All Episodes
Previous Next
April 6, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:18
April 6, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ah, how are you?
Great to have you back, folks.
Rush Limbaugh executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
Featuring an audience that is growing by leaps and bounds.
Even management acknowledged it the other day.
That just doesn't happen.
And of course, I am management.
800-282.
Excuse me.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, one big, exciting, busy broadcast hour remains.
Email address, Elrushbow at EIBnet.com.
I'm going to switch just for a minute here to the Democrat side.
We've alluded to it all day, but some of this stuff is just too good to ignore.
First, I'm holding here my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
A story from salon.com.
Salon.com.
You want to talk about a commie organization.
You want to, I mean, this bunch is, I mean, they're out there arguing over left-wing turf with those bozos at the nation.
The only redeeming quality salon.com has is Camille Paglia.
But here they have a piece called This Is How the FBI Destroys Hillary.
10 questions that could end her White House dreams, which Salon wants to happen.
There's a lot of people on the Democrat side that do not want this woman for a host of reasons.
Let me quickly run through the 10 questions this organization, Salon, thinks that if James Callman were to ask her these questions, she doesn't have any answers for them, and it would present her insurmountable legal problems.
Number one, what was the political utility in owning a private server and never using a state.gov email address?
Was there a political motive involved here?
Were you trying to hide things from your own government about what you were doing with other foreign governments?
Why?
What was the political reason in having a private server?
Number two, were all of the 31,830 deleted private emails about yoga?
That's what she claimed.
There were 60,000 emails on her server.
She said, I deleted half of them.
They were all about yoga or Chelsea's wedding.
And we were supposed to accept that and just deal with the 30,000 that we got.
Question number three, why didn't you know that intelligence could be retroactively classified?
She's claimed that she didn't know she was trafficking in classified data because she didn't know that actually she sent it, that somebody made it classified, which is an out-and-out lie.
They're told they're read the Riot Act.
Every government official has read the Riot Act on this stuff.
It's part of their orientation.
And she didn't need the orientation.
She's heard it time and time again as First Lady and as a senator.
Number four, why did you use a BlackBerry that wasn't approved by the NSA?
Number five, what did you say to Brian Paglieno?
That's the guy she hired to set up server, and he's received immunity.
So what did you say to this guy?
This is a way of cross-referencing what he is saying that she said, and he's got immunity.
So presumption is he's telling the truth.
He can't be prosecuted for what he says.
He's got limited use immunity.
Number six, why were 22 top-secret emails on a private server, Mrs. Clinton?
And whatever her answer there is, it's either going to be one of ignorance or an out-and-out lie.
Number seven, why was any information, was any information about the Clinton Foundation mingled with State Department documents?
Well, the answer to that everybody knows is yes.
So some of these questions would produce a process indictment, a process lie.
A la Martha Stewart.
Number eight, did President Obama or his staff express any reservations about your private server?
She wouldn't touch that with a 10-foot pole.
Number nine, did Bill Clinton send or receive any emails on your private network?
Number 10, how was your private server guarded against hacking attempts?
And the last line of this piece, these questions and answers could easily give Bernie Sanders the nomination.
Salon.com.
So she is not universally loved, adored, and celebrated.
Now to the audio soundbites, here's Bernie.
New York Daily News website.
They released an interview the editorial board conducted with Bernie during the Q ⁇ A, a segment on Sanders' plan to break up the biggest banks.
One of the editors of the Daily News says, if you look at J.P. Morgan as an example, or you can do Citibank or Bank of America, what would it be?
What would that institution be?
Would there be a consumer bank?
Where would your investigating go?
What would you do to break up these banks?
I'm not running J.P. Morgan Chase.
No, but should you be breaking it up?
That's right.
Why not as their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves?
That's not my decision.
You would then leave it to J.P. Morgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break themselves up.
I'm not quite you determined is that if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist.
And then you have the Secretary of Treasury and some people who know a lot about this making that determination.
But that determination is that Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase is too big to fail.
Yes, they will be broken up.
Okay, we're dealing with a total ignoramus here.
We're dealing with somebody who deals in clichés as substance.
I mean, this is so easy to analyze, it's not even funny.
So Bernie Sanders has got it into his head there's a phrase out there, too big to fail.
Oops, I'm a leftist.
I oppose that.
Too big to fail.
Equals, that's why we're in so much trouble.
Too big to fail means we bail them out.
Too big to fail, too big to fail.
So when he's asked, well, how are you going to bust them up?
I don't know.
I don't work there.
But you're the guy telling us, well, if they're too big to fail, then I'm going to stick a bunch of agencies on them.
Okay, how are you going to determine if they're too big to fail?
Well, that's what they got to tell me.
What?
Yeah, they do an internal study, and if they end up being too big to fail, why look, look, they're going to do it themselves.
Can you imagine, you think the editors of the Washington Post are scratching their heads with Trump?
Can you imagine these Daily News guys listening to this?
And this is just one question on busting up the banks.
And this is a fundamental reason people are supporting this guy.
That he's out there telling them he's going to bust up the bank.
These people hate the banks.
They hate Wall Street.
And what they don't know is these, you talk about low-information voters, these Democrats don't have the slightest idea that Wall Street is funding the Democrat Party.
Wall Street is funding the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
Wall Street, the investment houses, some of the hedge funds, the banks are underwriting the Democrat Party.
And the NAALCP, for example.
Do you know what's just been learned that the Soros Foundation is almost all of the funding of the NAA LCP national chapter?
The Soros Foundation.
As an aside, I don't know what made me think.
I met Ray Lewis last night at the cigar dinner, the linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens.
I wonder how long it's going to be before ESPN fires him.
You know what he's done?
Ray Lewis has produced a video.
He didn't tell me this last night.
I didn't learn this until doing show prep today.
This did not come up last night.
Ray Lewis apparently has produced a video that's now been watched by 2 million people on Facebook.
He takes on the Black Lives Matter movement.
He says, wait a minute.
Do the black lives murdered by black criminals matter?
Because I don't see Black Lives Matter even talking about that.
And the biggest problem that we've got is black on black crime.
But when black lives are taken by black criminals, Black Lives Matter is nowhere to be found.
Well, that's not politically correct.
Black Lives Matter.
These are the people that storm the stage and take the microphone away from Bernie.
Well, no, they won't with Ray, but will ESPN?
You know, ESPN's scared to death if anybody's not PC.
Will ESPN say, oh, we don't want this kind of controversy?
They'll say, we don't do politics at ESPN.
There aren't too many people who could say what Ray Lewis said.
Well, I don't know, Mr. Snurtle East.
He's African-American.
They're not going to get rid of it.
If they can replace him with an African-American and say that they're being fair, it depends on what kind of corporate heat they get over this.
Look, I don't know that they're going to get any.
I'm just saying ESPN's standards and practices and their experiences are, if somebody comes out and speaks out wildly against PC this way, they're in heap big trouble, like Kurt Schilling and a number of people.
But it's not very many people anywhere, no matter their race, that say anything like this about Black Lives Matter.
My only point is, here's George Soros, one of the wealthiest men in the world, a banker.
Everything else he does, he's a banker, and he's underwriting the NAA LCP.
All of these banks prop up the Democrat Party, and here's Bernie.
He's going to break them up.
And his supporters, yeah, burn, yeah, burn you, because these people think somehow the banks are destroying their lives.
Look, you know, in an odd way, they have a point in the sense that it's classic establishment taking care of itself.
Banks were in big trouble because of the subprime mortgage fiasco.
You want to review that very briefly?
I don't have the time.
I don't want to keep backtracking here.
But the fact is, the banks kept developing fraudulent packages of securities to sell to unsuspecting buyers until they ran out of people that didn't know what they were doing.
And then that precipitated the crash when there are no suckers left to buy this worthless paper.
Repackaged mortgage-backed securities.
People thought they were buying massive amounts of debt that was being paid off.
They thought they were buying mortgages that had monthly income.
They didn't know they were buying mortgages given to people that had no income.
They didn't know they were buying mortgages that were given to people that could not pay it at all.
They didn't know they were getting in the foreclosure business.
Well, then they finally ran out of people to sell worthless paper to.
And so here came Hank Paulson and the rest of the guys saying, we've got to bail him out.
We got a worldwide financial crisis.
We didn't.
We had a bank crisis and they got bailed out.
Establishment took care of itself.
So they keep their second and third homes out in the Hamptons or wherever they have them.
And this is what the Bernie supporters instinctively know.
So Bernie's pitch is, I'm going to break him up, meaning I'm going to hurt him.
And all his supporters hear is that.
And then they hear that he doesn't even know how he's going to do it.
He's going to leave it up to them.
And all it's going to come down to is whether they're too big to fail.
And what Bernie knows as a cliché liberal, too big to fail, that equals bad.
The depth of Bernie Sanders is probably not even a half inch, as is the case with most liberals when you get right down to it.
So given that, let us move on.
This is Gloria Borger on CNN.
Last night, election coverage, Anderson Cooper, do you think that any of this is doing damage to Hillary?
I think that Bernie Sanders has gotten under Hillary Clinton's skin a bit.
But I believe that Hillary Clinton is a better candidate because of Bernie Sanders.
I think she's actually more in touch with the base of the Democratic Party than she was starting this campaign because of Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders, who doesn't know most of what he's talking about, is now making her a better candidate because Bernie is helping Hillary get closer and more in touch with the base of the Democrat.
Why is that even necessary?
I thought the Clintons were the base.
I thought the Clintons were the touchy, feely, sensitive, who knew how miserable life was for most Americans.
I thought the Clintons instinctively knew what the Democrat Party base thinks and feels.
And now we're told that Hillary didn't know any of that.
And it took Bernie Sanders being in the race to get her closer to the base.
So next, this afternoon on CNN, Wolf Blitzer is interviewing, take it back, Chris Cuomo on Wolf Blitzer's show.
I don't know where Wolf was.
I guess he's the bathroom.
Chris Cuomo's talking to Mrs. Clinton.
Senator Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver said something very interesting, inflammatory on our air here, saying that the Clinton campaign, Secretary Clinton, they need to be careful not to destroy the Democratic Party merely in pursuit of her own ambition to be president.
Very strong words.
Your response to that idea.
I mean, it's just ludicrous on the face of it.
You know, I have been campaigning for Democrats, fundraising for Democrats, recruiting Democrats to run and win for a really long time, I think about 40 years.
And Senator Sanders, by his own admission, has never even been a Democrat.
Hillary Clinton.
And remember, Gloria Borger tells us that Hillary Clinton's closer, more in touch with the Democrat base because of Bernie Sanders.
A conversation between Chris Cuomo, who thinks communism is about improving people's lives, don't forget, and Hillary Clinton continued.
How much more substance does he need other than I want to break up the banks?
We'll figure out how.
I want to go after ISIS.
I'll figure out where I interrogate them.
Well, it's going to be absolutely.
But a lot of people would say, Secretary, it's about what you want to do.
You'll figure out how later.
Yeah, well, that's not the way I've seen it work over a lot of years and a lot of reading of history.
I think the presidents who are successful know what they want to do and they know how to do it.
And they hit the ground running.
It is stunning.
She's not winning anything except superdelegates.
I mean, Bernie, what is he won?
Four, five in a row, or six in the last seven, or seven of the last eight?
Seven of the last eight?
Bernie Sanders won seven of the last eight.
And still, the news coverage is how Mrs. Clinton continues unaltered in her path to nail down the Democrat nomination.
Here's Greg in Arcade, New York.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
Yes, sir.
You bet.
I have a question for you, really, and maybe you can answer it.
For years, the Republican Party has tried to expand the base.
That's all we've heard.
Try to get the big tent more people into it.
Now you have a guy, Donald Trump, seems to be a novice running, but still, for whatever reason, converted and became Republican and is doing well and is getting independents and Democrats and people that have never voted before.
And the establishment is just going absolutely berserk with this stop, Trump, and everything.
My question is: just when did we start issuing tests to say if you could be a conservative?
They keep saying he's not a conservative enough.
You know, they don't know nothing about him.
He just joined.
That's a.
Let me see if I can narrow your question a bit.
You're basically, if I'm right, asking, why doesn't the Republican Party seem more eager, happy, willing, whatever, to welcome in voters from outside the party supporting Trump, the Democrats, the Independents, the people who haven't voted before, when they have been telling us that they can't win without doing so.
They need to expand the base.
They need to expand the party because we just can't win, Rush, with Republican votes alone.
Because this is not how they want to do it.
The Republican Party wants to expand the base by denying or de-emphasizing conservatism.
They want to expand the base by making people think that they're no longer conservatives or the kinds of Republicans everybody thinks they are.
For example, there's a movement at the establishment level of the party to try to put in the party platform acceptance of gay marriage on the theory that they've got to get with it.
And that's how they've got to get millennials and young people because that's what millennials care about.
And so the Republicans have to show them.
Well, the party knows that or thinks that conservatism wants no part of that, that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
So they don't want to expand the base if it involves conservatism at all being responsible for it.
They think conservatism is what's limiting them.
They think social issues conservatism, they think tax cut conservatism is limiting them.
That's why they keep talking about the era of Reagan being over or eagerly looking forward to the era of Reagan being over.
They don't want the people Trump is bringing in because they don't like Trump.
Trump is not them Trump represents.
If he succeeds, the diminishing of the establishment.
Look at the Republican Party had built-in majorities that they would have just joined the Tea Party opposing Obamacare.
Didn't do that either.
That's one of the reasons why everybody's so ticked off.
By the way, Mr. Snerdley just told me that Ted Cruz just, would you call it hit a home run?
He was doing an interview with the media in the Bronx and sort of blew the notion that he is a Trojan horse for the establishment through the moon.
So I'm sure Cookie was rolling on this interview.
I saw it taking place up there, but I had no idea what was being said.
But Snerdley said it was pretty good.
So we are waiting on that.
In the meantime, Politico had a story.
Actually, last night, top officials of the Republican National Committee explained the intricacies of a contested convention on Tuesday afternoon to roughly two dozen veteran Republican operatives.
The meeting at the RNC's Capitol Hill headquarters included discussion about bound delegates and how the party will organize the timing of multiple rounds of balloting.
In fact, it got so detailed that party officials told these operatives that there will be plenty of time built in during the convention to strategize between ballots.
So let's say nobody gets 1237.
So we go to the first ballot and everybody's pledged on the first ballot to vote the way the people in their state did.
So then nobody gets 1237.
Second ballot, what the conventioneers here say there's going to be plenty of time between that first ballot and the second ballot.
Plenty of time.
Don't sweat it.
Plenty of time to go out there and strategize.
And then after the second ballot, if nobody wins it, there'll be plenty of time to strategize between the second and the third ballot, which is code lingo for you're going to have all the time you need to twist arms to suggest,
well, I better be careful here what they will do, but there will be all kinds of time for you to work your magic into securing your delegates for your candidate.
Leading the session, Sean Spicer, the party's senior strategist, Katie Walsh, the RNC chief of staff, and John Felipe, or Felipe, I'm not sure he pronounces, is the chief counsel.
For those of you in Rio Linda, the chief warrior, Spicer, Sean Spicer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The operatives in attendance included Trent Duffy from the Kasich campaign, Vin Weber from the establishment, Matt Schlapp would be maybe the only guy at this meeting, Cruz-oriented.
There was nobody there representing Trump.
He had Ron Bonjean, Phil Mussard, Doug Hay, and Ryan Williams.
One guy representing Cruz.
I don't think anybody there was an operative that is tied to Trump.
Then theHill.com has this story.
Trump effect hits Democrat convention.
You ready for this?
Corporations are considering sitting out the Democrat National Convention this summer for fear of looking partisan if they decide to skip the Republican event because of Trump.
Many American corporations have already told the GOP, sorry, we don't want to be anywhere near Cleveland.
We don't want to be on TV with you.
We don't want our logos anywhere seen because you got Trump and Trump's an embarrassment and Trump's this and Trump's debt and we're not going to be anywhere near.
So now somebody said, well, you know what?
If you guys show up and are widely visible at the Democrat convention, you realize you're telling half your customer base that you don't like them, but you're perfectly fine with these commie whatever Democrats.
And so now, corporations not eager to be seen with successful businessmen like Trump.
They have no problem being seen with a person under four federal investigations.
Hillary Clinton have no problem being seen with the Clintons.
They have no problem being seen with any of these other Democrats.
They don't want to be anywhere near a successful businessman.
But now they are thinking they can't show up at the Democrat convention either, because that would be too partisan looking and so forth.
But this presents a problem for both parties because these corporations bring in all kinds of money.
So you watch, and accommodation is going to be made here.
Corporations will find their way to both conventions, I predict.
Here's Dorothea Mason, Ohio.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Rush, I just want to point out that, you know, these people that say they won't vote for Ted if Donald wins or they won't vote for Donald, are they not realizing that they're leaving the Supreme Court open for Hillary Clinton and her minions to just assign that and to stack that?
And how many years will it take us to get over that, if ever?
It's a matter of principle, they say, Dorothea.
They simply cannot compromise their personal principles by supporting either Trump.
Mostly it's aimed at Trump.
Some might have been at Cruz.
But they claim it's personal principles.
Personal principles come before everything, even if it means electing Hillary.
They cannot betray themselves, they say.
I think they're betraying the whole country if they allow us to be left open to the Democrats to appoint our Supreme Court justices to decide the rules that we all have to follow, that we know it's stacked.
Yeah, I hear you.
You know me.
I know you, Rush.
I've been listening to you a lot longer.
I think the Democrats are the biggest problem this country faces.
I think the problems we are in.
This last caller, Dorothea, thanks very much.
This last caller who wants to know why the GOP is not interested in all these third-party people that Trump's bringing in.
And I misunderstood what his question was going to be when I was reading it on the board here.
When he actually got to it, it was something different.
What I was going to say to this guy, I thought he was going to ask me how to get people in.
How can the Republican Party attract outsiders?
The way to do that, I think, I really don't understand this.
If you take polls of people in this country, they're miserable.
You know, nobody thinks there's economic growth going on.
Nobody thinks that there are great and vast career opportunities.
Nobody thinks it.
There is a malaise that has settled over this country.
You've got millennials thinking they happened to be born at the time in world history where peak America has already happened.
You have young people, whether they're right or wrong, doesn't matter for now.
They really believe the best days of the country are behind them.
Somebody needs to tell them why.
The Republican Party, I told you I got into a knockdown drag out with a female establishment babe from the GOP last night.
And I told her what I tell you here every day.
Why in the world can you people not push back?
Why can't you even identify the source of the problems you all acknowledge we face?
What is it that prevents you people from correctly identifying Democrat Party policy?
Forget about naming Obama if you're afraid of race.
These are Democrat Party policies that have led to 94 million Americans not working to gazillions and gazillions in the welfare movement and on food stamps, open borders.
The very fabric of the country is being purposely redefined.
Why can't you say so?
You want to bring new people to the party?
We had how many Americans was never ever anything other than a big majority opposing Obamacare going all the way back to 2010.
All the Republican Party had to do was reach out and join them.
You had a built-in majority right there and a coalition based on opposing Obamacare.
And you know why they didn't?
There were two reasons.
One, they were Tea Party, which meant they were conservative, which meant yuck.
The second reason they didn't is because they really didn't want to work as hard as it would take to get rid of Obamacare.
Who wants to really roll up your sleeves, try to unravel a 2,000-page entitlement?
But it clearly wasn't there.
The desire to actually roll up, they were very happy to go out and promise in a campaign there'd be plenty of effort to repeal Obamacare.
And there were a bunch of meaningless votes so they could say we tried.
But there has been so much, and there remains so much opportunity.
You want to attract unhappy people, whether Democrats, Martians, I don't care what they are.
There's a lot of people that want a better life than they're having it right now.
There was a lot of people that want a better future than they think exists right now.
There are a lot of people, but sadly, because of the media, a lot of these people just think the country's had its best days.
They don't realize all of this is the result of the Democrat Party and its policies.
Nobody tells them.
They don't realize the state of the economy.
They don't realize the state of immigration, open borders.
They don't realize this is the policy of establishment Washington, D.C. Both parties.
It is the policy of the government.
It's a big majority waiting to be had.
But if the Republican Party is not even going to sound like they oppose any of this and instead thinks that they can save themselves by not criticizing immigration so that Hispanics will like them and maybe then vote for them.
It's, you talk pie in the sky and dreaming.
And then, by the way, the stuff going on at the platform about coming out supporting gay marriage to get millennials, there's a new one too.
There's something else that's that's a traditional Democrat issue that the Republicans, I read it, I can't think what it is right now, but it's along the same lines of gay marriage that they want to put in the party platform.
So the Republican Party clearly, to me, it is clear that they're walking around in a giant defensive shell, thinking that everybody thinks they are racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes.
Thus, they have to do things to prove that they are not.
And you can't prove a negative.
And you can't advance anything when you're constantly in defense.
Which takes me back to Trump.
Up until these last couple of weeks, the word Trump and defense didn't go together.
You took a bull in the china shop offense, is what people saw.
And it's one of the large things that drew people to Trump, and it would draw people to anybody who was willing to go on offense and not react defensively to all these mindless, specious allegations about war on women and racism and all this other.
Stuff's got to stop at some point.
And we've never, ever had a greater opportunity than right now to contrast Republicanism, conservatism, whatever, with what the Democrats believe.
And we don't have to even do it on the basis of theory.
We don't have to say, folks, if you keep voting for him, let me tell you what's going to happen.
Because it is happening.
We can say, you know what?
You voted for him, and here's what you got.
You got no job.
You got no career.
You've got a law mandating you have to have health care or else you can be fined or else you can be put in jail or whatever.
And now they're talking about making you rent an apartment if you own a building to criminals on the basis that you've been racist in your life.
And now they're threatening to actually conduct legal action against you if you don't believe in global warming.
There are inexorable truths of life.
One of them is that young millennial socialists abandon it once they get careers and jobs.
And there was a survey or polling data indicating that that's even happening now as we see a good idea.
I just see squandered opportunity after squandered opportunity.
How do we get people not on our side to our side?
How do we attract people to our place?
It's the simplest thing in the world to me, but you can't do it on talk radio.
You can't do it on Fox News.
It has to be done in the political process.
Anyway, I got to take a time out here, folks.
A little long.
We will be back after this.
Okay, here it is.
Ted Cruz and the Bronx this afternoon.
A reporter was saying Donald Trump reacting to the results of Wisconsin last night called you a Trojan horse being used by the party bosses.
Donald can always be counted on to take the high road and to demonstrate class.
If he wants to engage in insults, he's welcome to do so.
He gets very angry when the voters reject him.
He is now lost in four states in a row.
Donald Trump promised a quote big victory in Wisconsin.
Not only did he not get a big victory, but the men and women in Wisconsin resoundingly rejected his campaign.
And the reason is simple.
Donald has no solutions to the problems we're facing.
He likes to yell and scream and insult and curse.
And his statement last night was consistent with that.
Well, I'll tell you what that's going to generate.
That's going to generate more Lion Ted stuff.
Lion Ted, did you see what Lion Ted said about me?
And that's just going to be a circuitous thing here.
But that's Ted Cruz afternoon in the Bronx.
Folks, we are here to serve humanity.
Way, we have our leukemia radiathon, radiothon, coming up Friday.
I just want to remind you, our annual effort to cure leukemia.
I don't want to spring that on you when Friday gets here.
So be prepared for it because it's coming up Friday.
It's all part of our service to humanity.
I just remembered what it is.
It's climate change that some of the other people at the RNC want to start adding to the platform and acknowledgement of man-made climate change along with support for gay marriage.
And this is how they want to go out and broaden the base of the party, of the party, folks.
Anyway, more on that when we get back here tomorrow, which will be in 21 hours.
▲
Export Selection