Rush Limbaugh Program - June 10, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 10, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:05

June 10, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Indeed, Buck Sexton here, Infor Rush today.
	Thank you for staying with me.
	Thank you for joining.
	800 28282 is the number.
	Sir.
	Yes, no, I'm being asked if I can talk about the agency.
	No, first rule of the agency is never talk about the agency.
	No, no.
	We c we can't do that.
	But I want to talk about immigration.
	So immigration would be fun.
	Let's talk about immigration, shall we?
	Um, I've never worked for Cussons in immigration, so they can't get mad at me.
	Let's talk about this for a second.
	The latest here.
	Um, you may have heard that Disney uh had this little problem, or it's been perhaps a bit of a PR issue for them, where they've brought in a number of foreign workers uh in order to replace their American counterparts via the H one B program.
	Now there are some who say, and this is part of the problem of the immigration debate is that it's always disconnected from what the law actually says, the enforcement of what the law says, what the intent of the law may be.
	There's some who say, well, this is good, this is creative destruction, this is we're getting the best from around the world.
	But that doesn't take into account, first of all, what the H one B program is promised to be, and there's what is it, roughly 50,000 of these H one B visas a year are given out.
	So people will also say, oh, well, this is just a minor part of the overall immigration issue, which by the numbers is true, but let's understand two things.
	One, this is what's constantly referred to, particularly by big businesses and big tech companies, as their sort of model case for immigration, right?
	We can get the the best from around the world.
	We'll bring them in.
	And we need that to be a dynamic economy, and we're going to have all these entrepreneurs from foreign countries all over the world who come here to start businesses.
	So it's always supposed to be the next Elon Musk is just one plane ride away is the idea.
	This is what they're constantly telling us.
	Meanwhile, what we see is that actually that's really not what happens.
	It's not what happens at many companies.
	Disney is just one of them.
	Uh what happens is that they are using this essentially as a just a tool for outsourcing, but on U.S. soil.
	The idea being that you can bring in someone from elsewhere on the planet, uh, elsewhere in the world in order to pay them less than you would pay an American to do that job.
	And for this to be happening at Disney specifically, I think shows you the the level at which this has gone, how pervasive this is.
	And if you're thinking about a storied American company, I think Disney has to be top of the list.
	Has to be in the top ten, maybe even in the top five.
	And yet Americans in good standing in their jobs, many of whom, and this was actually according to a piece again in the New York Times, uh, many of whom had just received excellent excellent reviews for their performance, uh, they were not just replaced, but were forced to train their replacements under the H one B uh with with people with H one B visas under the H one B visa system.
	And keep in mind that there is supposed to be a need for or there's supposed to be at least a clause in the H one B system that says that this is only for workers that they cannot otherwise find.
	It's not supposed to be for temporary, cheaper workers to replace American workers.
	That's exactly how it's being used in many cases.
	That's what's happening here.
	And so if you can't trust them to be honest with you about the way the H one B system is working, because the way people talk about this, like I said, it's always, you know, the the cure for cancer is just one H one B visa and a plane ride away.
	Someone's going to come here and the And that could be true.
	But what's more often true, or what's more often the case, is that big companies see this as a way of cutting personnel costs right off the bat, somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty-five, maybe thirty, thirty-five percent.
	And of course, the those who are replaced, and in the case of Disney, they were forced to train their replacements, and many of them have not been able to.
	These are people in an IT department or IT functions.
	Many of them have not been able to find jobs after that whole process went through.
	But they had to train their replacements, and these are individuals who, in many cases, will end up going back home, those on the visas, and so they're just here temporarily, but it helps the bottom line of some of these companies.
	And then you also see this via the economic policy institute, that Disney had a record year of profits before it decided to replace U.S. workers with cheaper H one B guest workers.
	Now, this is where you start to look at the immigration issue and say, wow, if this is the way it's working on what is supposed to be the one point in all of this that we can agree on the most, right?
	We want the most highly skilled workers from around the world.
	This is what they say.
	H one B visas are meant for those who remember, this is in the law.
	They're supposed to be people you cannot that that have special skills that you cannot find in this country.
	Not skills that can replicate the skills of Americans who will do it for less money.
	We've lost all sense of the fact that there is supposed to be a benefit to being a U.S. citizen over non-citizens.
	There's supposed to be benefits.
	If you have to obey our preposterous and ever enlarging, ever enlarging federal system of laws and the ridiculous tax code and pay taxes throughout the years and register to votes, subject yourself to the draft, all this stuff.
	The U.S. government should give you preference.
	You actually should come first over non-citizens.
	This is the way, by the way, that immigration policy works in every other developed country I can think of in the world.
	In Canada, they have a point system.
	But that's just a very basic understanding of all this, that you can actually decide that you're going to only benefit citizens with your immigration policy.
	That's not the way it's been working here, and that's not even the way that it's talked about.
	In fact, to speak about it honestly, America is increasingly essentially a giant rest stop where you can just come and go as you please, illegally from the outside.
	You can do some work, you make your cash, you can break a number of laws.
	There are in fact two tracks of laws for legals and illegals in this country.
	Because to be illegal, you have to consistently and continuously break the law.
	It's not just a one-off thing.
	It's not just you come here, you violate the law.
	There's going to be document fraud and social security fraud and other things, generally speaking, that are attendant to that as well.
	But that's in the broader scope, right?
	So we have H1B visas being used in a way that we're told that they won't, specifically told that these program is not meant to replace U.S. workers with just cheaper workers.
	It's to find irreplaceable skills that we can't get from within our own domestic population.
	We're in a country of 320 million people.
	I think they could find, I think these companies could find someone to do these things, and we know that they can, but many of them just don't want to pay for it.
	It's fascinating, of course, particularly when you're talking about some of these tech companies that they tend to be politically very progressive.
	They tend to be the ones that are all about innovation and pushing us into the future and making our lives, oh, also more comfortable and tech savvy and the rest of it.
	But when it comes to them and their bottom lines and how they can try to pad them or do whatever it is they want to do, whether it's make a lot of money or just stay alive, depends on the tech company we're talking about here.
	They find ways, they find enrons on what's supposed to be freely stated, open for all of us to see immigration law.
	They pretend that this is somehow meant to find things that are just essential, find that missing piece they can't get here when it's really just to replace American workers who, by the way, go on unemployment then and have disrupted careers and have mortgages to pay.
	And I think there's finally been an awakening, and it's not because of the Republicans, because Republicans are complicit on this issue by and large as well.
	There's finally been an awakening of the pressure that is put on wages across many sectors, not the very most elite, of course, but across many sectors of the economy by endless waves of both legal and illegal immigration.
	No other country in the world has the approach that we do.
	No other country in the world has taken in the same kinds of numbers over time that we have, whether legal or illegal, and yet here we are now.
	Constantly forced to talk about this as though Americans are inherently some of all backgrounds, of all ethnicities, of all religious persuasions are somehow lazy.
	Because there are jobs we just won't do.
	That's right.
	We won't do them no matter what you pay us.
	It has nothing to do with the pressure on wages by having people who come who are willing to work for less because they're working in many cases off the books, by the way.
	There's an illegality attendant to all this as well.
	That's what I've really I get annoyed.
	I get annoyed.
	I have very good libertarian friends, for example, that make this case about how we should be an open borders country.
	They don't like that term necessarily, but that's what they want.
	And then you ask, well, that would then mean that we have to have all these individuals from all these different uh walks of life and all these different career paths and everything else, they would have to actually be on the books.
	You'd have to pay social security tax for them as an employer, or you'd have to collect social security tax, you'd have to pay them the prevailing wage in that state.
	All these laws would kick in, and that would change.
	That would disrupt the current system, right?
	The system is that you can pay people off the books, pay them less, and therefore there's an advantage to that.
	And if they decide that they have a problem with it, there's Always another wave of illegals, or in the case of H1B visas, legals ready to take that job.
	We're not supposed to talk about it this way, or we're not supposed to think about it this way.
	And finally, I think there's a recognition is we have people who are this structural long term unemployment is a plague now.
	We have more we have rather we have a greater problem of workforce participation and dropout than any time in decades.
	Maybe it's because of some of these policies.
	Maybe individuals who are trying to get their footing in the economy by having their first jobs entry level are pushed out of this by newcomers who in many cases are not even allowed to be here.
	That does have an effect that has a downstream effect and it has implications that I think finally people are starting to wake up to to some degree.
	And you'll know that the moment you start to talk about this, there will be ugly terms thrown around.
	People will call anyone who speaks out anyone who questions the claim, for example, that non that non Americans, non citizens, uh are somehow not as good a bet.
	Or rather, that non citizens are a better bet than US citizens, meaning that if we bring in more people from the rest of the world, that will fix our entitlement crisis because they're going to pay in more than they take out.
	Well, that's not true in America right now, or eighteen trillion dollars in debt.
	You think it's going to be true with waves of immigration primarily from the third or developing world, depending on how you want to put it.
	It just makes no sense.
	It's irrational.
	It's not based in any logic other than not wanting to be called a nativist or a racist or a protectionist or whatever.
	But you can't count on the Republican Party to be honest with you on this either.
	This has to come from the people.
	This has to come from the middle class realizing that they're actually the ones who have to pay for all this stuff.
	That they are the ones.
	It is in their schools, it is their neighborhoods, it is their employment prospects that are affected by these policies of in the case of the President, for example, deciding the law isn't even what it says.
	The law is whatever the President wants it to say on immigration.
	800 two eight two two eight eighty two, Bucks extinct for Rush Limbaugh, back in just a minute.
	Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh.
	We are going to get into Obamacare here at Buck Sexton on Twitter.
	So the latest with the President on this, I don't spend too much too much time on Obamacare because we'll be I'm sure you've heard a lot about it, it'll be talking about a lot as soon as we find out what the final decision is here from the Supreme Court on the King v.
	Burwell case.
	But President Obama is out there berating not just uh the Republicans, of course, for everything, right, but also for the Supreme Court even taking up the case.
	And this if there is such a thing as a straightforward letter of the law case, you would think this would be it.
	Quote, an exchange established by the state.
	End quote.
	How hard is that to read to understand?
	We know from Gruber, the MIT uh theorist that he was out there, he was talking about all this stuff, and is you know, it's like the stupidity of the American worker and the American people, you know.
	So I mean, lack of transparency is an advantage.
	You remember this guy?
	You remember that guy, yeah.
	He told us.
	He told us exactly what it was that this was meant to be it was meant to obfuscate and we weren't supposed to know.
	And remember this, and I don't hear this enough from people.
	Part of Obamacare that was initially struck down by the Supreme Court was essentially the mafia don offer of making an offer they can't refuse to the states, i.e., you expand Medicaid or else we pull all your dollars.
	You expand your Medicaid.
	You know, you get the rest of it, right?
	So that's the idea.
	You expand your Medicaid or else the Supreme Court said that's overly coercive of the states.
	And they actually struck that part down the last time Obamacare was before the high court.
	So the notion of the federal government writing this law in such a way as to force the states to do things, we already know that was there, and that was already struck down.
	So now they're pretending like, oh, come on, state is federal, federalist state, what's the big deal?
	Come out to the coast, have a few laughs.
	It's not what we should be thinking about here, or rather it's not true.
	It's not accurate.
	When they tell you that, they're lying to you.
	Of course they wanted to coerce the states into doing this.
	And that was the that was how the writing of this came to be.
	But even more importantly than that, it is what it is.
	This is the law that was passed, this is the law as it is on the books, and it's up to Congress to change it.
	But the president's out there deciding that he's going to browbeat everybody, that he's going to just sort of verbally smack everyone around into submission to tell them that this is about more than a health care law.
	This is about what's right.
	This is about what's moral.
	Really?
	I guess to the progressives.
	And he does say now this is a hundred year long dream of the progressive movement, which of course is true.
	And that this is just the beginning of it, by the way.
	It will only grow in time.
	It's only going to become more entrenched, harder to repeal or change in meaningful ways.
	Remember, at this juncture, there's only six point four million people who are at risk of losing those subsidies.
	So that's a lot of people in the sort of overall scheme of things, but there are 320 million people in this country, and when the mandate kicks in for employers, then we're really going to see what the dislocations are like.
	And all of you know this.
	When you speak to somebody who's, as I have, somebody who's had to go on Obamacare exchanges and purchase this stuff.
	It's crap insurance.
	It's not good.
	It's not going to help you unless you have a terrible condition or something really bad happened to you.
	And for the young people who have to pay into this thing, they're getting the rawest deal of all, and yet they're all like, yeah, Obama's great.
	They don't seem to understand.
	But as to whether this is legal or as to whether we should just allow the executive branch to reinterpret very obvious law, right?
	I mean, this could be done with any number of things.
	Well, they said the drinking age is twenty-one, but they really wanted it to be eighteen, so let's just go with it.
	You can't just change the law.
	You can if you're the Congress, so that's not really that hard.
	This isn't really that big a deal.
	It's just a big deal if your entire presidential legacy hangs in the balance.
	If your whole legacy here is whether or not you're going to actually have pushed through this first, this first and most important legislation of your entire time, then yes, it's a big deal.
	But the Congress can fix this.
	The Congress can very much change this around in some capacity.
	Now we have to be careful of there'll be the politics here.
	There's of course the possibility that if the Supreme Court comes down, I shouldn't make predictions, but why not?
	I'll make a prediction.
	I think the court's going to rule against them on this.
	I think the court is going to rule against uh the subsidies.
	I just don't because even for those on the court like Roberts who want to protect their legacy and they want to make sure that you know they're not viewed as being overly political.
	Look, the idea used to be, or the idea was the first time they saved Obamacare.
	The idea was that they don't want to save the people from their own bad decisions to some level, right?
	At some level, that was at least supposedly part of the thinking for Robertson.
	Well, really just for Roberts, I suppose.
	But now you can't save the Congress from its bad legislative writing.
	You can't tell the Congress, yeah, I know you guys wrote this law and it's bad, so we'll just we'll just hook you up and we'll change this around.
	You can't do that.
	The president thinks he can do that, and that's bad enough.
	There have been many times where the courts have had to say, sorry, President Obama, that's not an okay exercise of your executive branch powers.
	This has happened over a dozen times already.
	The administration has been rebuked at the courts.
	And yet now here we are.
	Once again, whether this law continues on as is or not is dependent upon what the court says, what the Supreme Court says about some words that you don't have to be a lawyer.
	You can just read them and know.
	You see what's going on here, you see what's happening.
	But the president wants to make it an issue of politics.
	He's really trying to intimidate the justices, or at least set the groundwork, I should say, for what will be a massive campaign to push the Congress to come up with a quick fix to this.
	But they know they can't do that.
	If they just make all this go away, if they have an opportunity here to decide that those federal subsidies are illegitimate because they had to be established by the state, an exchange established by the state, if that's what happens, well then the Republicans now have a real chance to do something about this law before it does become too deeply entrenched.
	The president knows they can't really give that thing up.
	They're not gonna do that.
	And so going into the election and going into what will be a very close and I think hotly disputed election between uh Hillary and whomever, this is really gonna matter.
	So pay close attention to this.
	But also pay attention to how little respect a constitutional law president, the constitutionally apparently very educated president, doesn't really believe the law means what it says.
	Yes, it's me, Buck Sexton, with you now on the Rush Limbaugh Show, 800 282 2882.
	If you're a little shy, you can't call in, you don't have good reception.
	Lumberg is circling your office trying to get you to fill out your TPS reports, whatever's going on.
	You can also send me a message at Facebook.com/slash Buck Sexton.
	Office space references are always worthwhile.
	Um at least that's my contention.
	Let's take some calls here.
	We have uh Lee out in California.
	Lee, this is the Rush Limbaugh Show.
	You're speaking to Buck Sexton.
	Good morning.
	Good morning.
	I wanted to uh bring into focus the absolute intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy of your earlier caller who complained about Marco Rubio buying a boat.
	I noticed that Marco Rubio bought the boat with money that he earned by uh a book advance, and then he keeps it in Florida where it's subject to Florida taxes.
	I and I I thought maybe I could contrast that to John Kerry, who bought a million dollar plus yacht with money that his wife earned on her back, and then he parks it in Rhode Island so he can avoid Massachusetts taxes.
	The the the hypocrisy of these illiberals is just beyond belief.
	Well, that's right.
	I mean, they're hoping that people forget these things, and one of the reasons I brought up the Times hit piece on John McCain is because I know people know that, but you need to rem you need to be reminded.
	We all need to be reminded of these things.
	John Kerry's another perfect example of we're gonna talk about a plutocrat, at least when you're talking about, for example, very wealthy candidates like Mitt Romney.
	Uh you're talking about somebody who made money himself, right?
	And when you're talking about Hillary Clinton, it looks very corrupt to me, but I I g at least she's making the she is giving the speeches, she's making the money.
	Uh John Kerry was very, very fortunately to uh to marry very wealthy, not once but twice.
	Yeah, I know.
	Which is which is one way to go.
	I I can't imagine what that man's appeal is to any woman.
	Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna stay off I'm gonna stay away from that one for now.
	That's nothing but trouble for me.
	But Lee, thank you very much for calling in from California.
	Good to hear from you.
	All right, we've got a uh can I take uh oh, um Donna in Frederick, Maryland.
	Donna, this is the Rush Limbaugh show.
	You're speaking to Buck Sexton.
	Hi, thank you, Buck.
	I appreciate your taking my call.
	Thank you, Donna.
	I uh was listening intensely to what you were saying about Marco Rubio, and I'm seeing the classic lefty playbook again, and it's what they did to Harman Kane, Mitt Romney, Alan West, Sarah Palin, Mia Love.
	I mean, the list goes on and on, and that's all they have is to attack and demonize and isolate our candidates.
	And I think that what we need to do as conservatives, uh especially our candidates, is to get out in front of them and um anunciate and articulate this immigration debate by getting out and stating we want to shut down our borders.
	We want to protect our American citizens and our country.
	That is going to be crucial to uh us winning the next election.
	You know, people always talk, Donna, people always talk about the the the lie that President Obama told, and this is a pres this is a lie, and everyone realizes it's a lie, that you if you like your plan you can keep it, and we all know that that he was aware that that wasn't true and said it knowing that it wasn't true.
	That's what a lie is.
	But there was also the uh also very insidious lie of the administration that they were border hawks, and they were the people forget this now, but there were years here during this presidency where there was this uh pejorative there that President Obama was the deporter in chief.
	He was deporting so many people.
	And what we've of course since found out is that all they did was change the definition of what a deportation is to uh to mess with the numbers, uh to try to make it seem like they were much more aggressive and much more active on the border than they actually were.
	As we know, interior enforcement has dropped dramatically.
	The President's trying to find all sorts of ways, most notably the amnesty that he wouldn't try before the election, and as we see, of course, uh Republicans did Very well in that last midterm, regardless of those sorts of uh shenanigans.
	So he wouldn't try that until after the election.
	He wouldn't try that until he was no longer subject or his party was no longer subject, I should say, to the backlash from it.
	And there's just so much dishonesty surrounding this.
	We're not having a d a discussion about immigration in this country that's based upon facts.
	It's based largely upon not just emotion, but accusations and slanders and people uh demonizing anyone who says, Look, when I say for American citizens, I mean for all American citizens.
	African Americans, white Americans, Hispanic, everybody looking to benefit them, those who are here now.
	That should be a discussion that we can have without everyone freaking out all the time.
	And and particularly, I have to say the Republicans on this have been super wimpy.
	A lot of them don't want to tell you what they really think, which is well, I gotta take care of my big dollar donors, and you know, what's the big deal?
	We're a nation of immigrants.
	I mean, you just fall back into these slogans that don't mean anything.
	Exactly.
	And I got an interesting problem is it hurts everyone.
	Their lack of leadership hurts everyone.
	And if we want to take our country back, we need strong leadership, articulate leadership, um, you know, assertive leadership.
	Yeah, that's straightforward and honest.
	Straightforward and honest would be a nice change from what we've been getting in in recent years.
	Thank you very much, Donner, for calling in.
	Let's take uh Gary in Sterling, Virginia.
	Gary, you're on the Rush Limbaugh show.
	You're speaking to Buck Sexton.
	How are you doing, Bob?
	Good sir.
	How are you?
	I'm doing good.
	I called in uh to talk about the the Rubio New York Times piece, like you were saying.
	Um, but you said, you know, this is just another hit piece from the liberal media, but they just spent like all last month trashing Clinton over the Clinton Foundation with like no evidence of wrongdoing.
	And you you said, like, well, Clinton's beholden to some uranium deal in Russia.
	I mean, that's been debunked over and over.
	But Rubio is beholden to one billionaire in Miami.
	Corbin Brahmin, who is financially backed him from the time in the Senate in Moral.
	Okay, well, there are there are a few levels, there are a few levels of response that I would give you here, Gary.
	One of them is that uh I there are hit pieces and there are hit pieces, right?
	I mean, the the problem with the New York Times hit pieces are not that they're going after Marco Rubio.
	We all assume they would.
	It's that they're petty and quite off and quite honestly ridiculous.
	I mean, I I assume, because you didn't bring it up, so you probably don't want to talk about this one that you think that the speeding ticket gate case that they opened up against Marco Rubio is ridiculous, right?
	Can can we agree on that?
	That that was the New York Times is just gonna go through every serious candidate and say, well, let's see what we can dig up on him.
	I mean, this is the most prominent newspaper in the country, and they're writing stories about how Rubio got a ticket every seven years for a couple of decades.
	Like that's that's that seems to me to be preposterous.
	I mean, it sounds like they're gonna find out that in the third grade he took an extra fig Newton during recess, and people are still upset about that.
	At some level, it seems pathetic and it debases whatever the paper thinks it's doing to put to publish this kind of stuff.
	I mean, can we do you not agree with that?
	I mean, uh before he's thinking the Clinton pieces were preposterous?
	No, they were not preposterous at all.
	Are you kidding me?
	You've got a sitting secretary of state with her husband passing the hat all over the world to all kinds of special interests to foreign governments, some billionaire in Florida, at least the guy's a U.S. citizen, by the way.
	No one has said that he bought that he bought any favors.
	I know you're saying there's no everyone's been saying this.
	There's no smoking gun.
	Stephanopoulos was saying this, and then we found out that he's giving the Clintons money.
	But side note, that there's no smoking gun doesn't mean that there's not impropriety, because that's not actually the standard that's applied in corruption cases in this country.
	If you're you're you're calling me from Virginia.
	What was the quid pro quo with Governor Bob McDonald whose life is ruined and who is going to prison?
	What was the quid pro quo?
	You tell me.
	I'm sorry, what was that?
	Governor Bob McDonald.
	You're calling me from Virginia.
	He has been convicted of multiple felonies.
	What was the quid pro quo?
	What was he going to jail for?
	The connection was that he was taking gifts from a businessman that benefited greatly from his time in office.
	How did he benefit?
	Like your uranium deal.
	No, how did he benefit?
	No, you're skipping you're skipping over this.
	He invited this guy to the mansion, he hung out with them.
	It was a benefit by proximity and friendship.
	Legislation benefited his government.
	They know the prosecutors never the prosecutors you're you're this is not the case that they brought against them.
	The prosecutors weren't proving that there was legislation that benefited this supplement guy.
	They just wanted to make an example of a former Republican governor, and they did so.
	Hillary has things Before the State Department, she's the chief official of the State Department.
	Her husband is getting look, I I've said this before, I'll say it again.
	Every governor, every state official in the country should just tell their wife to become an impressionist, and they can have whatever big donors they want, buy her paintings for a million dollars and say, what?
	She's just a painter.
	Bill's getting speeches for 750,000.
	The guy hasn't been in office in years, and you think that that's because he's such a good speaker?
	I mean, the appearance of corruption is the standard.
	The standard is not here's a money, here's a bag full of money.
	I want the uranium mines.
	Although I don't think the Clintons are above that, by the way, we just can't prove it yet.
	He's employed him when he's been out of work.
	I mean, he's he's literally, I I feel like no, he didn't get a $800,000 bookie on bought a boat.
	He knew he was going to be financially stable because he had a million dollar backer who said, I'm gonna make you president.
	That's why he felt like he could buy an eight.
	Find me, find me a politician who does not have big dollar donors, and uh and and then we can have this discussion.
	Of course, he's going to have people that are supporting his run.
	That's this country.
	You're allowed to spend money on Kenneth, you're allowed to hire people for things you want to do.
	The problem with the problem with the Clintons is that they are still holding, the wife is holding public office, Secretary of State.
	Not like she's just, you know, she's not in charge of HUD.
	She's a Secretary of State, and Bill's flying all over the world to foreign countries with interests that are in opposition to United States.
	They're writing him fat checks, and we're supposed to think this is okay.
	She fought for American jobs the entire time.
	And you're fought she fought for American jobs.
	Not even not even the Clinton, not even Clinton spokespersons at the State Department.
	Up hold it.
	She's fighting for American jobs.
	How is she fighting for American jobs?
	Uh she actually did go over there to fight for a lot of these companies.
	Yes, she was in Saudi fighting for American jobs, I'm sure.
	Okay.
	Look, I mean, she she uses try to make the connection all you want.
	But show me quit quid pro quo for the Clinton Foundation.
	Yeah, I've I I've we've we've been over this.
	I'm not going to get this guy to agree to see reality.
	Uh it's it is what it is.
	So uh look the Clintons, you can you can try to tell me that there's no corruption here, but I think you're selling out not just principles, but rationality, right?
	I mean, you can try to tell me that somehow there's no connection between her very prominent role in enormously lucrative um uh what would be enormously lucrative transactions that the State Department can block or not block, and there's money sloshing around all over the place.
	They're they don't know how much money, they're having to change their tax returns.
	She's deleting emails like like like there's it's going out of style, and this there's nothing to nothing to see here.
	I mean, the Clinton's corruption at this point is so pervasive and so grotesque that it's hard to even get outraged about it because I suppose we're all just supposed to accept it.
	It is appalling.
	I don't know how else to it is appalling that this is the best the Democratic Party can do.
	We have a country of three hundred and twenty million people, and you have this massive grasping phony out there pretending to care about you.
	I promise you something.
	Hillary Clinton does not care about you, and I promise you something else.
	She does not know your struggle.
	She isn't worried about you paying your bills.
	Hillary Clinton cares about Hillary Clinton.
	Public service.
	Not just happy to pollute the office of the presidency.
	This is the Clintons are not just happy to do that.
	They also, as I said, have polluted charitable giving.
	Now every time you write a check to a charity, you might think, Well, I mean, is this like a Clinton Foundation kind of charity?
	Are they paying weird advisors lots of money for doing no work with tax, you know, with tax-free donations that they're collecting?
	The willful ignorance on this issue, we're gonna have to keep fighting against this.
	I know there are people saying, Oh, the Clintons, the golden era of the nineties, you know, when everyone's suits were two sizes too big, and friends was like getting tremendous views on TV, and it was great.
	No, we're not going back to the nineties.
	Man, gets me a little gets me a little hot and bothered.
	800, 282, 2882, Buck Sexton Inforsch Limbaugh.
	Yell at me if you want on Facebook.
	Go to Facebook.com slash Buck Sexton, yell at me, but at least click like for the page.
	I'm back in a minute.
	Buck sexon here in for rush limb, 800-282-2882.
	Of course, from the Blaze, you can go to the Blaze.com or uh the Blaze.com slash Buck Sexton for more on me.
	I'm a host over at the Blaze and also CNN contributor.
	Uh, we'll be taking some calls here in just a second.
	But first, I just want to tell you that if you've missed any portion of Russia's show, uh, you can catch up with it easily by joining uh the member side of the website, Rush 247.
	Just go to Rush Limbaugh.com.
	Uh Rush 247 includes archives and podcasts of the last 30 days of the program.
	Plus, you get Ditto Cam video, all kinds of good stuff, an EIB signature travel mug.
	I want one of those.
	Uh so you can get all kinds of stuff.
	Go to rush twenty four-seven.com, please join.
	And also, this month in the Limbaugh letter, Rush takes on political correctness and celebrates the American Mail with a powerful commentary, The Last Bastion of American Toughness.
	So the Limbaugh Letter is a great Father's Day gift.
	These are a couple of recommendations I have for you here.
	I've got a little feisty before I found out in the past couple of weeks that they're remaking Big Trouble in Little China.
	They're remaking Point Break and the remaking Ghostbusters, and by that I mean they're destroying all of them.
	So it's been rough for me recently.
	They're going to destroy all of those fantastic classics.
	I have no doubt in my mind.
	And so that gets me a little bit I get a little curmudgeonly and grumpy as a result.
	Let's take Tony in Dallas.
	Tony, this is the Rush Limbaugh Show.
	You're speaking to Buck.
	Buck Testudos.
	Testuto.
	Shields high.
	What's going on?
	Very strong.
	Look.
	If I can go back to your uh Bernie Sanders uh socialism segment.
	By all means for a moment.
	I don't know what they're teaching in a in the public schools these days.
	But uh that's part of the problem.
	The first thing that comes to my mind uh in regards to socialism, didn't the pilgrims uh William Bradford and the Pilgrims uh try try that and nearly lost the colony.
	Uh and uh Margaret Thatcher's famous quote from the eighties uh The problem with socialism is you run out of other people's money.
	Eventually you run out of other people's mind.
	And I'll let you have it back.
	Thank you very much.
	Rock and roll, Tony.
	Thank you for calling in.
	Shields high is what I say to people on my show.
	It's a reference to the Spartans in ancient Greece.
	Kind of an inside thing, you gotta be there to get it, but there you go.
	That's where that comes from.
	Um by the way, we're talking about I just saw this now because it's in the in the Limbaugh, the Limbaugh letter, speaking about political correctness.
	You know, there's this uh piece.
	I think it's in the Huff Post.
	Oh, yes, indeed.
	The Huffington Post, now the Huff Post, where a college student, I think he's a college student, I'm hoping for his sake he's a college student, uh, writes a piece taking on Jerry Seinfeld, who was willing to come out and say now he was on another uh I believe a Colin Cowherd radio show, and he was willing to say that it's just you don't want to play at colleges anymore because the kid just want to point fingers and call everything sexist and racist, and this is just totally true.
	And I also love now that there are kids in college who want to tell Jerry Seinfeld kind of a comedic icon how to be funny in today's day and age.
	You see, the truth is nothing's really allowed to be funny anymore.
	You can't make fun of anyone except for white Christian males.
	They're the only safe target for not humor, but mockery, too.
	There's a difference, right?
	There is a big difference.
	You can see this on on various shows and the way things are portrayed.
	Humor is when you can laugh with, right?
	And you can have a sense of humor about yourself, but you tend not to be excited about mockery.
	When someone mocks you, that takes it too far.
	And I think too often on a lot of these leftist sites, they conflate the two things when they're not the same.
	Humor is things that humor is stuff that we can all look at and laugh at together.
	Mockery is is vicious and undercutting.
	And mean, if I may say so.
	And it is the it is true today that you can't make jokes on college campuses.
	I don't even know what I would say these days.
	And when I went to a very left-wing school, at least in my opinion, and it was not clear at the time what you could and could not get away with.
	Yeah, I I've I've been talking about Matchis Girl uh for quite some time here, and and I don't know how anybody is still holding on to this.
	I mean, the fact that she was she was invited to the State of the Union, wasn't she?
	And there's uh it's it's astonishing to me.
	And there's I I didn't see the video.
	I've heard about the video.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Sorry.
	Um anyway, yeah, I've been following that story for a while.
	People just they don't care what the facts are anymore.
	It's all about narrative.
	We'll speak about narratives and other stuff in just a second here.
	800-282-2882, back in a minute.
	Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh.
	Big hour coming up here.
	We're gonna be talking about this police officer who has resigned after the McKinney incident in Texas.
	Also be getting into the latest with the fight against the Islamic State.
	No surprise here, at least.
	The president's going to be putting our troops at least closer to the front lines.
	I think just a matter of time before they're on the front lines doing some of the fighting the Iraqis won't do.
	We got that and much more coming up in the third hour here on the Rush Limbaugh Show.

▲