All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 21, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
August 21, 2015, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
The views expressed by the host on this program.
Documented to be almost always right, 99.8% of the time.
I heard from the Sullivan Group, the official auditing firm of my opinions.
We have ticked up.
It has taken 14 months of being right in a row.
99.8% at a time.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Yes, sir, we open line Friday.
Great to have you here as we kick off.
Three hours of broadcast excellence.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882 and the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Now Open Line Friday differs Monday through Thursday in one way.
And that is people who call the program on Friday can talk about whatever they want, whether I care about it or not.
That's not the way we do it Monday through Thursday.
Callers have to talk about.
I mean, even if it isn't about the news of the day, I still have to care about it.
I don't want to.
It's a benevolent dictatorship here, folks, and I'm in charge.
But on Friday, I broom it as a as a service and a special opportunity for callers if they want to bring things up on this program they think need to be heard or discussed, but haven't been, this is the day for it.
Questions, comments about it.
It have to be politics.
Could be uh why there's no iOS 9 beta 6.
I'm getting emails about that.
I'm just throwing things out.
So whatever you want.
It's um oh, by the way, these are the uh uh last three hours of the uh week that I'll be here.
I'm gonna take Monday and Tuesday off, just take a couple personal days, nothing earth-shattering, nothing major.
We've got Mark Stein coming in both days.
You did you did confirm that, right?
Good.
I thought I had this set up on Tuesday, so I just haphazardly mentioned a broadcast engineer after the program yesterday.
You get Stein right on Monday, Tuesday.
Uh what?
I said, Don't tell me you haven't been told.
Oh, it's the first I've heard of it.
Uh I think there was a trick being played on me.
I think there's some people that don't want me to take these two days off.
And were hoping that I would forget.
But I have to do it.
So Mark Stein here Monday, Tuesday, so this will be their last chance to have at me for a while, even though it is just a couple of days.
Look at this headline.
This is uh this is Reuters.
Dozens of Hillary Clinton emails were born classified.
What do we have?
Anchor emails now?
Anchor emails.
Yeah, this could be, I mean, if it's possible for there to be a blockbuster or bombshell where Hillary is concerned.
But I tell you what I'm seeing, folks.
I am seeing more and more people in the drive-by media starting to speculate about things I shared with you weeks and months ago.
And primarily the speculation in the drive-by media is what role is Obama playing in all of this.
And even some of the drive-bys who've just figured this out, who think Obama's playing a role, think so because Obama doesn't want to entrust his third term to Hillary, which we speculated about months ago on this program, which I detailed for you weeks ago.
Uh, and why that would not be a choice.
And whether this Obama strategy is to ultimately drop the hammer and announce a full-fledged DOJ investigation of Mrs. Clinton, or just this continual drip drip, drip of every day something new.
Maybe small, maybe medium-sized, maybe big, but every day there's something new being released about these emails of hers.
And every day there's something new.
Little tidbit added about her server.
It's not going away.
It is intensifying.
Now we're starting to get stories about Huma Wiener, who is Hillary's number one aide de camp.
That Leia's on Huma, and we are learning bad things about Huma.
That Huma is disrespectful of the Secret Service.
One time Huma was stopped by the Secret Service heading somewhere.
And she said, Don't you know who I am, as though she didn't have to go through the normal security checks?
Because she is Huma wiener.
Everybody should know that she's Huma wiener and that she's Hillary's Huma wiener.
And we get the same kind of stuff about her that we've had about Hillary for the longest time, disrespectful of uniform military personnel and secret service and so, but every day it's just a drip drip drip.
With added speculation about well, who might then come in and save the day as a Democrat nominee.
We get more and more name references of Joe Biden, who would be loyal to Obama.
If Obama is envisioning the next Democrat to actually serve his third term, we know he doesn't want to entrust Hillary, or more importantly, he doesn't want to let Bill Clinton anywhere near it either.
If Hillary's there, you know, Bill's not far.
He's going to be lurking away.
We have a piece from Jeff Greenfield today, which also, ladies and gentlemen, is a is limbaugh center.
That's what I mean by you listening regularly here, you'll be on the cutting edge.
Because all of this stuff that pops up in the drive-by media, you will have heard it on this program, either reported or analyzed or commented upon.
The Greenfield piece, Democratic Blues, Barack Obama will leave his party in its worst shape since the Great Depression, even if Hillary wins.
Well, this is, of course, very true.
And the reason it's true, we have discussed here countless times.
One of the ways is electoral.
The Democrat Party in the last two midterms has lost close to a thousand seats in the U.S. House and the United States Senate, state houses, I mean, all the way down to town counts, a thousand seats across the country.
It's a major, major defeat.
The economy isn't a shambles.
The stock market today, last I looked was down over 300 points, and people are starting to talk global recession.
But you know what's different about this one?
China, the Chikoms.
It used to be that as went the United States, so went the world.
Now it's as goes the ChICOMs, so goes the world.
The panic in the United States stock market has to do with the Chicoms and their economy.
And it has to do with the with the price of oil and so forth.
Not that there are not uh concerns about the U.S. economy, but we are no longer perceived to be leading the world.
We're followers in a lot of ways.
And this is one of Obama's legacies, too.
This is a long piece by Greenfield.
I will share with you in in due course.
But again, it's the limbaugh echo syndrome.
It is it is exactly the things that we've been talking about on this program, but how they're not a majority, they don't represent the majority thought.
The damage that has been done to the country and to the party is obvious to people that want to look.
The drive-by media's done their best to cover it all up.
There's a story here in the Hill.com.
Donald Trump zeroing in on victory strategy.
This story is about how Trump's people are already planning their strategy for winning the presidential election.
There is an assumption they are going to win the nomination fight.
And so they're already planning strategically for the general election.
And of course they're wait a minute.
This is way too premature.
They're taking their eye off the ball here.
They're assuming way too much.
We have the fight being waged just to show you that We still have a lot to learn.
On our side of the aisle, there is this ongoing argument over the term anchor babies.
And is it politically correct?
Is it offensive?
Should we or should we not be using it?
And it illustrates again how I think way too many people on our side have.
I don't know what it is.
I don't know if if the Republican Party establishment has just become liberal.
You know, John O'Sullivan had a, I'm gonna have to paraphrase this, the former editor of National Review, a close confidant of Lady Thatcher.
I'm paraphrasing, but he said any organization, any group of people that is not actively conservative will become liberal over time.
That it's just the natural thing to devolve to.
You you evolve down to liberalism.
If you don't actively practice conservatism, you're ultimately going to become liberal.
Well, the case could be made this is happening to the Republican Party, Republican Party establishment.
They have been eschewing conservatism for so long that now they are devolving into not liberalism, but they certainly are captivated by the language of the left, and they get caught up in speaking that way.
And getting into arguments over whether anchor anchor baby is a good or bad term to use because it might offend somebody is clearly leftist influence on the Republican Party.
It doesn't accomplish anything.
One of the things that we're hoping happens here is that political correctness gets nuked.
And the way we hope political correctness gets nuked is that candidates find out by observing other candidates that you can win by defying political correctness.
That you can triumph, in fact, by trampling all over it.
Because what we are learning here, if people want to take the time to admit it, is the majority of the people of this country are not dominated by PC.
They do not want to behave this way.
They're forced and dragged into it by virtue of fear and intimidation and bullying.
But somebody that comes along and can just spit on it is applauded and cheered.
Yeah, here's the Sullivan quote, verbatim.
Any institution that's not explicitly right wing will become left wing over time.
It's it's it's known as Sullivan's first law.
And if you stop and think about it, it's true.
What it means is that an organization that is right wing has to actively be that intellectually has to be that every day, has to be front and center in its mind.
That's what it's going to be, because the natural gravitational pull is liberalism.
It's easy.
It's a gutless choice.
Being a liberal is the easiest thing in the world to do.
Doesn't take any effort whatsoever.
You can fake a lot of things and get away with it.
But conservatism is a practical daily application.
If you don't do it, you're going to drift.
And I really think as I listen to some of the Republicans talk about what they think is important, anchor babies, this, anchor babies that's an offensive term or not misses the whole point of work.
It's so small an item compared to what it actually is about.
And I'd say something else, even after yesterday's program, the number of people who cannot get it through their heads that the 14th Amendment does not establish citizenship by virtue of birth to an illegal citizen or person in the country.
It's not there.
And even after telling people, even after exposing it, some people just refuse to learn it.
There are still people, you know, Trump's out saying that the 14th Amendment has nothing to say about anchor babies.
And there are people still arguing with him about it.
It's not even a Supreme Court decision.
Folks, it's not in the Constitution that a baby born to somebody here illegally is automatically an American citizen.
It's you know how it happened to become accepted.
You know, I I I forget the case, and I I can't quote for you the year.
Justice William Brennan of the United States Supreme Court wrote uh I don't know what you a footnote or a little addendum to a full fledged Supreme Court opinion in which he just proffered his opinion that would be the case, and it has been glommed on to.
And for that reason, it's assumed that the Supreme Court spoken about this, but they haven't.
The Supreme Court has not said a word about what's being called anchor babies.
The Constitution says one thing about this, and what it says is that Congress shall determine the definition of citizenship, that Congress shall determine the technique, the mechanism by which one becomes naturalized.
The 14th Amendment doesn't speak to it.
And yet, even though that's been out there now, easy to learn for the past couple of days, we still have people refusing to learn it and still mouth it.
And the reason they do is because they're pandering.
They think most of America thinks it.
So rather than argue with most America rather than teach most America, just pander to them and just repeat what they think.
But it isn't true.
So now the argument over the term has erupted, which is a side show.
That's the side show, the anchor term, anchor baby term, offensive or insulting or what.
It's a side show.
The reason the left doesn't like it is because it happens to be too descriptive.
It happens to be too right on.
That's something you don't want people to really understand what is what is happening here.
Uh the Pope, it is said, uh, wanted to enter America.
He's coming to the United States, as you know.
It said the Pope wanted to enter the United States via the Southern border.
The Pope wanted to have meetings.
I don't know if it's still on the agenda.
The story is the Pope wanted to.
Maybe somebody's changed his mind.
The Pope wanted to have meetings with illegal aliens and wanted to enter America.
Maybe maybe it wasn't that he wanted to enter, but he wanted to go there.
He didn't want to go there.
He wanted to cross the border.
He wanted to do some symbolic thing to show solidarity with the oppressed, the unfortunate, the thirsty, the hungry, the illegals.
Anyway, I got to take a break here.
It's open line Friday, so whatever folks have at it, we'll be right back and continue after this.
The uh the story about the Pope entering the United States, the southern border is in roll call magazine.
Here's what it says.
The Holy Father would enter the United States by crossing the Mexican border if he had the time.
According to Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, the head of papal advisory group of Cardinals during remarks in March before a Georgetown University audience.
So this is this was back to March, where one of the Pope's advisors said if he would cross the Mexican border to enter the U.S. if he had the time.
Sounds like it's still open.
Sounds like it's still possible.
But I'm not, I don't know if I don't how symbolic would this be, unless the Pope's planning on never leaving.
I mean, why would you cross the southern border unless you're planning on never leaving?
And I don't think that's the case with the Pope.
I think the Pope is probably going to go back to the Vatican at uh at some point.
I doubt that he's going to bring his extended family.
Um, and I doubt the Pope's going to go try to get on the safety net here via somebody's anchor baby.
So I don't know why it would cross the southern border other than yes, yes, yes, yes.
I used the term again, anchor baby.
We have a whole slew of sound bites coming up.
We got Jeb Bush reacting to the term and Trump reacting to the term, and the CNN InfoBabe, who claims to have a couple anchor babies, not liking the term, or saying if she had a couple of anchor babies, she would resent it.
So we got all that coming up.
There's also a ladies and gentlemen, story here in the Washington Post by Robert Costa and Philip Rucker.
Costa used to be at National Review.
And the title of this this piece, Inside the Republican Party's Field, New Strategies to Ride Out the Trump Tornado inside the GOP fields of the other candidates.
Strategies to write out the Trump tornado.
And basically what it is, they don't have one.
They thought they had some strategies, and they thought they had employed them, and they tried to deploy them on previous occasions, like at the first debate and other ways, but nothing's working.
The flummoxed by Trump's staying power and aghast at the coarse tone he has brought to the race.
Party elites said they have no plan to take him down.
Meaning, it's not that they don't want, they don't know how.
They have no plan.
They don't know what to do.
It says here the donors feel powerless.
The Republican officials have little leverage, and Republican candidates are skittish.
Well, why?
What's so hard about if if indeed this Trump campaign is so coarse and so unseemly?
Why is it so hard to get rid of it?
The saga.
The saga continues.
Welcome back.
Great to have you, Rushlin bought a cutting edge of societal evolution.
For months, Hillary Clinton has repeatedly said that she did not send or receive classified information on her unsecured private email account, a practice the government forbids.
And while the State Department is now stamping a few dozen of the publicly released emails as classified, it stresses that this does not mean the information was classified when Clinton first sent or received.
This is exactly what that why make a big deal of it.
If ultimately she didn't do anything wrong, then why leak anything that might give low information voters the idea that she did?
I mean, the story.
Exclusive dozens of Clinton emails are classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest.
But then the State Department is now stamping a few dozen of the public released emails as classified, but it doesn't mean they were classified when Clinton first sent a receipt.
This is the drip drip drip, to which I am referring.
But the details included in those classified stamps, which include a string of dates, letters, and numbers describing the nature of the classification, appear to undermine Mrs. Clinton's story according to a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations that have been used to discover this.
Here's Reuters now participating in the drip drip drip against Mrs. Clinton.
These new stamps of classified status indicate that some of Hillary's emails from her time as uh Secretary of State are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deem classified from the get-go, regardless of whether it's marked or not.
Okay.
But the State Department says, wait, wait, wait, wait, it's only recently they've been classified.
But Reuters and the other people No, no, no, no.
They started that.
They were born classified.
These are anchor emails.
He he he he he.
They were born that way.
You know, I women, folks, with all due respect everybody.
We have been talking about this until I'm blue in the face.
Anything that reveals intelligence sources or methods is obviously automatically considered to be classified, whether it's stamped classified or not.
There is an assumption that secretaries of state know whether something is classified, whether it's high value, whether it's secret, private, or what have you.
You don't need a stamp on everything.
But apparently Mrs. Clinton does.
Apparently her defense is, well, there was nothing on it.
I didn't see it was classified here.
She's telegraphing the fact that she doesn't have any independent ability to know whether what she's looking at is super secret or not.
But Reuters is coming at this from a different angle.
In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009 representing scores of individual emails that include what the State Department's own classified stamps now identify as so-called government, foreign government information.
U.S. government defines this as any information written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.
This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be presumed classified in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions.
This, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.
Now, I think in the normal ebb and flow of things, this is quite the bombshell.
I mean, it's nothing new to you who listen to this program regularly, but what it does, it just it spells out what we've been saying from the start that things are classified whether they're stamped that way or not.
But here comes Reuters saying that any information written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials, is automatically classified, and Hillary's emails are chocked full of that.
So here comes the drive-by media dumping on Mrs. Clinton here in a major way here.
And the story has been picked up and it's got legs in the trunk.
This is exactly what I mean.
Drip, drip, drip, drip, drip.
Every day there's just a little bit more here.
And Mrs. Clinton can't keep up with it.
And I was driving in today, and I had I was listening to radio, and there was tape of Mrs. Clinton responding to this.
And honest to God, I thought I was listening to an AI robot.
I thought I was listening to artificial inform uh robot, artificial intelligence.
I thought it was a Siri.
It was a woman talking like this.
And I am sure you can trust me, I wouldn't have, or just no familiarity with what she was talking about.
It might have been, you know, I might have had Fox News on the on the satellite radio.
It might have been there.
And they played Mrs. Clinton reacting to this stuff, and it was, it was just, it was stiff and uncomfortable.
But what it was mostly, it it sounded like somebody who didn't know what she was saying, that it was on a prompter or that it was written for her.
And she was just going through the motions.
Now you know me.
I have never, and I've been very open and honest about this, I have never understood why it is that the conventional wisdom is she's A, the smartest woman in the world and B an automatically unbeatable candidate.
I have never understood it for the very reasons that people are talking about now.
She can't tell a joke.
She doesn't, even when she tries to tell a joke, she doesn't know what she's talking about, such as the Snapchat joke.
I think it's just her name, and there's a D by her name on a ballot thing.
It's the primary.
I don't think, folks, the reason that I also have this opinion is, you know, I know what connections with an audience are because of the unbelievable experience that I've had with all of you for all these years.
I know what one is, and I know when people don't have that.
So here's Mrs. Clinton, and she gets 14 million dollars in advance to write her memoirs.
And nobody cared.
Within the general public, nobody cared.
Now at the publisher, 14 million, they obviously thought everybody would care.
This is the mirage, if you will, that surrounds Mrs. Clinton, that she is interesting and curious, and people look at her admiringly from afar.
And I don't think they care.
And I don't think people have the slightest desire to know any more about her than they already do.
She couldn't draw flies to book signings.
She didn't sell any books.
Those are not the kind of things that happen when you have a connection with an audience.
I don't care how small the audience is, the connection makes the bond one of loyalty.
And the and the loyalty makes the audience supportive.
I mean, so here's Mrs. Clinton with a book.
She supposedly has all these people love her and all these donors that can't wait for her to be elected, and none of them came out to show her support.
They might have shown up at her book party, but big whoop, these are people that get complimentary copies of the book.
Nobody's buying them.
These are people show up for freebies or d'oeuvres and so forth at book parties that granted they're going to show up to one of those.
But there isn't any audience loyalty.
There's no voter loyalty, nobody showing up in droves to go meet Mrs. Clinton, learn more about her, see her in person.
There isn't even that kind of curiosity about her.
I think it's one of the biggest myths that has been perpetrated on the country.
We know how easy it is to make those myths happen.
We had the news yesterday about this guy and 9% in the public policy polling, presidential polling in uh in in North Carolina who didn't even exist.
A guy named Dees Butts, a 15-year-old kid from, I don't know, Michigan or wherever it was.
But anyway, I think what's happening here with this email story and the server and everything, I think all of these things are beginning now to be exposed.
The lack of connection, the lack of loyalty, the fact there isn't a huge amount of curiosity, love, adulation, adoration for Mrs. Clinton, all of this is manufactured, and all of it is assumed by the most of it is simply because she's Bill Clinton's wife.
But I'll tell you, Bill Clinton gets exact out.
He does have a huge audience.
He has tons of loyalty.
Whatever his audience is, they have a bond.
There's a connection there.
And I think a lot of people just assumed that that same bond would transfer to Hillary, but it hasn't.
And it won't.
This woman has been living her political life on the cum.
Look at this.
Everything she's done has been for this moment.
She, everything that she's everything she gave up way back when and said yes to Clinton, moved to Arkansas was for this.
Everything that she's done has been for future consideration.
And they tried to reward her in 2008, it didn't work.
And it looks like it's not working now.
And now we got all these new stories like such as Greenfield's piece on the real mess.
The Democrat Party's in because of Obama.
And you can read as well because of Hillary.
So anyway, uh that's that for that.
I got to take another brief time out here, and we come back open line Friday.
We always try to get calls in on the first hour, and we're gonna do it today, right after this.
Reuters in this story about dozens of Hillary Clinton's emails are born classified, anchor emails.
Reuters gives an example here.
Now by the way, we had a we had a great call yesterday from a guy who said, look it.
If Mrs. Clinton, as she says, did not get classified documents on her email, where'd she get them?
If none of the things on her private server, none of the things in her private email account were classified, then where in hell did she receive classified information?
Could it be here's a possibility, folks?
I look, I I I I could it be that the State Department knew full well, maybe they didn't send her any classified information because she's not can't be.
Reuters gives one example with the secretary for David Miliband.
David Miliband was then the British foreign secretary.
And the emails with this guy indicate that he is passing on information about Afghanistan from his boss in confidence.
This is the British Foreign secretary, and he's passing on emails from his boss about Afghanistan in confidence.
He writes to Huma Abaddon, Huma Wiener, that Miliband, quote, very much wants the secretary only, meaning Mrs. Clinton, to see this note.
Yet Huma is reading it.
It's a note exclusively to Hillary.
Huma gets it, Huma intercepts it.
It's five pages of entirely redacted information.
Abaddon forwarded this email to Clinton's private email account.
So we have from the Reuters story a classified email, five pages of redacted data from somebody in Afghanistan of British Foreign Service to Mrs. Clinton that ends up on her private server, and she says there wasn't any of that.
I never had classified data on my server, whatever she says.
So Hillary was exposing secrets on her unprotected server involving our allies while we're in the middle of a shooting war.
It's an open question whether she even knew it or not.
Who knows whether she ever saw it?
The email was opened by Huma.
Huma forwards it to Hillary's server.
How do we know Hillary even opened it?
Here's Alicia in Columbus, New Jersey, as we head to the phones as promised.
Alicia, thank you for calling your up first.
It's great to have you.
Hi.
Hey, hi.
Okay.
I don't understand why the Republicans are going after Hillary right now.
They need to lay off of Hillary.
Why?
Because you I would want her to be the nominee.
I, you know, what I see from what you're saying, from what I see that's going on, the Democrats, the powers that be, probably want her out.
They'll put in Biden and Elizabeth Warren.
Why are the re the Republicans not going after Obama and Biden and Warren and going after them hard?
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Those are good questions.
And I'm going to answer them for you.
The first, in order, the reason well let me you don't go after Warren or Biden.
They're not even doing anything yet.
It's just speculation that somebody in the Democrat hierarchy wants Biden and Warren to replace Hillary, but that hasn't happened yet.
So you've got to focus your fire.
Now, one of the reasons they're going after Hillary, I must, I will take the blame for this, Alicia, because it was my advice way back months ago to do this.
And the reason I did so was because I'm sick and tired of conservatives firing at each other in these primaries.
And I think conservatives are not the enemy, even of other conservatives.
Mrs. Clinton is a Democrat Party.
So I my advice was to get a head start.
She's a presumed nominee.
This was this is before all of this really reached an intense level, this email stuff and the classified data on the server, this scandal before it really intensified.
It was presumed that she was the nominee and it was going to be smooth sailing.
And my advice was instead of taking each other out, instead of beating each other up for the low information voters to see, focus on her.
And some of them took the advice, some of them didn't.
Not all of them are anymore.
It's cut back considerably.
But I don't think Republican criticism of Hillary is going to have any impact on the Democrat primary at all.
Well, I can tell you there's a lot of people, just us, the average people, who think about this.
We, you know, we we want to we want to win, and we think that she'd be a good not to me.
So and that's our concern.
I I want the Republicans to really start to strategize because the Democrats, they do.
They're thinking 15 steps ahead.
I don't feel we do that.
Well, well, uh uh Alicia, uh the Republicans, and I'll give you details that the Republicans right now are strategizing, as you say, but they're strategizing is how to is how to kill the Trump campaign.
I mean, I think they've pretty much forgotten Hillary uh except a couple or three individual candidates.
Right now, the Republican strategy is focusing on Trump and they're bombing out, and they're getting frustrated.
They can't figure out nothing's worked.
Uh things they think automatically would have disqualified Trump have made him stronger.
So right now, that's their focus.
I understand your thinking, and in normal circumstances it'd be great points.
I think these Republicans ought to be going after the Democrat Party in mass.
I think they ought to be going after liberalism.
This country's a mess, it's obvious most people think so.
Time to tell people why.
If you want to throw Hillary's name in there, have at it.
But that's it's easy.
▲
Export Selection