All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 22, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:25
October 22, 2015, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi folks and welcome back.
It's just a great thrill.
It's an honor.
Be here with you each and every day behind the Golden EIB microphone.
Have an opportunity to talk about all this stuff, tell you what I think about it, get your thoughts on it, and hopefully in some small way help move things in the right direction.
800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
And the email address, lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
Okay, I've got the Trey Gowdy soundbites from one hour ago, where the breakdown occurred with him and Elijah Cummings, where Mrs. Clinton was finally brought off this attitude she adopted at the beginning of the hearings.
Nice, compassionate, just wants to be cooperative and helpful.
And we saw the nurse ratchet surface.
And there were a lot of occasions that happened.
And Mrs. Clinton, when the members of Congress would stack her emails on the desk in front of them, you could see her facial expression just change overnight.
But folks, before I get back to that, I want to indulge you for just a moment or ask for your indulgence.
Five days from now, the fourth book in the Time Travel Adventures with Exceptional American series hits the shelves, Rush Revere and the Star-Spangled Banner.
You know, how best to explain this.
I've been doing this program.
We're now into 28th year.
And it's much different now than it was the first five years.
The first five years, I mean, every week we were announcing brand new stations that had just agreed to take the show.
And the growth pattern was skyrocketing.
And things that hadn't happened before were starting to happen.
Not only within the context of the show, but for me personally and professionally.
It was the first, well, second real success track that I had been on.
And it was filled with newness by the week.
Wrote my first two books in a TV show and things, it just kept growing.
And at a certain point, this happens to everybody.
It's not a complaint.
What this is is a description of a learning experience and why these books are so important to me.
In any endeavor that anybody does, after you've done it for a while, and if you happen to be at the top while you're doing it, the entire reason changes.
The motivation changes.
You've heard the old phrase, it's much more fun getting there than it is being there.
You know why that is?
It's harder being there.
Once you're there, everybody in the world's gunning for you, and there's only one way to go.
Even if nobody's gunning for you, there's only one way to go.
But when you're getting there, it's all new and it's all exciting and you're doing things that are never done before and things are happening to you that have never happened to you before.
It just breeds excitement and breeds a sense of achievement and accomplishment at various levels and stages.
But what is the accomplishment in staying there?
I'm not minimizing it, but everybody, no matter what they do, if they reach a pinnacle, as I have been fortunate enough to do, for a long, long time, you have to find ways to keep it interesting.
Now, for me, I'm lucky as I can be that I love this as much today as I have ever loved it.
Maybe even more.
But there are no longer things happening like in the first five to six years.
They've happened and we've maintained them.
So everybody in their life, if you count for anything, you always want to achieve.
You don't want to rest on laurels and you don't want to rely on the past to sustain you for a while.
You want to keep going.
But I don't like doing television.
I just, I actively do not like doing television.
I've done that anyway, so that's nothing to conquer there.
And I wrote a couple of books.
Okay, nothing to conquer.
I've been there, done it.
But I have not done what we've done with these children's books.
And that, my point in telling you why I'm excited about this is because these books are providing for me.
And I owe my thanks to you all for this.
These books and the success that we're having with them, but more importantly, the substance and the purpose of these books are serving to Create in me the same feelings of achievement and excitement that I had when this program was just starting, was brand new.
Nobody had ever heard anything like it.
And people were glomming up.
We had Dan's bake sale, you know, all of that stuff that was just as exciting as it could be.
Well, the books are that for me now.
It's something I hadn't done before.
And it's not something I ever thought I would do, write books for children, 8 to 12, 8 to 10, 10, 13, demographic.
Not something I ever thought I would do.
Didn't really know if I could do it.
And I found out it's not something I could do alone.
I've got a great team that helps me with these things, starting with my wife, Catherine, and we've just got a bunch of people that make sure everything we put in these books is as accurate and close to true as we can get for an age group that we're writing for.
And they've just been phenomenally successful.
And we're up to our fourth now.
Rush Revere and the Star-Spangled Banner.
I wish you could see all the reaction, the response that we get from young children reading these books, sending us pictures of themselves, reading the books, dressing up as Rush Revere, creating their own playtime parties as characters in the books.
I can't tell you how heartwarming it is.
I can't tell you how meaningful it is.
People ask me, well, how do you stay so optimistic?
I would have to try not to be just based on the good fortune I've had here in my career.
And now with the success of the Rush Revere books.
But again, we don't rest on the laurels of those either.
Every book is its own challenge.
Every book is its own test.
Every book we try to improve, of course, like everything we do, make it better than what we did before.
It sustains the challenges, the obstacles to overcome all equal achievement.
And I don't care who you are and how long you've done something, you still need that.
It's no fun saying, yeah, I've done that, I've did that.
It's no fun having a track record.
The fun is building on it all.
The fun is achieving even more.
And it's also the challenge.
It keeps me young at heart and it keeps my mind engaged, which I think is key to not getting sick in many ways.
And so I am just, we're excited as we can be about this next book.
And it's been in pre-order since September 27th, and it actually is going to hit the streets on sale in bookstores and be delivered to pre-orders next Tuesday on the, pardon the sniffles, on October the 27th.
So I just wanted to take some time to thank you all again for helping us make these books what they are because they do work.
They're so needed.
The things that young people are taught about this country versus what actually happened in our history.
It's just sad.
It's sad how the foundation, the founding, the formation, the miracle that is the United States of America, how it's being portrayed in way too many schools and classrooms today as immoral and unjust.
I have a friend.
Have you seen his new Tom Hanks movie about the Cold War?
Yeah, I've heard it's good too.
There's an actor in this movie named Mark Rylance, and apparently Mark Rylance is the unsung hero.
Who is this guy?
He's a great British stage actor.
And if you want to see who he is, rent or watch an episode of Wolf Hall on PBS about the era of Henry VIII.
He plays Henry VIII's aide-de-camp, close advisor.
Anyway, a friend of mine went to see the movie with his young daughter, college-age daughter.
Her reaction, wow, this was so pro-America.
She thought there was something wrong with it.
Because it was so pro-America.
It's about the Cold War.
It's about spies.
I haven't seen it, so I don't know the real premise, but it's other than what I've read.
But see, that's the point.
Here's a college-age woman who comes out of watching a, and she's bothered by the fact that it's so pro-America.
What is wrong with being pro-America?
Particularly in a movie about the Cold War in which we defeated the Communist Soviet Union.
What's wrong with that?
And yet, this is what so many young people have been taught, that America's guilty, that America is all of these isms, and that it's perpetrated all of these injustices.
And I just can't stand by and let it happen without doing something about it.
And young people who need to know it don't listen to this program.
They're in school.
Eight to ten-year-olds are not listening here.
So the objective was how to reach them.
And the idea for the books actually was born from Vince Flynn, the late and great Vince, who has his last book is out.
Kyle Mills completed Vince Flynn's last book.
I went up to Minneapolis a couple weeks ago for a launch.
It's on October 6th for a launch event, roundtable discussion.
48 years old.
That was just Kit Carson, 40.
It is.
It's just been a really sad year for great people passing away way, way, way too soon.
So a lot of people have been involved in inspiring these books.
But this deals with the Star Spangled Banner, but there's also a time travel back where the students in Rush Revere talk to James Madison, the father of the Constitution.
And to write that for eight, nine, 10, 12 year olds, this is a challenge.
So I just wanted to mention it again.
I haven't talked about the book in two or three weeks here because it's in pre-order and you know that.
And it's still, it's phenomenal.
But I just wanted to remind you again, and basically, thank you again for providing the thrills, the excitement, the achievement.
After 27 plus years of doing the radio show and everything itinerant to it here on the EIB network.
So yeah, Barnes Noble, Amazon, Books a Million.
And I think you can find it at iBooks if you're really, really, if you want to get it there.
But yeah, Mark Ryland's Wolf Hall is just, he's one of the best kept secrets in America in terms of actors, but everybody that's never heard of him and watches him, sees him star in something is blown away.
And apparently that's the case in this movie.
What's the name of this movie?
This hang of metal block, it's a Spielberg movie about the Cold War stars Tom Hanks.
No, I won't see it till it's released on DVD or streaming or whatever.
I can't go to a theater.
It's not closed captioned.
That's it.
Bridge of spies.
Exactly.
To show you how things are changing.
Do you know that the city of New York honored Ethel Rosenberg last week?
Ethel Rosenberg and Julius Rosenberg were convicted and executed as spies.
The New York City Council gave Ethel Rosenberg a proclamation for some great achievement that she was one of the greatest traitors and enemies in this nation's history.
This is how jaundiced the left has made so much of this nation's past and the way they're teaching it now to people.
Okay, let me take a brief time out.
We'll come back and the fireworks, not so much, there's some fireworks at the end, but just you can hear Gowdy.
Before I promise, I better read the transcripts of what I've got here.
I think I've got it.
I think this is, yep, yep, this is Gowdy going after Hillary and Sidney Blumenthal.
So sit tight.
We're coming right back.
Don't go away.
Yes, yes, yes.
Your phone calls are coming up.
I really appreciate your patience and holding on out there.
All right, here we go.
This is Trey Gowdy and Adam Schiff, Democrat from California.
This is during the Benghazi Select Committee hearing today with Hillary Clinton testifying.
There is no theory of the prosecution, Mr. Schiff, because there is no prosecution.
There's a very big difference between a prosecution where you already have reached a conclusion and you're just trying to prove it to people.
This is an investigation, which is why it's so sad that nowhere in that stack that you just put up there were the emails of Secretary Clinton, the emails of the ambassador, 50,000 pages worth of documents, eyewitnesses.
That's the real tragedy.
To the family and the friends, when you're told that there have been seven previous investigations in an ARV, you should immediately ask, why did you miss so many witnesses?
Why did you miss so many documents?
This is not a prosecution, Mr. Schiff.
Now, this was important and good because the Democrats are trying to slime Gowdy and mischaracterize what he's doing and discredit it.
And he wasn't having it.
He was accused, he was being accused of already reaching a conclusion, trying to nail Mrs. Clemens.
No, no, we're still gathering evidence because previous efforts have fallen so short, and you guys are not helping.
We've got all these witnesses that haven't been called.
We've got all these documents that we haven't been seen, been shown.
Here's the opening, Mrs. Clinton to Mrs. Clinton, about the Blumenthal relationship.
It is undisputed that a significant number of your emails were to or from a Sidney Blumenthal.
Now, he did not work for the State Department.
He didn't work for the U.S. government at all.
He wanted to work for the State Department, but the White House said no to him.
Do you recall who specifically at the White House rejected Sidney Blumenthal?
No, I do not.
After he was turned down for a job at the State Department by the White House, he went to work where?
I think he had a number of consulting contracts with different entities.
Well, he had a number of them.
Do you recall any of them?
I know that he did some work for my husband.
Well, he worked for the Clinton Foundation.
That's correct.
Okay.
He worked for Media Matters.
I'm sure he did.
He worked for Correct the Record.
I'm sure he did.
I'm sure he did.
You should have seen her face.
Her face was saying, I hope you like living.
I hope you like walking, Gowdy.
No, that's what her face looked like.
We have time for that.
We do.
We do.
Here is Gowdy detailing the back and forth between Hillary and Blumenthal in the emails.
I want to start with your public comment that these emails were unsolicited.
You wrote to him another keeper, thanks, and please keep them coming.
Greetings from Kabul, and thanks for keeping this stuff coming.
Any other info about it?
Question mark.
What are you hearing now?
Question mark.
Got it.
We'll follow up tomorrow.
Anything else to convey?
Question mark.
Now, that one is interesting because that was the very email where Mr. Blumenthal was asking you to intervene on behalf of a business deal that he was pursuing in Libya.
What did you mean by what are you hearing now?
I have no idea, Congressman.
What did you mean by?
What did you?
That would have been her answer to any.
What do you mean by?
I have no idea, Congress.
I don't know.
I have no idea.
Now, these, we've got two more.
Well, may as well may not get them both in.
This is Gowdy right before Elijah Cummings jumps in.
This is near the, what I'm told are fireworks at the end of this.
It's relevant because our ambassador was asked to read and respond to Sidney Blumenthal's drivel.
It was sent to him to read and react to, in some instances, on the very same day he was asking for security.
So I think it is eminently fair to ask why Sidney Blumenthal had unfettered access to you, Madam Secretary, with whatever he wanted to talk about, and there's not a single solitary email to or from you to or from Ambassador Stevens.
Okay, so now what we have next, I can't squeeze in before the next break.
It's two and a half minutes.
It's the fireworks when Elijah Cummings realizes he needs to create a sideshow to distract everybody because what Gowdy just did here, it's been a subject all morning.
Why didn't you respond to his requests for more security, Ambassador Stevens?
I didn't know.
I don't do email.
I didn't get them.
I don't know.
My staff.
And yet here she is chatting 15 times a day with Sidney Blumenthal.
And Gowdy said, what's the deal here?
And that's when Cummings stepped in.
I'll tell you, the way I see this, Trey Gowdy's continuing to destroy her here during the break that just happened.
It wouldn't have had if we'd have gipped it, you still wouldn't have heard it.
So don't complain.
He is really zeroing in on the fact that Chris Stevens could not reach her, but that anybody else could.
Blumenthal could reach her.
The Libyans who were short of diesel fuel, who were short of milk, Libyan people who were in trouble, they were able to directly reach Mrs. Clinton.
In some cases, she responded in as less, in as short a time as four minutes.
Chris Stevens, security requests, increased security they helped out on the ground.
Claims she didn't get.
Gowdy wants to know why he couldn't get to her.
Hillary maintained that he never made security requests to her, that the requests were made instead to State Department security officials, and that she never got any requests for additional security from Ambassador Stevens.
That those kinds of things are not raised with her.
Gowdy said two different things, Mrs. Clinton.
I'm sorry.
The point is not what here and who there.
The point is why some people can reach you and why others can't.
And why can somebody who doesn't work for the State Department who wants to insult administration officials and make silly political comments like Sidney Blumenthal reach you anytime he wants when he's not even a government employee and your own ambassador can't?
Mr. Gowdy, as I've explained countless times to serious questions from other people, you just don't understand what's going on, Mr. Gowdy.
I don't think you'll ever understand how things work in the State Department.
And he's not deterred by her attempts.
Anyway.
We'll have, I'm sure, that and whatever else happens today tomorrow.
But here is the way the morning session ended.
The fireworks between Gowdy and Cummings.
This is Elijah Cummings of Maryland, who had to go in and try to distract everybody and create some noise because it was obvious that Gowdy was scoring.
These facts directly contradict the statements you made on national television.
No, sir, with all due respect, they do not.
We just heard email after email after email about Libya and Benghazi that Sidney Blumenthal sent to the Secretary of State.
I don't care if he sent it by Morse code, carrier pigeon, smoke signals.
The fact that he happened to send it by email is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that he was sending information to the Secretary of State.
That is what's relevant.
Now, with respect to the subpoena, if he'd bothered to answer the telephone calls of our committee, he wouldn't have needed a subpoena.
Would the gentleman yield?
I'll be happy to, but you need to make sure the entire record is correct, Mr. Clinton.
And that's exactly what I want to do.
Well, then go ahead.
I'm about to tell you.
I move that we put into the record the entire transcript of Sidney Blumenthal.
We're going to release the emails.
Let's do the transcript.
That way the world can see it.
We didn't.
The motion has been seconded.
Well, we're not going to take that up at a hearing.
We'll take that up at a time.
I've consulted with the parliamentarian, and they have informed us that we have a right to a recorded vote on that motion.
We want, you know, you have to tell you, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Well, that's what we want to have.
Let the world see it.
Why is it that you only want Mr. Blumenthal's transcript released?
Why don't you have the survivors, even their names?
You want that?
No, you don't.
You want that release?
Let me tell you something.
Right now.
The only one you've asked for Sidney Blumenthal.
That's the only one you've asked for.
That and Ms. Mills.
That's not true.
No, that's two out of 15 ads.
If you want to ask for some facts, you said from the beginning, we want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Why don't we just put the entire transcript out there and let the world see it?
What do you have to hide?
These are the only emails that you have released.
And the fairness to Mr. Blumenthal and to the American people, in the interest of a complete record, if you're going to release his emails, release his transcript where he has a chance to give the context of those emails.
Well, you keep referring to Blumenthal emails.
I would hasten to remind both of you, the only reason we have Blumenthal emails is because he emailed the Secretary of State.
Those are her emails.
That's why they were released.
They're not Blumenthal's emails, and she wanted all of her emails released.
She's been saying since March, I want the entire world to see my emails.
Well, Sidney Blumenthal's emails are part of that.
As you can see here, it matters that our chairman is an actual prosecutor, which he is.
Trey Gowdy is by profession from South Carolina.
He's a prosecutor.
And Elijah Cummings and Adam Schiff do not shake him up.
Do not phase him.
They're trying to distract him.
They're trying to get him off his point, and he's not having any of it.
And he's just turning it right back on.
These are not Blumenthal emails.
These are Hillary emails.
We only have them because she released them.
We're not sliming Blumenthal here.
Hillary is.
But then he continued when they came in.
I want to know why Blumenthal can get to her anytime, any day, and her own ambassador requesting help couldn't.
And why nobody else can.
When you look at what Blumenthal's, and she was forced to just admit that Blumenthal, this is big too.
Blumenthal is not my advisor as Secretary of State.
But he is.
That's the whole point.
has him around as a release valve, a comfort valve.
They are fellow ideological travelers.
Hillary and Sidney Blumenthal are identical liberal extreme radicals from the 1960s.
And they're no different than Obama, folks.
They are.
They're all the same, and they all have the same agenda.
And Hillary is getting away here with this nice and reserved and compassionate and so forth.
And what's happening here is that the pictures are not lying.
When she gets irritated, her facial expression changes.
She can't hide it.
When she gets irritated, and the real Hillary Clinton's been on display here.
Now, again, most of this is never going to see the light of day in the drive-by TV networks.
Anyway, I really, folks on hold, people on the phones, I really appreciate your patience.
But as I say, this is improv every day.
We go where the news goes.
We go where the stories are.
We go back to the phones now.
Bill in Fort Walton Beach, Florida.
Thank you again for holding on.
I appreciate it.
Rush, do you think that Bernie Sanders is a for real candidate, or do you think he's a fake candidate trying to make Hillary Clinton look like she's got competition?
Hmm.
No, I think he's a real.
I think he's a real candidate.
Okay.
Excuse me.
Now, now, wait.
That's not to say that his existence does not permit Hillary to take advantage of making herself look like a moderate.
Because remember, this country is not a nation of radical leftists.
They are but 10, 20% of the population.
Honest to God, folks, it's no bigger than that.
And their constituency groups are even smaller.
LGBT, one-tenth of 1%.
Gay population, 2% or 3%.
Made to look like half the country.
They're not.
Do you think his supporters would support Hillary Clinton if he ⁇ like he said he's not going to be allowed to get the nomination.
If his supporters believe that, do you think it's like that his supporters would throw their support behind Hillary Clinton?
I still think it's up for Grabs.
I think it depends on how he loses.
If it appears that she is cheating to force him out, then I think his supporters are genuine.
His supporters are a bunch of dupes.
These are the true believers who think that Bernie Sanders is a real deal.
His supporters are the real McCoy.
They are genuine, far-left, radical extremists, and they cover all demographics and all age groups.
What about the Trump and Carson supporters?
Do you think if they appear, the same thing, same question, Do you think Trump and Carson supporters would get angry at the parter and throw their support behind whoever the eventual candidate is if it wasn't?
That's dicier.
What do you think they would say at home?
That's dicier because the Republican Party is telegraphing they're taking Trump out.
The Republican Party is leaving it to no doubt that their objective is to destroy Trump.
And if they succeed, I don't know.
We already had 4 million Republican voters sit home in 2012.
So past experience is if it happened once, it can happen again and again and again.
So that's a dicier situation.
Don't forget Jeb Bush and his original statement are close to one of the first things he said when he got official about running for president.
That was the objective was to win the nomination without the base.
Don't forget that.
How do you do that?
You do that with the donors.
You do that with the money and the RNC, and you welcome all of the conservative candidates you can, and you split their support and money.
And even if you're sitting there at 5%, 6%, 7% and somebody else is at 15 or 20%, eventually they're going to go away.
And you are going to be seen as the only electable mainstream candidate rather than some radical right-winger.
That's the theory.
I don't know that I think the establishment already looking at a substitute, and that would be Rubio.
In case Jeb, I don't know, it's all speculation now.
But the Carson and Trump voters, it's a dicier proposition than it is Bernie's voters being mad and not voting for Hillary.
I mean, look at Hillary's voters ended up voting for Obama when it came down to it in 2008.
So they have a, let's face it, they have a much better track record at coming together, even if it's just for one day on an election.
They have the ability to do that.
We haven't shown that we do.
Back to the phones we go.
Rush Limbo, the EIB Network.
Here is Alan in Denville, New Jersey.
Great to have you, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Good afternoon.
How are you doing?
I'll get to the question, which actually has been modified a little bit as I've been on hold and listening to the unfolding of Trey's Gowdy's questioning.
Originally, I was going to put forth the question.
I was really wondering if the GOP leadership, congressional leadership, leaned on the committee to not go full bore on Hillary, to really give her a little bings, but not damage her too much in order to eviscerate her as a candidate.
Because I feel that we have Trump, and they're really concerned with Trump's candidacy.
And I believe some of the GOP leadership would actually rather have Clinton than Trump be elected president.
But now, and I'll let you go after this.
But now, after I started hearing Gowdy speaking, I'm starting to wonder if he's going to have a little bit of flack from those leadership because if he was leaned on, however, when they actually got to the hearings, I'm wondering if his prosecutorial instinct kind of took over.
No, I don't think Gowdy was leaned on.
Let me summarize the question.
As I understand it, the establishment hates Trump so bad that they would prefer Hillary be elected instead of Trump.
Therefore, the establishment told the committee members don't go too hard on Hillary because if Trump gets a nomination, we want her to win.
I would not want to be in the Republican hierarchy if this is the kind of thought they are engendering in people.
But they obviously are.
Here's a reasonable guy from New Jersey wondering if the Republican, whoever it is, the Republican apparatus, dislikes Trump so much they would prefer Hillary.
And so don't damage Hillary too much.
Now, before I knew where you were going, I can envision a scenario where they would say, don't hit her too hard, but not for the reason you gave, but we don't want them calling us a sexist.
You know, be very careful here because of the war on women.
Don't hit the girl.
Don't be unfair.
We don't want the media saying you were mean and anti-woman.
That would not have surprised me.
Speaking of, by the way, Hillary winning, I had to jam this in in 12 seconds before break ended, but you know, in my scenario about what's going on with Ryan and the speakership and how this is actually a script that's been written for many, many days here, long before we first hear about it.
I mean, the dream is from the establishment point of view that a Jeb Bush or somebody else, if he does, is unable to pull it off, that he's elected president.
You got Paul Ryan as the speaker.
And in the first 12 to 18 months, the donor class agenda gets implemented, including amnesty.
I do not doubt that is what they want out of winning the White House.
But suppose they don't.
Suppose Hillary wins.
I got a new one.
What happens in your vaunted theory if Hillary would?
That's even easier, folks.
If Hillary Clinton is elected the next president, what do you think the RNC is going to do?
Or maybe not RNC, the Washington Republican establishment.
You know what they're going to do?
First, they're going to blame conservatives for the loss as being too radical and whatever.
And then they're going to say, see, now will you listen to us?
We have got to be in favor of comprehensive immigration reform or we're never going to win the White House.
They're going to blame conservatives and the lack of support for immigration as the reason Hillary won.
So they've got their bases covered in that regard no matter what happens.
The donor class wants what it wants.
It's not rooted in ideas.
And you're not going to talk them out of it.
They're going to have to be defeated ongoing.
Thursday night football, and I don't even know who's playing.
And that would have never happened before.
I haven't the slightest idea who's on Thursday night football tonight.
It is Thursday, right?
Well, that's right.
Seattle and the Foreigners.
That's it.
▲
Export Selection