the former spin doctor for the Clintons at Landy Davis.
	And during the viewer call-in segment, a guy from Virginia says the Republicans talk about the Clintons and transparency, but it it came out that Rubio did the same thing that Clintons are accused of.
	I mean, they're all basically, not all, but mostly a party of hypocrites.
	Rush Limbaugh, by the way, recently repeated and it's been repeated over and over again, that 10% of all foundation donations go to good works.
	The other 90% is staff and salaries.
	Uh Pontifact absolutely debunked that as not a true statement.
	I think that's a good question.
	No, they didn't.
	And if you don't Believe me as a Democrat, go to Fox News, not exactly a Democratic leaning network, where that statement was debunked.
	It was not.
	Now the first thing is they're doing this, they're reporting it as me because they think that with a Democrat base, they have so destroyed my credibility that all I am is an automatic, constant liar.
	So if they report anything, or if they attribute anything negative of the Clintons to me, then the Democrat base is supposed to automatically pay no attention to it because I, they say, make things up.
	Well, the numbers, 15% and 10%, come from a website called the Federalist, which did an in-depth analysis, as much as they could learn about all the money coming into the Clinton Foundation and all the outflow.
	And they found that 15% goes to charitable causes in one sense and another sense only 10 percent.
	The vast majority is salaries, travel expenses, and the biggest category is I forget what it's 60 percent, and it's not specified.
	It's like other expenses are 60 percent.
	There's travel, salaries, and all this stuff.
	And this pontifact or whatever it is he's citing here, these people originally attempted to dispel these numbers by attributing them to me.
	Just as Lanny Davis did.
	He, in fact, is following them.
	This caused the guy who runs the Federalist, Sean Davis, to get in touch with the people at this Politifact or Pontifact uh place, and the people at the Pontifact place admitted to Sean Davis, his numbers are right on the money.
	What happened is the Federalist revealed the dirty details of the Clinton Family Foundation, and they reported it.
	It did not get widespread play.
	Drudge put a little link up about it.
	I came along and amplified it, and they started excrementing bricks in the Democrat Party and at the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
	And that's when everything got into gear to dispel this and associate it with me.
	I didn't do any of the research.
	The numbers are not mine.
	They are the Federalists.
	They're the ones.
	I simply amplified it.
	But the Clinton people think that if they disabuse the Federalists, nobody knows who the Federalist is.
	That's not an automatic, so they have to attach my name to it, and all I did was read what they published on their own website.
	And I've since communicated with Sean Davis about this, who's confirmed everything to me, as well as, and this has been reported at Power Line and other places that the PolitiFact or Pontifact, whatever it is, uh, it's a fact-check group for charities and other things, admitted to Sean Davis that his analysis of 15 percent of the money going to charities was right on the money, but he wouldn't say so publicly.
	But privately had no choice but to confirm what the uh Federalists came up with.
	So obviously this has done damage.
	Obviously, this news is still hurting the Crime Family Foundation as Lanny Davis, even this morning is out there making all this stuff up and attributing it to me.
	And he was uh actually had more to say about it after that little bit.
	The Clinton Foundation is unusual in that it takes in money and it does the projects itself.
	Mr. Schweiser uses the number only 10 percent were given as grants to other charities.
	That's the way most foundations work.
	The Clinton Foundation is hands-on, literally, hands in knees, planting seeds and staffing African and international projects.
	Anybody from this point on who hears 10 percent or 15 percent that goes to the Clinton Foundation, that is false, and the person who's saying it needs to check Pontifact and Fox News, and if they repeat it, then it becomes a lie.
	Lanny, it does not, because whoever you're citing at Pontifex, I wish I could remember the guy's name, confirmed to Sean Davis at the Federalist, the original source for all this, Lanny, not me, that this stuff is true.
	Now, I don't know who got quivers over at Fox about this.
	Uh but this is how they do it.
	So if you hear, there's Lanny Davis and a C-Span shouting for the back, if you hear Clinton Foundation 10, 15 percent, it's a lie, don't believe it if it's a lie.
	And this is how they do things.
	They're on their hands and knees planting seeds.
	Did you see that?
	Planting seeds and staffing African and international projects.
	So anyway, there's there's that.
	But the the charity group over here, I was the charity navigator, has also been analyzing the work of the of the Clinton Foundation and giving them a very, very poor grade.
	So the story here in New York magazine is how the foundation is working behind the scenes to try to change the uh uh the charity uh groups here assessment of of what they're doing.
	So clearly it's not all transparent or above the board, and a lot of effort is being made to scrub uh some of the news about the Clinton Family Foundation that's not uplifting and inspiring and all the rest of that.
	Now I'm gonna take a brief time out.
	We're gonna come back here and I'm I'm I'm gonna get to this Michelle Obama stuff.
	You know, I've I've I told you it depresses me.
	It really does.
	I uh it depresses me on a whole bunch of levels, but I gotta do it.
	And Marilyn Mosby.
	No justice, no peace.
	Marilyn Mosby was on stage as a featured guest of rock and roll superkruner, the artist formerly known and again known as Prince.
	Prince went in there and had a concert for Freddie Gray in Baltimore over the weekend and actually put a couch up on the stage, and Marilyn Mosby and her husband Nick were special guests that are watching the concert from the stage on the couch.
	And people said, wait, just a minute, conflict of interest.
	And of course, the the Mosby crew.
	What do you mean conflict of interest?
	Went to a concert.
	Well, yeah, because the guy, the concert obviously is against the cops, Prince.
	He's got a politically oriented concert going on, and you're a featured guest sitting up there on stage watching.
	Yeah, it's a conflict.
	And it is.
	Except that we have to re we don't know how corrupt the judicial system that's going to be involved in this is either.
	I know it's a tragic thing to say, even think that, but we don't.
	I mean, I'm all all I can tell you is that things that used to be automatic in terms of uh disqualifying a person or uh conflict of interest or relegating uh damage to someone's reputation, those things are out the window now.
	It it's not the way it used to be.
	So it may be perfectly harmless that she sits up there and expresses her bias and prejudice as a prosecutor.
	Nobody may care anymore.
	But in um not so long ago days, uh that's something a prosecutor wouldn't dare be seen doing for fear of doing damage to his case.
	Yeah, the guy, the guy at Pundit Fact is a guy named Jacobson.
	And Sean Davis at the Federalist said cle that that Jacobson of Pundit Fact clearly admitted to me via email that my research findings were technically true.
	Meaning the guy at the fact-check organization on the Clinton Foundation admitted that what the Federalists found, that only 15% of the Clinton Foundation money went to charity was true.
	The pundit fact guy would not admit it publicly, because he kept attributing it to me.
	Privately to Sean Davis.
	Yeah, yeah, technically you're right.
	You got me.
	But publicly, this Jacobson guy was out there defaming me and associating me with what was Federalist.com research, and at Landy Davis is now continuing it here on uh on C-SPAN today.
	Chris in Waco, Texas, hello, sir.
	Glad you called.
	Great to have you on the EIB network.
	Hello.
	Hi, thanks for having me.
	Um, I just wanted to make a quick comment and ask a question about the situation in Baltimore and police brutality in general.
	Um, I feel like it's really important how to to emphasize how these race and police brutality issues have been polarized.
	So on the left, there are these crazies that automatically assume and assert the individual killed would be as the same time we have a similar narrative on the right, and I would argue very much on your program where it's automatically assumed that police officer has said, all before the investigation could take place.
	Would it not be better to wait until an investigation happened before playing by the I have to apologize?
	Are you on a speakerphone?
	Sorry, can you hear me now?
	Yeah, I I did not understand a single word you said.
	Because you sound like you were in a barrel.
	Okay, I'm sorry, here.
	Um can you hear me better now?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	But I've only got 30 seconds now.
	Okay.
	So it's probably not.
	Let me let me let me I sh I should have stopped you sooner.
	I was trying to follow what you were saying on the transcription, I couldn't.
	Um, but it was I should have, it's my fault I should have stopped you.
	I should have told you to get off the speaker phone because I can't I have trouble enough hearing phone calls as it is with uh speaker phone.
	So if you hang on, I'll give you another shot at your point, okay?
	Fantastic.
	Okay, do not hang up, do not go.
	What other host would do this?
	Okay, trying it one more time back to Waco, Texas with Chris.
	Hopefully, not on your speakerphone this time.
	Thanks for having me.
	Um I just wanted to make a quick comment and ask a question about the situation in Baltimore and I guess police brutality in general.
	So I feel like it's really important to emphasize how race and police brutality have been polarized in the media.
	So on the left, we have these crazies that automatically assume that the individual killed was innocent, but at the same time we have a similar narrative on the right, and I would even argue very much on your program where it's automatically assumed that the police officer in question is innocent, all before investigations take place.
	Would it not be better to wait until that happens before drawing conclusions?
	Can you find for me an example of my presuming the cops are innocent before I know the details?
	Well, I would say I would say the Michael Brown case.
	Obviously, Michael Brown wasn't a good poster boy.
	Well, what did I say?
	What did I say?
	Um I I believe you as when the news broke of uh Michael Brown's death that you supported Darren Wilson immediately, and that was before any forensic evidence had been examined.
	And I mean, it's not just you, it's it's everybody in the media on the left and right that are automatically making assumptions, it seems.
	Well, I, for one, in the specific case of the gentle giant, let me tell you where I come down on this stuff.
	I do not believe the media.
	My faith, investment, what is not with the cops, my expertise, and my intelligence guide me to doubt what I hear from the media, which is leftist, which is biased, and is nothing more than, particularly in a case like the Gentle Giant or Baltimore, is simply the Democrat Party agenda.
	I know it when I see it, and that is what I automatically reject.
	My natural predisposition is to not believe the media.
	I also do not believe Al Sharpton, and I do not initially believe the uh Reverend Jackson.
	I know that there are examples of both.
	There are bad cops, and there are black criminals.
	There are also innocent cops and innocent black individuals who encounter the cops.
	Left and right.
	Same situation happened in New York with Eric Garner.
	It turns out almost every time, Chris Old Buddy Hopel, that the initial reports coupled with cable news guest analysis is always wrong in these police shooting details.
	How about the two cops that were shot in Mississippi?
	I haven't even talked about that, Chris.
	This is the first I have even mentioned that.
	The two cops shot in Mississippi.
	The media isn't talking about it either.
	You know why?
	Because the shooters are black.
	It does not advance the Democrat Party agenda.
	You got two dead cops in Mississippi, one of them's black.
	We have no sympathy for them.
	We have no drive-by news media stories on out of control people in the community.
	But you can't cite specifics of what you said at all.
	You come up with a narrative that makes you feel good because you're placing yourself above everybody else's knee-jerk reactionary where you are Mr. Reasonable.
	There's bias on both sides, you say.
	The blacks assume the cops are always guilty, and the right wing, notice you never said left wing.
	The cops are always innocent, according to people on the right wing.
	Experience guided by intelligence has shown recent examples.
	Take your pick.
	What we were told about St. Louis, a hundred and eighty degrees out of phase wrong.
	What we were told about Eric Garner on the streets of New York City, a hundred and eighty degrees wrong.
	We still don't know about Baltimore.
	But we can make some pretty educated guesses using, once again, intelligence guided by experience and digesting what we've seen so far.
	And we know full well what's going on in Baltimore.
	But nobody has proclaimed innocent, just like I haven't told anybody what I think is going to happen to Tom Brady, because I don't know.
	And I'm not going to act like I do.
	I haven't the foggiest idea what the league is going to do to Brady.
	And I won't be surprised no matter what happens.
	Because I can see no suspension or six to eight games.
	And I can see the logic in doing both.
	But when it comes to the gentle giant, and when it comes to hands up, don't shoot, real damage was done to this country in our culture and continues to be because of lie after lie after lie.
	And that happens to be closer to the truth of what happens in every one of these instances than the opposite.
	So you put it all in the hopper and you wait, but everybody has a as a as a bit of prejudice in these things.
	By that I mean nobody's totally objective, because everybody has an interest in the outcome.
	Everybody wants it to be a certain way.
	But just because you don't get your way doesn't mean you lie about it, except they do.
	Chris, they do.
	I never once called the gentle giant a criminal on this program before I saw the video of him holding up the store.
	In fact, that was a huge day on this program.
	Because up till then I was frustrated because I didn't really know what had happened, because I don't believe the media in stories like this.
	I automatically reject it.
	But it doesn't mean I know what did happen.
	I know the guests the media is going to get are also lying to me, whether intentionally or accidentally because of their own prejudice.
	I know the media is doing most of the damage in these stories.
	The media is making them 30,000 times bigger than they are.
	And lying about there is not an innocent young black man shot routinely and regularly in this country.
	You wouldn't know it watching the media today.
	Happens every day as far as they're concerned.
	I have no interest in lying about things because it doesn't do anything for me.
	This program is not advanced.
	I don't get anything out of lying.
	In fact, it's quite the opposite.
	It'd be quite harmful to me and this program and everything Else associated with it if that's what we did here, but we don't.
	There's no purpose.
	There's nothing good that comes of it.
	There's no reason for it.
	And it's blanket assessments like yours that do not help because you're lumping everybody into one of two camps, and both camps, you are assigning prejudice and bias, impatience, and a cavalier status toward facts.
	And most people are not that way.
	Story like St. Louis happens.
	Most people will have a theory of what happened based on a number of factors, their own experience, their own thoughts in the media, what have you.
	But most people wait to find out what really happened before nailing themselves to any particular point of view on it.
	The left doesn't.
	The left creates what they want the outcome to be, whether it's true or not.
	Hands up, don't shoot, is still being taught in classrooms is what happened in Ferguson.
	That's why so many misinformed African Americans still think that he was gunned down in cold blood when he wasn't.
	And what's bad about that is a genuine, trustworthy institution, the grand jury has been rendered corrupt in people's minds when it isn't.
	And every other institution in this country is being chipped away at, inch by inch, little by little, by the American left, because all these institutions are standing in the way of their agenda.
	That's what I know.
	That's what I'm suspicious of.
	I know liberals lie.
	I know they're boiling with rage as a natural state of mind each and every day.
	I know that events like this are opportunities to them.
	They're not really that upset by them.
	They're opportunities.
	Ram Emanuel.
	Can't let a crisis go to waste.
	They don't care about the gentle giant.
	They want you to think they do.
	Anyway, I take a brief time out once again, and you know, I might have time to get to this Michelle Obama stuff.
	I don't know.
	Okay, so let's review very quickly, shall we?
	We've got Hattiesburg, Mississippi, a couple of officers shot by uh young African Americans, and nothing.
	No big deal in the media, no Department of Justice investigation, no concern for the cop, no news doesn't fit the agenda.
	Doesn't fit the agenda of cops shooting innocent minorities.
	What we were told about the Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman story, totally wrong.
	What we were told about the Virginia rape case, Rolling Stone magazine, amplified in other media.
	Not only Ted wrong, it never happened.
	It was totally made up.
	Just like the Duke LaCrosse story was totally made up.
	There's the media believing every word, the faculty at Duke signing on, saying the lacrosse team need to be punished and banished from the university.
	Everything we're told about these stories originally is wrong.
	Everything we heard about the gentle giant and Darren Wilson, the situation of Ferguson was wrong.
	The left gets ahead of the story in order to perpetuate their lies.
	They have willing accomplices in the media that facilitate.
	And end up making their lies look like proof.
	Or as Lanny Davis says, pff.
	Then the facts come out and it's too late.
	The misinformed, the ill-informed are no longer paying attention.
	Which is how a majority of African Americans still think the gentle giant was running away with his hands up saying, don't shoot, don't shoot, when in fact he was trying to force his way into the cop car and get the cops gun.
	And furthermore, we learned just today why the Democrat Party even cares about the gentle giant or Trayvon Martin, and that is they've lost another vote.
	And if you're saying, what?
	What are you talking about?
	If you miss the first hour of the program, there is a story in the Washington Post today that rings hands over the unequal death rate in America.
	Black versus white.
	It's not just income inequality anymore, it's death inequality.
	And there's a far greater percentage of African Americans dying than there are whites dying.
	The real reason is not even alluded to.
	Abortion.
	37% of the 1.3 million abortions every year in America are of African Americans.
	And the Washington Post story even alludes to and flat out references why the concern.
	They ask, how many elections have the Democrats lost?
	Because their voters have died in unequal percentages.
	I kid you not.
	First hour of the program, Washington Post.
	So to the extent that the media and the Democrat Party cares about the gentle giant, apparently all that matters is he's a lost vote.
	Damn it.
	And the same with Trayvon Martin.
	That is why the Democrat Party has an official policy of trying to let felons once again vote.
	And letting people out of jail.
	And opening the borders to open-ended immigration.
	Because their own voters are aborting and dying in unequal numbers.
	None of this is anything I came up with.
	I'm just the conduit.
	It's all there in the Washington Post.
	And of course, we're told it's the Democrat Party that's all the compassion.
	Yes, Democrat Party with the big hearts.
	Yes.
	Democrat Party cares about votes, and that's it.
	Well, it's understandable a political party's interested in votes, but for crying out loud, front page of the Washington Post to give up something like this?
	Unequal death rates?
	And of course, goes without saying, the inequality, the inequity in death rates is a direct result of the fact that this country is so horribly institutionally racist.

▲