All Episodes
Previous Next
May 19, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:43
May 19, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings, my friends.
Great to have you here once again, center of the radio and broadcast universe, the Excellence and Broadcasting Network, and your host, your guiding light, Rush Limboy, here behind the Golden EIB microphone.
The telephone numbers 800 282-2882, the email address, L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
Let me just tell you this Hillary Clinton email stuff.
I'm just going to tell you right now, it is so complicated, don't ever, ever think the low information voter is going to even care.
Much less try to figure this out.
I myself, Il Rushbow, blessed with an amazing mind, able to wave through all of the BS and get to the stuff that matters, the stuff between the line, not even I, ladies and gentlemen, can quickly decipher all of this.
It takes study even for someone like me to figure this all out, and then to try to take that and convert it into something understandable.
I mean, I can do it, and I will do it, but I'm just telling you, anybody who doesn't hear me explain this to you is not going to have the slightest idea, and it's going to be so convoluted and confusing, they're not even going to try to figure it out.
And it's all going to come down to whether or not Mrs. Clinton is likable or not.
That is what is saving Obama.
I get two examples here of something I have been talking about since I first encountered it.
And I don't remember exactly when I first encountered it.
It was in the past couple of years, maybe three as rapidly as time goes by.
It was the first poll that I saw of millennials, in which they were fully aware that the economy is in a tank.
And they're fully aware of the obstacles in their way to having what they consider to be a life, economic life that was an improvement over their parents, which is one of these things that's always been understood about America.
That the American dream includes the likelihood, the possibility that every generation will do better than the previous.
And this poll showed the millennials think they're going to be the first generation where that isn't true.
And to cut to the chase of it, it turns out that they had not lost faith in current leadership in Washington.
They did not associate current Washington policy with the funk they were in about the economy.
They instead had just concluded that America had finally peaked before they were born, and they were on the downside of an of a new normal in the United States.
The idea that the economy, the funk that they were in, the cloudy future, the idea that had anything to do with current leadership, the president, his policies, totally escaped him.
And the way the poll was written, the way it manifested itself, the millennials had simply lost faith in the country.
They've not lost faith in Obama.
They viewed Obama as trying hard for them.
But it was even bigger than Obama could fix.
It was so big, it was so massive, and it was all due to stuff that happened before Obama that they don't tie any of this to Obama.
And now I've got two stories where this is made abundantly clear.
Again, the first, the hill.com has a new Gallup poll that they publish.
Get this.
American satisfaction with the direction of the country continues to slip, falling six percentage points from early this year, according to a new Gallup poll.
Twenty-six percent of Americans are satisfied with the direction of the country.
Twenty-six percent.
That alone is bad enough.
But, by the same token, should that not be a golden opportunity for the Republicans?
friends.
I mean, when you get right down to it, when people, the millennials or anybody else, in the midst of a dour economy, dour prospects, when they blame the country, and they don't blame the current leadership.
Could that not be said to be partially the fault of the Republicans?
Because they have not, for whatever reasons, fear, you name it, they have not tied all of this to Obama and his policies.
They have been afraid to criticize Obama for all the reasons that we've mentioned.
And so in the normal ebb and flow of politics, while the Republicans are running around thinking they're hated and despised, it shuts them up.
And they have not served as a uh a marker, if you will, for pushback.
They have not contrasted what they believe with what Obama has done.
And the media isn't going to do it.
The media is going to continue to blame Bush, Republicans, and whatever else they can get away with for this.
They're going to shield Obama as long as they can.
It's been up to the Republicans to call Obama out, and they just simply haven't done it.
You know it as well as I do, and we all know the reasons.
But this is what happens when you sit idly by, and your opponents do great damage to the economy and other American institutions, and you don't say anything.
Why should the millennials blame Obama?
Nobody else is.
Except us.
But people they would vote for, Republicans, potential alternatives to Democrats, they're not.
Hearing it from them.
So you have a situation here where 26% of Americans are satisfied with the direction of the country.
This is the same as it was in 2014.
It went up a little bit between 2014 and the last poll, but this poll, we've lost whatever little ground we we made in the last poll.
We're now back to where we were last year.
Twenty-six percent are satisfied.
You could look at that the other way, and you could say that basically 70% are unsatisfied.
70% are dissatisfied.
But you won't find any association of Barack Obama to this in the poll.
His approval numbers, 45% approval, 49.8% disapprove.
Direction of the country, right direction, 29%, wrong track, 62%.
They simply don't blame.
And this is not just millennials now.
This is the American people at large.
And this is not new.
Every time a poll like this comes out, which shows right track, wrong track, wrong direction, right direction, the number of people who think this country is in bad shape is always over 60%.
The number of people who blame Obama for it, you can't find him in a thimble.
They just, they're blaming the country.
The country itself is the proper country.
Something's gone wrong in the country, but they do not associate.
It's the most amazing, it's the first time in my lifetime where a sitting president for six and a half years has been exempt from attachment to anything economic in the country.
But it's not just there.
This AP story I hold here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
Get this headline.
Headline's all you need to hear here.
Fall of Ramadi raises doubts about U.S. strategy.
U.S. strategy?
How about Obama strategy?
How about Obama's the guy that gave us ISIS?
No, they're trying to say that George W. Bush did.
So we can't say Obama did.
Well, we can, but the media is out claiming it Bush did it.
Little 19-year-old girls are showing up and accusing Jeb Bush's brother did it.
The media siding with the 19-year-old girl, college student, Nevada.
Fall of Ramadi raises doubts about U.S. This has got to be gold mine for Obama.
Here he is with this ever expanding chip on his shoulder, destined and determined to transform this country into something it has never been, and while he's doing it, he's not getting any blame, or depending on how you would look at it, credit.
People in the country just for whatever reason think the country just isn't working anymore.
But how in the world people do not attach all of that to the policies of Barack Obama is beyond me.
You have Obamacare, the stimulus, the tax increases.
Is it our woeful economics education?
Is it the media?
Yeah, it's always going to be the media.
Is it the lack of pushback from the Republicans in not only defining Obama but defining themselves?
Yeah, I think that's a factor, too.
Americans are upset.
Americans are sad.
Americans are frustrated by the direction of the country, but they can't figure out who to blame.
And then you throw Hillary into this mess with this email stuff.
Look, as I say, I'm gonna wade through this intricately woven web of lies and deceit.
But I'll just give you an example here.
This is from the Washington Free Beacon that broke the Stephanopoulos story.
Oh, there's more on that.
Do you realize ABC just paid him?
105 million on a re-up.
Before all this broke, Stepanopoulos' his contract was due to expire soon.
I mean 50 million over five years or six, whatever it was.
They bumped him up to 105 million dollars, seven years through 2021, which would be what?
That would be through Hillary's re-election.
That's that's how long his his deal is.
They have committed guaranteed 105 million dollars to Stephanopoulos.
Not in the lump, he's got to earn it every year, but they've guaranteed it.
And no, no, no.
You know what they now ABC can't afford to let him go.
They've got to find so it's too big to fail type thinking.
We just we just invested at five million, we can't let him go.
Oh my God, we can't, oh geez.
No, no, no.
So they're finding they're finding a, I guarantee they're gonna look for a way to keep him on board and keep him front and center.
And there's stories all over the drive-by's today from uh former media pieces.
Yeah, this is 15 years ago and have been can't 25 years ago to have been canned, and they give examples of people that have been fired from major network news jobs for much less than what Stefanopoulos.
But it's a new era, man.
The news is not news anymore.
It's like asking a Democrat National Committee to fire Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz.
It just isn't gonna happen.
The only way she's going to be gotten rid of is if she steps in it one too many times in a scandal they don't care to extricate her from.
But they want Stephanopoulos.
They want him working the campaign.
They want him there.
ABC does, the Democrat National Committee do, and it's a whole, it's the same bunch of people.
All Democrats just assigned to different office buildings.
So you mark my words, they'll find a way.
But look at this.
From the Washington Free Beacon, the headline, unions pour millions into Clinton Foundation.
Big labor funneled millions of dollars in dues money to the Clinton Foundation, according to a new report.
Folks, this confirms my money laundering theory that I have been expressing to you for months now.
The National Institute for Labor Relations Research, a union watchdog group, traced at least $2 million in donations from multiple union organizations and affiliates.
U.S. Department of Labor's Union Financial Disclosure Reports reveal that big labor gave at least 2 million 34,500 large in union general treasury funds to the Clinton Foundations.
Union treasuries are funded mostly by compulsory dues or fees collected from workers who would be fired for refusing to pay.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Clintons even take their money.
As Mrs. Clinton became closer to her current run for president, donations amounts appear to have increased, says this report.
To be clear, these are these are there are no donations to her campaigns.
The whole point here is these are donations To the Crime Family Foundation, which is going to be in turn used for the campaign.
There's another story.
Hillary Clinton was paid millions by the tech industry for speeches.
Get this number, folks.
Out of the 11.7 million dollars that Hillary Clinton has made delivering 51 speeches since January 2014.
3.2 million came from the technology industry.
Several of the companies that paid Clinton to address their employees also have senior leaders who have been early and avid supporters of her presidential bid.
In one of her last gigs on the paid lecture circuit, Hillary Clinton addressed an eBay summit aimed at promoting women in the workplace, delivering a 20-minute talk that garnered $315,000 in fees.
Folks, these people are not paying Hillary Clinton $315,000 to give a speech.
This is campaign donations disguised as speech income, which means that it's out of the purview of the Federal Election Commission, and if some of the money goes to the Foundation, it's said to be going to charity like fighting AIDS and malaria, like Stephanopolis claimed he was fighting.
11.7 million fifty-one speeches in the last 18 months.
For a woman who puts you to sleep when she speaks, she doesn't say anything, and she says nothing in the biggest monotone and occasional cackling laugh that it the last person would describe as infectious or charismatic.
And yet they're forking over 315, 350,000 for a speech.
That's not.
They're all making campaign donations.
This money's going to her back pocket.
The speech income, we detailed that.
Much of the speech income doesn't even go to the Crime Family Foundation.
It goes right to their back pockets.
So we got campaign donations actually going to their back pocket.
This is what that means if you start tracing this.
And we haven't gotten to the emails.
We haven't even gotten that web of the seat we have to unwind and untangle and unravel.
They go right to the pantsuits' pockets here.
These speech fees and so forth.
I got to take a break here and regroup, uh, not regroup.
I haven't lost my place yet.
That'll happen probably, but it hasn't happened yet.
So I checked the email during the break, and Rush sending the New York Times may not be uh really that uh that that supportive of Hillary.
I mean, these stories today.
Yeah, yeah, look, I saw these stories.
The New York Times did run two articles about the latest revelations from Hillary's emails, but the articles are so confusing, it's almost impossible to make heads or tails out of them.
Don't doubt me on this.
Even if these two articles New York Times showed up at Yahoo News, if if Harvey Levin decided to do them at TMZ, nobody would be able to stay with this longer than 20 seconds.
It's it's that convoluted and confusing.
In fact, the New York Times even managed to overlook the most newsworthy information in these emails, and that's the fact that Hillary had a second private email account while she was Secretary of State, despite having sworn up and down she only had one.
The GOP had to find that out and make news of it.
The New York Times just let that skate right on by.
There's been a bunch of document dumps lately.
We now know, thanks to Judicial Watch and Freedom of Information Act requests, we also know the value of stonewalling.
We now know everything that there practically is to know about Benghazi.
We know enough to know that this country was lied to from beginning to end by Obama and Hillary.
But now so much time has gone by that people have lost their emotional reservoir for that.
I mean, Benghazi, who cares?
Come on, Mr. Limbaugh, let's move on.
But the fact is they knew about the Benghazi attack 10 days before it was to happen.
They knew who did it.
They knew there was no video that was to blame for this.
They knew it wasn't, as Hillary said, just a bunch of guys walking around town one night and saw a protest going on and decided to join it.
It wasn't that.
It was an orchestrated attack.
The White House and everybody involved knew exactly who was lining up to do it or shortly afterwards knew.
But it was not the result of a video.
We were lied to through their teeth over and over again for months.
And this documentation that the judicial watch people finally got their hands on through, and they had to go to court to enforce the Freedom of Information Act request that they had made is now being produced so long after the fact.
I mean, two years, that you could understand if people yawn when they're told the truth about it.
But we plug away here, folks.
We keep going.
All right, here is the Benghazi news.
As clearly and coherently as I can impart it to you, with the assistance of Catherine Herrid, Fox News, and of course, all of this uncovered by Judicial Watch.
Now, according to a 2012 report from the Defense Intelligence Agency, as opposed to the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA and the Department of Defense has its own intel agency, and that is called a DIA.
And a 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency report released to Judicial Watch says the attack in Benghazi was planned ten or more days prior to approximately September 1st, 2012.
The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for the killing of an al-Qaeda operative in Pakistan and in memorial of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World's Race.
It was to celebrate, commemorate 9-11.
It was another attack planned on the anniversary of September 11th, and a 2012 DIA report admits, acknowledges that Benghazi attack was planned 10 or more days prior to September 1st.
That makes it 20 days.
That we know that the attack was planned 20 days before it happened.
The DIA report also states that a little known group, brigades of the captive Omar Abdul Rahman claimed responsibility.
That's the blind sheikh.
And there were a there were there were people that were alluding to the to the group.
Remember back in the aftermath of Benghazi, and I can't remember who specifically, but I read where some people thought that it was a group of people loyal to the blind sheikh.
Omar Abdel Rachman.
He is routinely, his release is routinely demanded by uh various Al-Qaeda groups when they take Americans or uh American allies hostage.
And of course, we have not released Omar Abdel Rahba, although I am told that Obama is considering it or has considered it in the past in exchange, so he could have another Bergdaw Garden moment.
But it hasn't happened yet.
Now the DIA report indicates that within 24 hours of the Benghazi attack, there were strong indications, strong indicators that the attack was planned at least a week in advance and was retaliation for a June 2012 drone strike that killed an al-Qaeda strategist.
It had nothing to do with that video.
Obama's defense department intelligence agency knew that 24 hours after the Benghazi attack, there were indicators the attack was planned at least a week in advance and was retaliation for a drone strike in 2012.
This idea that it was in retaliation and but it was a spontaneous uprising in both Cairo and Benghazi.
The reaction to this video, I mean, that was insult to our intelligence the first time they said it.
They continued to insult.
And I'll tell you what, I'm tired of having my insult my intelligence insulted.
I'm fed up with it.
You wouldn't believe a number of people to try it.
I'm just fed up with it.
There's no more, there's no more condescending thing anybody can do.
And that's what these people, they've looked us in the eye.
They have lied to us, Mrs. Clinton, and to the families of the dead in Benghazi.
They lied to them right there, standing next to their coffin bodies and coffins, draped with the American flag, lying to their teeth right.
We're gonna get that guy who did the video, Mrs. Clinton said.
You can count on the fact we're gonna get the guy that's responsible for this, the guy that did the video.
And we find out that it was all done in retaliation is something Obama did, a drone strike, and he brags about being the killer-in-chief.
He's got the list, he determines who gets killed by American drones.
All of this stuff that is happening is the direct result of Barack Obama policy, and virtually all of it never attaches to it.
I understand the media and their role in it, but still, at some point you have to rely on a common sense of the American people.
I mean, the American people cannot simply be reduced to a bunch of sheep and only be expected to know what the media tells them.
That's to me unacceptable.
And I understand the desire to have the media straight now, and I understand the desire to call the media out and expose them.
But at the same time, if we're gonna have a functioning country, we cannot have a country of sheep that only learn things by virtue of what the media say.
There has to be some critical thought.
There has to be some independent intelligence, and there is in certain pockets.
The way the American education system is trending, critical thoughts not being taught.
How many stories have I seen recently?
Oh, oh gosh, did I save this?
Is it in the stack?
I'll have to go back and find it.
Except I can't go back and find it because I've lost all my email from this year.
No, well, I didn't lose it, but it's gone.
Uh lack of maintenance on the server, and it's just don't get me started on that.
Now I don't know where I'm going to go get this.
It was somebody describing the current state of students in higher education.
Um, and it was really right on the money.
It was not sheep.
Uh oh, I can't, I can't remember what it was.
I'll find it.
I'll do if I have to keyword search this myself and find the original story in the archives of the internet, I will.
But it's it really made the point that that uh universities used to be the place you go to open your mind.
It used to be the place to have your mind open.
It used to be the place that you were subjected to all kinds of different ideas, and that's what its purpose was.
And now it's not that every idea except doctrinaire liberalism has been shut out.
And students are just sponges.
And all they're doing is just ex it.
They're being exposed to what's being force-fed them.
And no critical thought, critical thinking is being taught whatsoever.
So it's dire consequences that we find ourselves in.
Because really, folks, if if if we're gonna say that the Now I understand this, I I I wish the media were different than it is.
But for example, I don't believe everything they say.
I I have to guardedly daily avoid being swept up in the daily soap opera, the narrative of the day.
It is seductive.
But the American people themselves are gonna have to be able to see through all of this stuff at some point, rather than just the solution to this cannot be the media telling the truth, because that isn't gonna happen.
So there has to be, there have to be other ways of informing the American people, having them see what's going on.
I have Stephen Hayes here at the Weekly Standard, and his effort to Put together all of these differing stories on Hillary's email.
And he calls his piece the worst day of Hillary Clinton's campaign so far.
Well, let me ask a question.
Let's acknowledge that yesterday was the worst day of Hillary's campaign so far.
So what does that mean?
She's still the presumptive Democrat nominee.
She's still got a D by her name.
That's going to equal a certain number of electoral votes, no matter what, owing only to party loyalty, and make no mistake, that's how big time election and political professionals look at elections.
You and I would love to believe that candidates go out and get votes based on issues.
Used to be that way.
But now the consultants have gotten hold of everything and they get hold of their candidates and they say California's lost, forget that.
But Arizona could still be if you have the right message for Hispanics.
And so a message that could be a unified message about America in general and at large gets watered down, tailored group here, group there, demographic group over there, geographic group over there.
You end up with a mixed message that is impossible to understand and decipher.
And it's all based on the electoral map.
The consultants look at the electoral map and assume that many states are just out of reach, they're off the board, such as California, New York, no matter who the Democrats run, they're going to win those states.
That's the feeling.
No matter who they run, they're going to win those votes.
No matter what.
As long as the Democrat has a D by their name, it doesn't matter what they do.
It doesn't matter how stupid they are, it doesn't matter what their policies are, they're going to win those states.
That's the active thinking today.
Imagine if Ronald Reagan had bought into that.
Ronald Reagan won 49 states.
Two landslide elections, 1980 and 1984.
Proving that all of this that has become standard operating procedure today actually misses the point.
I've always thought issues is the way to campaign.
I've always thought it is possible.
If it were not possible to change people's minds, how were there ever such a group called a Reagan Democrats?
But right now we just we write off the Republicans write off, I don't know how many states that equal at least 200 electoral votes, they just write them off because of the map.
Because of population, and because of the belief, it doesn't matter.
As long as there's a D but the candidate's name, the candidate's going to win those states.
And New York and California are the best examples.
What they're saying is Hillary Clinton could commit crimes in open and it wouldn't matter because she's got a D by her name and she's going to win those states nevertheless.
That's what their belief is.
And if you believe that, what can your campaign possibly?
It has to be narrow.
It has to be tailored and targeted.
And it has to be a message that is not unified for everybody in the country.
I don't know.
There's something about just conceding states.
I know at some point you have to know your limitations.
I understand all this.
Understand the odds of a Republican winning New York or California are little, but but there's more going on than just the national election.
They're down ballot elections.
I mean, it doesn't have to stay.
California doesn't have to stay in Democrat control in perpetuity.
Republicans could run people for office, state and local level, and get some votes away from the Democrats and weaken their hold, could do that.
It ought to be done, but I don't know if it is being done with the attitude that we just concede this state, concede that state because it's just the Democrats own it.
Again, they're the professionals, and I'm not.
I'm just sharing with you my reaction to the way this all goes down.
Because when I see a headline, the worst day of Hillary Clinton's campaign so far.
So what?
What does that mean?
Has her campaign been hurt by what happened yesterday?
What is the worst day of Hillary's campaign?
Is she embarrassed?
Is she humiliated?
Does she feel she's got to go out and make a public speech to change whatever perceptions people have about her campaign?
No, I don't think I don't think she's bothered by any of this.
Worst campaign.
And by the worst campaign so far day, when you're still a year and a half away from the election, what does it matter anyway?
But despite that, we'll go through this in an effort to try to splain to you this entire email mess that she has.
Yeah, I know.
My friend Alan Bloom.
Remember him, sturdily?
He wrote the closing of the American mind about 30 years ago.
He's a chain smoker, a good buddy of mine.
He was uh I remember he was on firing line with uh with William Buckley, just puffing away.
I mean, lighting one cigarette after another, speaking in intellectual ease about the closing of the American mind on the American campus in academia.
And he was right on the money, and he got skewered, of course, but he was dead right on the money.
Twenty-eight years ago, actually 19 um 1987.
Let me let me get some phone calls in here before we uh wade into this Hillary Clinton mess and the supposed worst, and this is not a criticism of Stephen Hayes.
Don't anybody send him an email.
Because if I get a reaction, I won't see it because my email shot.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
What do you mean promise mad men?
The women of Mad Men.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I'm gonna do that.
I I remember I promised that.
I've got it here.
I've got it right there on the top of the uh stack number four today.
Snerdley is reminding me that I committed and promised.
There are two stories.
One of them is um a story New York City, women on the street really, after watching Mad Men all these years, wish we were living in those times.
They wish they were living in those times.
They find men, as portrayed on the TV show Mad Men far more interesting and dynamic and manly than they find the wusses of the men of today.
And then there's a companion story that's uh goes with it from some some writer female that uh moved from the village.
Her first name is Wednesday.
Don't know her last name, it's there.
I'll find it.
She um she moved from the village to the Upper East Side of Manhattan, and she could not believe what she found there.
In terms of the wives and their lifestyles, and their marriages, and their kids, and how all that it was like it was like living in a foreign country.
She was shocked.
She she didn't think there were women that lived like that anymore.
Actually took their well, I'll just wait till I get to the story.
I'm not gonna tease you with it.
I want to get to the phones now.
We're gonna start Stillwater, Oklahoma with Tom.
Thank you for calling, sir.
Great to have you here on the most listened to radio program in the country.
Hello.
Honored to be first.
Thank you, sir.
With the uh Benghazi story, there's there are obviously a ton of things that bother me about it.
But the thing that disgusts me about it is what you said just a few minutes ago, that knowing that our president and Hillary Clinton stood next to the to the dead bodies of the heroes that went to hell and looked the family members dead square in the eye, knowing it was a lie, and said, we're gonna get that guy.
I mean, it reminds me of something that you would see on the blacklist.
The TV show, The Black List?
Yeah, yes, sir.
I mean, the the amount of evil and the amount of disregard for just fellow human beings to look the loved ones as far as welcome to liberalism.
This has been one of my hit a hot button here, and I'm having to rein it in.
This idea that liberals own compassion and love and care about it's a crock.
Look at what happens to the vast majority of people that vote for and support liberals.
Look at what happens to their wives.
Look what happens to their job prospects.
Look what happens to them.
They're miserable, they're angry, they're certainly never optimistic.
But look, I agree with you.
They knew full well that it was not a video, a renegade video on YouTube that had caused the Benghazi attack, which caused the death of four Americans.
And there they are at Andover with the coffins, the flag draped coffins of the dead from Benghazi and their families all there, and Obama and Hillary look them in the eyes and say, we're gonna get that video.
We're gonna get that guy did the video.
You can rest assured, right?
Just everything is politics, folks.
Everything's advancing the agenda.
People are incidental to them.
In depth, the worst day of Hillary Clinton's campaign so far, when we get back here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
▲
Export Selection