All Episodes
Previous Next
May 18, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:21
May 18, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 Podcast.
Well, I tell you, folks, I am so glad that I do not play golf for a living.
Man, oh man.
We um every other year, some real good friends of mine who run uh well, I'm very involved with the boys and girls clubs of America, arrange for about 80 guys to play the U.S. Open course anywhere from two to four weeks before the U.S. Open.
And they always schedule another course or two in the days preceding.
That's where I've been since the weekend.
And yesterday we played Oakmont outside Pittsburgh, which is the uh U.S. Open course this year, where Johnny Miller shot a 63 back in 1973, I think, when I lived there.
Um and I folks, I I was hitting the ball well.
I was creaming the ball.
I was putting solid contact.
It's the most difficult golf course in a fun way, in a good way.
I'm not criticizing the course.
I met so many great people there, so many of the young caddies coming up.
I can't tell you the number of people came up to me and said that they were rush babies and that they grew up with their parents, uh listening to the radio program.
And I mean, it was really a lot of people.
It was uh it was it was great, it was heartwarming, it was this is a great experience, a great time.
The weather was kind of cool and nippy, but um it was it was it was not a problem.
Everybody we ran into on this trip was uh was I mean, even an avowed liberal Democrat drove a golf cart all the way out to the 14th hole to say hi.
Yeah.
He didn't admit that he was a liberal Democrat.
My caddy told me he was when he left.
Anyway, um it I mean I I have I was hitting drives, just I was just creaming the ball and right into a sand.
Obviously, should have used a three-wood course knowledge, didn't have it, used the driver.
Plus, you know, us amateurs, we just want to get up there and whack it as far as we can, hell with what the result is.
But it was fun.
It's gonna be it's gonna be great open to watch on uh on TV.
And it was just a great weekend, but we're back here, and I'll tell you, I'm overloaded.
I've I've got um oh, you know something about point I wanted to make, all these young people, and they're I'm telling you, there were a lot at Oakmont yesterday in Pittsburgh.
I mean, people come to I remember you from KQV.
I remember you from McKeesport.
I mean, that's Pittsburgh, my first uh city first job away from home.
And I've got something that I'm gonna spend some time on today, maybe tomorrow, depends on when I get to it, because it's not specifically campaigner issue related, although tangentially it is, and that is what's happening today's college kids.
What's happening today's millennials?
What explains this?
I mean, what explains the fear?
Well, I mean, there are actual therapy sessions for students at some Southern California University.
Ben Shapiro went out and made a speech.
Some students who didn't even go to the speech, who were not even on campus when the speech was made, have made appointments with a therapist to deal with the trauma of having had the guy on campus making a speech three months later.
And you've heard all about the safe spaces that college students need now.
And I rem I've I've I ran into the opposite of that yesterday is my point.
I ran into young people who are, I mean, you'd be perfectly fine handing the range of the country to them.
They're not afraid of anything.
They're not they're not politically correct or dominated by it.
They were just they were just real guys, real people.
And it reminded me that something uh an observation I made to you a couple years ago, I think California, uh, Los Angeles, and had run into some people that I had met 20 years ago who were no longer conservative and started getting on to me about being conservative and said, Why don't you keep doing what you're doing?
Don't you want to do something else?
I mean, you do the same thing every day.
Look at us.
We have moved on.
We take different directions in life.
And I'm sitting there, and these people were more hardened conservative than I was when I met them.
And I was scratching my head trying to figure this out.
At first I didn't know if it was being put on, being played.
That was legitimate.
Well, the long short version of this is that their kids had ended up converting them.
They'd sent their kids to college.
Their kids came home and told the parents how wrong they were about everything.
And David French, I remember making a big deal about this in it.
David French at National Review has a piece.
It came out at the beginning of the weekend, tackling this very issue about what has happened to kids.
What's become of these?
Why are they the way they are?
Demanding safe spaces, fearful of things that aren't happening on campus, making up rape stories and this kind of stuff.
And his theory is, and that's why I relate to it, it all comes back to the parents.
The parents, some of us, baby boom parents have raised kids to be friends and to be always protected and never harmed and never hurt and never had feelings hurt because that attacks self-esteem, and this is the result that we get.
So that's really, really just broadbrush.
I want to get to this in great detail.
Because of course that's the future that uh we're talking about.
But it's not specifically related to the Democrat Party imploding in Nevada.
You know, Hillary Clinton barely ekes out a win over Crazy Bernie.
She got, you know, she in Kentucky, she beat Obama by 35 points back in 2008.
She squeaked by Crazy Bernie.
There were riots, there were death threats, there was mayhem at the Nevada Democrat convention.
All because Crazy Bernie supporters have finally come to grips with the fact that the nomination is being denied their guy.
That no matter what happens, he's not going to get it.
And so they are prepared to take matters into their own hands and talking out Crazy Bernie going third party, which we need to encourage.
There's also a story that some Democrat power brokers are considering convincing Hillary to put Crazy Bernie on the ticket as the vice president, which we do not want.
That would not be good.
I ran that by Mr. Snerdley this morning.
It's just impossible.
There's there's no way.
Not after the stuff Crazy Bernie said about Hillary, and not after this.
No, no, no.
This is politics as usual.
You amend that stuff with a love fest at the convention.
You're forgetting about Crazy Bernie supporters, Mr. Snurdley.
I said, no, I'm not.
I'm just remembering that they have a common enemy, and it's us.
At the end of the day, they despise us more than they despise anybody else in the world.
And so we'll just have to deal with it as it comes.
But the point is Hillary's flawed.
You see, she wants to put Bill in charge of the economy.
You know, folks, why I I saw that, and I've been cramming since since I got back about six last night.
I've been cramming.
And I saw that and I saw Trump's tweet.
I thought Trump's tweet just captured this perfect.
This is the essence of Trump.
This is something there's not a single Republican, elected Republican out there who could do this, I don't think.
No, not the way to put it.
There's not a single elected Republican who would consider who would even think of this.
Because doing this would not seem to be presidential or whatever.
But Trump tweets out the following.
Crooked Hillary said her husband's going to be in charge of the economy.
If so, he should run, not her.
Will he bring the energizer to D.C.?
It's logical, it's fair, it goes right to the heart of Hillary's phony feminism.
It touches on the Clinton's wacko marriage.
It puts both of them on the defense.
It's funny, it's clever.
It uses the nickname that Trump created, and it captures this energizer stuff.
But more important, it didn't take a team of consultants.
It didn't take any focus groups.
It didn't take any polling.
It took no test runs, trial runs, didn't cost a lot of money.
It just one guy tweeting out what he thought on the spot.
Trolling.
Trump trolling.
You know, that's New York Times story on Trump on Sunday.
I saw that.
I read that.
So you know what my reaction to it was?
I said, these people in New York Times, they do not get it.
Everybody's still trying to attack Trump the way you would attack any Republican or any politician you want to decimate, But he's not that.
His supporters are going to brag about that story.
Trump supporters are going to say, finally, we got a Bill Clinton like dog in our party.
Right on, dude.
They're going to celebrate.
To the people that were not reacting to it that way, they're concerned about it.
We furn it we we learned that the whole thing's made up.
That the vast majority of that story is a bunch of lies, a symbol lies.
And you know what?
We lament social media a lot on this program for various reasons, because I think it is destructive to individuals in this quest for fame that young people have and causes them to vomit everything there is about themselves, and they give up any aspect of their privacy.
But on the on the other hand, social media has made it more and more difficult for traditional media to run hit pieces like this and get away with it because social media people can fight glom onto this, find the errors, find the mistakes, find the bias, find the outright lies, and combat it instantly, and put these two reporters now on the defensive.
And Trump played a role in that.
Trump has put these two reporters on the defensive.
He went out immediately.
There's not another, you know, another Republican candidate probably would not have done this.
They would have left it up to a consultant.
I'll take care of McDonald, and nothing would have happened.
Because you can't fight the New York Times.
The best thing you can do was just let the cycle pass, let it go, and we'll wait till the next big story to come along and people forget about this.
And that's not the way this crowd plays it.
That's the way traditional Republicans play it.
It's the way the Bush White House played everything.
Let this go.
Don't respond to it.
Don't dignify it.
We're not going to take the White House to the gutter, respond to this stuff.
It'll be forgotten by tomorrow when the next story comes around.
Except there was a new attack, sometimes two or three a day.
Nobody forgot anything.
Trump doesn't allow any grass to grow under any of these assaults when he feels he's been wounded, he wants to go in and unwound himself, as he says.
Anyway, when I saw that New York Times story, I I didn't know what Dr. Knouthammer said until I just did my cramming when we got the audio soundbite roster, and Crowdhammer said, if that's the best they got, we better just get to the inauguration here.
Dr. Crowdhammer.
Bill Kristol was in tears when he read it, but Dr. Crowdhammer said it.
And I, you know, I didn't see I said, what's the hit piece?
I can see how they're trying to do a hit piece.
I mean they're trying to defame Trump.
But for crying out, where was anything like this with Bill Clinton?
See, this is the thing, these people forget that everybody has long memories, and they are demonstrating, the New York Times is demonstrating their bias and their fraud and everything else by engaging in a Trump story like this and wouldn't even get in the in the Bill Clinton story.
Guess who ended up being a sex pervert?
Ken Starr, who may to this day still be a virgin.
Ken Starr became the sex pervert in the Lewinsky saga.
And Bill Clinton became the angelic victim of the vast right-wing conspiracy.
And so the New York Times tries to run this hit piece on Trump, and there's some of the women come and say I've been misquoted.
I wasn't fully quoted, I was taken out of context.
Nora O'Donnell of CBS was virtually seething in an on-air interview with Ivanka Trump.
How can you even admit to being the daughter of such a bullying squine?
Some such thing.
There's the attitude.
And you could see Nora O'Donnell's face, nothing like the bathwater she's in.
She just, oh, she has so much contempt for Ivanka.
And Ivanka just rolled right over her with her definition of feminism.
All this is coming up here in the uh in the audio sound bites.
But then Bill Clinton running the economy.
You know, other people, a lot of people had the reaction that Trump did.
Well, if he's gonna run the economy, put him, you know, he should be running for president.
My reaction to it is not only that, uh, it's Hillary admitting she can't get there without the guy.
It's Hillary, and plus there's this nostalgia of how great the 90s was economically.
See, the problem here that nobody can address is that Hillary will not lay a hand on this lousy economy in her campaign.
She's imprisoned by because it's Obama's, so she can't, she can attack Obamacare here or there, she can do this, but the overall economy, she's got to kind of be hands-off.
Because to go after that, is to go after Obama and the last seven and a half, eight years.
So bring Bill in there, try to make everybody nostalgic for the great economy that was the 1990s, which was simply, if truth be told, the economic boom of the 90s was that which began in 1984 when the Reagan economy and tax cuts finally kicked in and it just kept on and kept on and kept on and came to full fruition in the mid-90s with the Clinton presidency.
But beyond even that, how about this idea that there's a guy out there who can fix the economy?
There's one guy, I'm gonna put my husband, Bill Clinton in charge of the economy.
Bill Clinton's going to revive the economy as as though there's one guy who's got the answers.
Well, if that one guy has the answers, why doesn't he fix it now?
Why hasn't he advised on what to do the last seven and a half years?
Why, if one guy has the means to fix the economy as he stood mute.
Of course, it's a it's a it's a flawed premise.
There is one guy doesn't run the economy, good or bad.
It's too massive and too big.
But the low information voters on the Democrat side don't think that way at all.
They do think of things like kings and dictators waving magic wands to make magic happen.
So I doubt their attitude toward it would be uh anything like mine was.
But anyway, that kind of sets the table.
There's uh there's a there's a uh a great, well, actually, two exposes of this New York Times piece and how fraudulent it was.
There's a great piece by Victor Davis Hanson today, he's got another one, the Pajama Boy White House, and it's also an it's a it's uh it's uh it's related to the stories about what has become of the young generation.
You remember when the Pajama Boy ad came out for Obamacare?
Some nerd uh in his pajamas, urging people to study various insurance policies and talk health care and so forth.
We laughed.
We said it turns out the joke was on us because that's who the White House thinks the country is.
That's what the White House thinks the country young people are the pajama boy, because Obama's one.
I mean, they're basically wusses, but they are smarmy and arrogant smart asses who think they're smarter and know everything that everybody else doesn't.
And they're hipsters and so forth, and you find them according to VDH, you find them in New York, Boston, Washington, Corridor, and Silicon Valley in the tech industry and so forth.
And he's got a great analysis of it all and how we got here and uh what it means.
That's why, again, it was uh it was so heartening to me run into so many of these young guys, young people at uh two different golf clubs over the weekend, and I saw just the exact opposite of the kind of real man portrayed for us in modern American media today.
Anyway, I have to take a break, folks, back in just a second with greetings, my friends, and welcome back, Rush Limborgh, glad to be back here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
How about how about these absolutely unacceptable conditions in airports, the lines to pass through security.
In Chicago, they're now advising people to show up three hours early for a domestic flight.
Now I can tell you that back in the mid-90s, and even toward 2000, people like me, I'll just use me.
I relied on something.
I I believed that demonstrable, unequivocally demonstrable government failures, would, if properly explained, help to put a dent in the love and appreciation and support of big government and liberalism and the Democrat Party.
And in this administration, we have had disaster after disaster after failure after failure.
We've got Obamacare was a disaster, and the people in charge of it are laughing about how they lied to us.
They're laughing on media in our face.
How they laughed at us, how contemptible they hold us, how how stupid we they think we are.
Obama's speech writers with Charlie Rose, laughing about creating the line, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
And then we get Jonathan Gruber, the author of Obamacare, running around laughing and lying about telling how they were able to lie and fool everybody.
Obamacare is something that nobody likes, nobody wants any part of.
You look at this transportation and safety, whatever it is administration.
I mean, it's an absolute, and you know with this, it may be on purpose.
They may be doing this to secure even more funding for the division.
They may purposely be creating massive public anger, wanting millions and millions of travelers to shout to Washington, fix it, we don't care what you do, just fix it.
Here's a blank check.
And yet none of it seems best I can tell, none of it seems to cause people to question the government's ability to do anything.
I'm talking about liberals and leftists.
I know we don't need any conversion on our side.
But if this kind of example after example, failure after failure, boondaggle after boondoggle, if this doesn't do it.
Why doesn't it?
And there are answers, of course.
But this is unacceptable what's happening in these airports now.
The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right in 99.8% of the time.
The Wall Street Journal has a piece today on the Clintons and their and their economics.
This misses the point.
Hillary Clinton says she'd expect Bill Clinton to help fix the economy.
So the Wall Street Journal sets out, in traditional Wall Street Journal fashion, I mean, this is predictable.
To meticulously compare Bill Clinton's policy position in the 90s with crooked Hillary's economic policies of today.
It's nicely done.
It's smart, and it's boring as hell.
And worse than that, it completely misses the political point that Trump raises in his tweet.
Okay, so I understand the journal's readership.
And I understand that uh the people that read the journal think they're top-notch business people.
And uh, and so we're gonna have an in-depth comparison of Bill Clinton's uh policies and economics and the Hillary Clinton.
The misses the whole point.
That's not why Hillary is putting Bill in charge of the economy because of his economic policies or principles.
She's doing it to try to revive a moribund campaign, relying on the one Clinton that has some vestige of popularity remaining, even though both have been corrupt.
You know how much these two have made in speeches in the last 16 months?
Over six million dollars in the last two uh 16 months, I'm sorry, last 16 months, over six million dollars in speeches alone.
They make more in one speech than many Americans will make in in five or ten years.
But an in-depth comparison of Hillary's economic policy is not what it's called for here.
In the first place, you've got Hillary, I am woman, I am feminist, I don't need what she's gonna do.
She's so economically inept, she's gonna put her husband in charge of it.
Not up to the job herself, needs her husband's help.
I mean, it's not about the discrepancies between then and now.
First woman president can't do the job without her husband.
In name only.
The most cheated on woman on the planet holds on to her cheating husband because he's the brains of the partnership, at least on this Side of the divide.
Look, I'm I'm not I'm not ripping the journal.
I'm what I'm trying to point out how people are covering this campaign, particularly the Trump campaign, and they're trying to plug Trump and the way he does things and who he is and how he's gotten to where he is.
They're trying to plug him into the into the ages old political playbook for covering campaigns, and you can't do it.
Square peg round hole.
It misses the whole point when you try to do that.
And I you know what I think I think that part of this, I think part of the reason why so many on all sides, you've got conservative media types doing it, liberal media types, are trying to cover Trump in traditional ways in which campaigns and candidates and campaigns have always been covered, because they're trying to assure themselves that Trump isn't unusual.
They're trying to assure themselves that Trump is pretty much like what we get with any candidate when you strip away the surface and you dig down deep.
And the reason they want to do that is because I think they're trying to find assurances that Trump can lose.
Because I think a whole lot of people are getting very, very worried that Trump not only can win, but is going to.
If you take a snapshot of this point in time, the election of the day, who knows?
The Democrat Party's imploding.
The Republican Party, you can say it's imploding, but where's the momentum?
By the way, it's now official.
Trump has received more votes than any Republican ever.
In a Republican primary, broke the record set by George W. Bush.
What is he now?
60 delegates away from the uh why are you frowning in there?
Do you disagree with that?
It's absolutely true.
Okay, so 66 or 77 away from actually securing the nomination, minus whatever trick analogy Curly Hogland's going to try at the uh at the convention.
But I really think there's so many people still trying to plug Trump into traditional campaign coverage, and it just doesn't work.
Uh but I think of the reason is they're looking for assurances because that Trump can lose, that he that he will lose.
And the way he will lose it is a normal Republican.
He's not going to redraw the electoral map, for example.
No, no, there's nothing special about Trump.
He's not going to bring New York or Michigan into play.
No, no, no, no.
He's just a regular Republican, can't possibly win NATO state, and they're digging deep and doing analysis to try to prove that they are correct.
The bottom line is nobody knows.
Nobody has the slightest idea where this is all headed.
We don't even know what's really going to happen on the Democrat side.
You know, some of the Democrats, the super delegates on the Democrat side are, I'm hearing whispers and buzz that some superdelegates who everybody thinks are pledged to Hillary are getting nervous about it.
Wouldn't that stand a reason?
What is there to be excited about in the Hillary Clinton campaign?
She losing and losing and losing, and when she does win, it's she's eking out victories.
The only thing that has Hillary Clinton in the position she's in is the rigged nature of the Democrat primary process, which is the superdelegates, essentially.
But there isn't any supporting moment.
It isn't real.
You know, it's the difference between PR and buzz and substance.
And there isn't any substance to the Hillary campaign.
It's not a momentous roaring, positive, sweeping everything out of the way campaign.
She is struggling.
She's barely eking it out.
All of the energy, all the excitement's on the crazy Bernie side.
You know, reminds me.
Uh what was it?
Sunday, I guess.
In the New York Post, there was a I don't know if it's a column or if it was just a uh an essay.
It was by Maureen Callahan, called Everything Today is a lie.
And it's a long piece because it's filled with examples.
Starts this way.
We're officially in the era of the epic troll.
Let's review the last week alone.
Gwyneth Paltrow, high priestess of pretension, offers a $15,000 gold vibrator on her website named Goop.
When it says sex toys have long since graduated from the floppy rubber things you hide in your bedside table to beautiful works of interactive art, says the copy.
Gwyneth, who well knows what the world thinks of her, doubled down on her good friend Chelsea Handler's new talk show, which by the way debuted last Wednesday on Netflix.
We started talking about it.
Is this kind of thing top uh toxic?
Paltrose said.
Well, we're very conscious about non-toxic products at Goop, and we learned that Lube is actually very toxic, and so go to her site to buy $13 of organic.
It's absurd stuff, none of it true.
Game of Thrones.
Jon Snow comes alive despite dying in last year's season finale.
Jon Snow is dead, said showrunner David Benioff at the time.
Deader than dead, said the episode's director.
In January, Kit Harrington, who plays Jon Snow, told a BBC that all I can tell you is Jon Snow's dead.
He died at the end of last season on March 27, six weeks before Jon Snow came back to life.
The actor told The Guardian, I'm really dead.
I'm not coming back to life.
Last Sunday, Jon Snow was up and about, executing the traitors who'd killed him so poorly.
Not real.
I mean, even the people that everybody's being lied to is the point, and it goes on.
All last week, pop star Meghan Trainer claimed that she was outraged to see her latest video go online without her approval.
I was like, why are the fans messing with my waste?
And my squad was like, that's not your waste.
No mere pop star, she.
Megan Traynor has much larger, more important concerns than the fans and her glam squad, concocting the ridiculous premise that a major record label would betray one of their top-selling artists.
Trainer elevated herself to solo feminist warrior, dismantling faceless sexist body shaming executives in corner offices.
It turns out the whole thing was a publicity stunt planned from beginning to end.
If you don't know who this is, it doesn't matter.
It was a brilliantly conceived, flawlessly executed publicity stunt made to look like this woman had been betrayed by her own company with fake photos of her published, and it was all a lie to sell whatever it is she's got to sell.
Queen of the Anthems, of course, Beyonce, whose new album and accompanying short film Lemonade strongly implies that her husband, the equally private, micromanaging, business minded Jay-Z, has been cheating on her with multiple women, including one that she calls Becky.
While the internet went crazy trying to guess who Jay's Becky was, his mistress, and beta celebs like Rachel Roy and Rita Aura inserted themselves in the mix.
The real point was lost.
Lemonade is only available on title.
Beyonce and Jay-Z's flailing streaming service.
They're making up the fact that he had a babe.
They're making up the fact that they have marital problems.
The whole thing is a concocted PR scam designed to separate people from their money.
Nothing is real.
Substance cannot sell what needs to be sold, is the bottom line.
People have lost faith that reality can sell anything.
People have lost faith that reality can persuade, that substance has meaning.
Everything must be lied about.
Everything must be spun.
In fact, everything is a narrative today.
A narrative has become substitute for substance.
As of last Friday, the New York Times reported it Lemonade.
This album by Beyonce generated 306 million global streams, 1.2 million user subscriptions in the album's first week.
In a concurrent Us magazine cover story, Beyonce's Agony and Artistry got six pages of coverage with quotes telling quotes buried at the end.
A source close to the couple said everything was planned.
They're both in on this together.
Everything she's doing is to break records.
Everything they're doing is lying.
Everything they're doing is misleading.
They can't rely on the substance of her talent.
They don't trust it.
It's got to be spun.
Sharon Osborne, long-suffering wife of adult Rocky rocker Ozzie, leaked word she was leaving him after 33 years of marriage after catching him with the hairdresser.
On Tuesday, Sharon dramatically returned to her CBS Daytime show, The Talk.
Remember who this babe is.
She turned her family into the Kardashians before there was the Kardashians.
When she got back to her TV show, she shared her agony and her hurt, her rapid emotional arc, from humiliation to fear to courage to independence with her 2.9 million viewers.
I can't keep living like this, she told her co-hosts.
While at the same time claiming all of this empowered her.
As she sat emotionless, she sipped from a tall glass of lemonade, trolling us all.
By Thursday, she was photographed cuddling with Ozzy at a promotional event for his upcoming farewell tour, which she oversees.
A source told the New York Post page six on Friday, Sharon is the queen of publicity stunts.
Well, yeah, but these are more than publicity stunts because this stuff is not happening in politics.
Look at Ben Rhodes, the New York Times story on the Iranian deal.
And how everybody's being lied to.
It's everywhere now.
You can't, and that Maureen Callahan moves on to the series stuff from the entertainment stuff.
I have to take a break here.
But the point is, everything today is a lie.
Everything is spun.
Everything is PR.
Substance and reality, nobody has confidence in to be persuasive or to be victorious.
Gotta take a break.
And we're back.
El Rushbow back after a couple days off.
Happy to be back here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
According to Catherine Timff at the National Review Online, uh, she actually quotes a piece here in the UK Telegraph, it's now sexist to tell women they look tired at work.
Chances are, if a woman has a totally bare face, meaning no makeup, that she'll be told by both male and female colleagues that she looks exhausted, hung over, or even sick.
People are so used to seeing made up women at work that if they show up without makeup, it doesn't seem natural.
And women sometimes are told, Are you okay?
You look kind of worn out.
You look kind of kind of ragged.
That's now sexist.
Radika Sangani writes in a piece, it's sexist to tell a woman she looks tired at work.
And here's why.
And the story goes on to explain how that has become discrimination and sexism.
And you know, these are the kind of things we laugh at.
But every one of these things we laugh at, they end up becoming real standard operating procedures.
And everybody ends up being caught short by it all.
By the way, before we get on, I have to tell you something.
We uh we have come up with our next great premium giveaway for new subscribers to uh Rush 24-7 or the Limbaugh Letter and doing so in combo.
We got the it's a never Hillary bumper sticker that we've uh finally got into production.
And uh it's it's now live at Rush Limbaugh.com.
All the offers have been updated to include this now.
You get the Never Hillary bumper sticker free with a year's subscription to Rush 24-7 or Rush 24-7 and the Limbaugh Letter, and Father's Day is right around the corner.
We just passed Mother's Day.
Father's Day three weeks, three plus weeks away.
And every time we do this, every time we introduce a new premium for subscriptions, people that subscribe last week or two weeks, well, wait a minute, wait a minute, what about I know it's an ongoing problem.
And it would happen no matter when we introduced the uh new premium.
Now, the the Never Hillary Bunker sticker uses her new logo.
The thing with the red arrow pointing right.
We just put never on there.
And if you uh if you want to grab one, become a new subscriber.
Actually, folks, you shouldn't even need a premium to become a subscriber to Rush 247.
It's one of the greatest websites out there.
Every substantive, well, practically every word I utter here is transcribed and made available in transcribed form, written form.
Preserved for the eons, preserved for the ages.
There's Ditto Cam video archives.
They're audio archives.
It's virtually an encyclopedic website.
The content that you get there is unrivaled other than search basis and so forth.
Anyway, I've got to take a break.
It's RushLimbaugh.com.
Simple to find it back in just a second.
Okay, we get back.
Uh the campaigns front and center.
Trump and Hillary and all related stories.
New York Times hit pieces.
The transgender directive from the White House, and the absolute ridiculous nature of all this.
▲
Export Selection