All Episodes
Previous Next
May 19, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:27
May 19, 2016, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings to you, music leaver, lovers and thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
Rush Limbaugh executing assigned host duties flawlessly zero.
Mistakes you can expect it, you can count on it, and whatever you expect, we're going to exceed them.
Because that's what we do here.
We meet and surpass all audience expectations every day.
Great to have you.
Telephone number 800 282-2882 if you want to be on the program and the uh email address L Rushbow at EIB net.
Um I got a stack here of stu of stuff on on Trump and the uh the R word with Hannity last night on uh and Clinton and and so forth.
There's actually a lot of people that have reacted to this in a number of ways, and in addition, I you know it might be worthwhile to remind people what Hillary has said about this.
Because Trump's gonna be the only guy that'll bring this up too.
I mean, it the the the nobody in the drive-by is gonna bring it up, and and I don't think anybody else in the Republican Party would would would lead with it.
They might they might add to it or affirm it after somebody like Trump does.
Uh oh, speaking of which how I've been telling people uh two things.
I left out one of the golf courses we played over the weekend.
I talked about Oakmont yesterday, but the day before we played Laurel Valley, uh which is which is near Ligonier and La Trobe and uh Arnold Palmer, and he was there, Arnold Palmer was home.
Um near La Trobe.
That's where we landed and flew into La Trobe, and we played Laurel Valley on on Monday, and it was great too.
You know what's great about Laurel Valley?
You can smoke anywhere in that.
You can have cigars in a locker room, you can have cigars in the dining room, you can have cigars in a men's grill, you can have cigars in a locker room, you can have cigars in the toilet, you can have cigars at a pudding green, you can have cigars on the golf course, you can have cigars on the range, you can you can smoke everywhere in that place.
That's almost worth thinking of moving there.
Go back.
Well, I've lost my battery here.
I can't hear anything.
I can't even hear myself here.
Let me let me turn it off and see if I can get it to come back on.
Three, two, there it is.
Well, just give me two more seconds here, and then it's what did you say to me?
No, no, no, it's not men's only.
It's it's uh everybody.
It's it's you can smoke anywhere you want, and there's women employees all over the place.
I mean, when we got out of the van, that's one of the first things they told us.
Gentlemen, this is a fun club.
This is for guys like you.
You can smoke cigars, cigarettes wherever you want.
They gave us a list of things.
There was no don'ts.
It was all a bunch of do's, things you can't do anywhere else anymore.
And they had a they had a f this a great bunch of guys as caddies, and I played well in the on the back nine, on I was the horse in our group, meaning I carried everybody.
On the back and the front nine, I was not not so hot, but the back nine I carried everybody.
But they were great at this place.
It was um it was just a it was a wonderful two days.
Laurel Valley Club, the Laurel I shouldn't have said anything.
They're gonna be set on now by a bunch of zealots.
But no, it's uh it was it was a throwback.
Modern throwback.
It was just ultimate freedom at this place.
And everybody exercised uh proper decorum.
It was don't get the wrong idea about it.
It was just a really fun place to be.
You know what?
Men could be men.
It's like it's like the New York Times.
Camille Paglia has a piece that she just posted at Salon.com.
It's her take on the New York Times hit piece on Trump.
And she she I think she synthesizes it's down it down to its essence.
She did the New York Times really think they were gonna be able to damage Trump by portraying him as a New York millionaire who likes to hang around pretty women.
What kind of sophists dream up a story like that?
And then she has some comments about the two journalists that were signed to do the story way too young, not nearly enough life experience to understand the lifestyle of a guy like Trump.
They've grown up hating lifestyles like that, being told lifestyles like Trump's are horrible and so forth.
So they start out with their bias that it's etched in stone in this.
It's kind of like this Facebook thing.
Zuckerberg at Fake Book had the meeting with conservatives.
And uh Chatsworth Osborne Jr. was one of them.
He accepted the invitation and went out there.
No, I was not invited, folks.
No, no, no.
Again, it's what we talked about yesterday.
I think Zuckerberg uh the people he invited.
No, I would not have been invited to this.
I'm too famous to go to something too big for something like this.
That's that's that's not something that I could be invited to would never gonna happen.
The point is, I was watching Chatsworth Osborne Jr. talk about it, and he said that he or somebody else pointed out to Zuckerberg, do you have anybody at works here who is not born and raised in a left-wing culture?
Because that's why your algorithms are the way they are.
If you don't have any conservatives working for you, there's no way you can have a conservative algorithm.
And by the way, there's no such thing as an algorithm that's not biased.
An algorithm is nothing more than a computer program written by human beings.
And if a bunch of liberals are writing the algorithms, and if they don't think they're liberals, and if they don't think they're biased, and if they don't think there's anything particularly ideological about them, you have to understand a lot of people grow up liberal who that's all they know.
That to them is normal.
That to them is is what is.
And anything that's not that is the Circus Act.
And so they grow up, they are normal, and there's no reason they would include uh conservatism or whatever they think it is in their algorithms.
And Chanceworth pointed out to them that you're never going to get this algorithm stuff fixed until you get some people working here until you get some diversity, some ideological diversity.
And he said that Zuckerberg agreed with that.
That Zuckerberg said that Zuckerberg is a little bothered that fake book has taken on such a political identity.
I know, I know.
I hear things like that, and I it goes in one ear and out the other.
I I don't think there's there.
No, no, there is not, there's no such thing as an apolitical liberal.
They are defined by it.
They're governed by it.
Yeah.
It if fake book and Google may as well have offices in the White House in the West Wing.
They're there that much.
Google has been working with Obama on who knows what for the entire seven and a half years.
There are more Google visits on the White House logs than anybody else.
And and fake book is in there as uh as well.
But uh no, back to the Camille Paglia in the New York Times story.
She's she's exactly right.
You have these two young reporters who have no appreciation for understanding, they've been raised with and educated with and by resentment for success and achievement, and they have been taught the stigmas that their professors and others have attached to it, that successful people are boers, they're cheats, um uh they're reprobates, they're misogynists, all these all these things.
So the New York Times story on Trump, that's the starting point.
That's the foundation.
Trump is yuck.
Trump is and and Camille Paglia correctly distills this down to they really thought they were going to damage Donald Trump by preparing a story detailing how a rich New York millionaire likes to hang around with attractive women.
Her point is that people who think That's strange.
And people who think that is an indictment of somebody are so ill-equipped to write such a story, unprepared, and unable to do it because that desire is common.
That's why I said to you, when I read that story, I said most of Trump supporters are going to applaud it and go, yeah, yeah, yeah, our guy on the case.
They're going to be proud of it.
And I guarantee when I said that yesterday, there's a bunch of leftists in this audience that made them seethe.
I guarantee you it made them seethe.
Anybody could find anything redeemable in that story.
It's beyond me.
He likes hanging around with beautiful women.
He ogles beautiful women.
Hey, you need to get with the real world.
This is the leftists have constructed this little cocoon.
They built this little cocoon they all live in.
And now they call them safe spaces and uh wherever they have their little hideouts so they can be protected from points of view they don't even hear.
Remember the story we had yesterday, Ben Shapiro goes out, I think it was UC University of California.
I don't know, what one of the, it's not UCLA, but it's one of the Southern California colleges in the UC system.
And he made a speech and three months ago, and the students who weren't even at the speech have asked for therapy to deal with what he said that they didn't even attend three months ago.
And the school has complied and has set up sessions and safe places for these kids to go who are trying to deal with what they think was said on their campus.
We're raising some wusses.
And then they end up being hired by the New York Times and end up writing stories which they think are going to destroy.
That was a hit piece.
That was a New York Times hit piece.
That piece was designed to really damage Trump.
They had no idea how it was going to help him.
And that was that was uh Camille Paglia's point.
Anyway, it's a quick time out.
I want to come back and continue here with your phone calls.
The EIB network.
Hang in there, be tough folks, back before you know it.
I promise to give the details on this the racist trees of our national park story.
Again, the uh stories by Daniel Greenfield is in front page Mag, David Horowitz's publication.
The origin of this bizarre racist lynching theory of national parks.
And if you're just joining us, um story about how blacks do not like go to national parks because the trees remind them of their ancestors being lynched during slavery.
Never mind the fact, have you seen the uh these PSAs on TV?
Black family after black family going to national parks.
Have you seen these?
Well, no, no, they I don't know how recently they are, but but there's there's been a whole campaign of African Americans going to theme parts national parks.
Um the reason for those PSAs is to promote government-owned land.
It's I mean, they're leftist PSAs, and they're designed to show wards of the state visiting government-owned lands, how wonderful government is, how great government, how beautiful government can make things.
And they've used a lot of black families actors in in these PSAs, so that's why this story's kind of odd.
The origin of the theory appears to be Carolyn Finney.
Finney was an actress noted for an appearance in something called the nut house.
Then she became a cause celebre for race activists when she was denied tenure by uh UC Berkeley's Department of Environmental Science Policy and Management, because her work did not meet academic standards.
So she didn't get tenure at Berkeley, she was fit to be tied.
He's angry, she blamed racism for that.
As did her supporters.
And these days she is a diversity advisor to the U.S. National Parks Advisory Board.
So what was uh not good enough for UC Berkeley is good enough for the National Parks.
She's also the author of something called Black Faces, White spaces in which she claims that quote oppression and violence against black people in forests and other green spaces can translate into contemporary understandings that constrain African American environmental understandings.
That's gobbledygook.
That's leftist she's attempting to be an intellectual with that collection and assembly of words.
But it's basically this former actress and professor denied tenure at Berkeley who claims that uh trees are seen as racist in national parks because it reminds African Americans of their ancestors being lynched.
Here is Dave in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
Great to have you, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Rush, Major League Ditto's from the Little League Capital of the World.
Yes, sir.
Thank you very much.
Been listening since October October of eighty eight and I hope I can fulfill my duties as a caller.
What I wanted to say was that uh you know you mentioned how Americans are having less sex than most people would think and it kind of goes with what Ed Randell said is that you know if there's so many ugly women in the Democratic Party, that's maybe one of the reasons why Americans are having a you went there.
You really went there.
You really you made you made the decision to go there.
I had to go there.
And and you do it under the guise of making the host look good.
That's what he meant, folks, fulfill his duty as a caller.
He's a lifer.
He goes back to 1988 when I made it plain the purpose of callers is to make the host look good.
But that's not by fawning praise or any of that, but rather by inspiring brilliance in the part of the host, which you've done, Dave.
You've taken a news story here.
Again, it's on Drudge.
And it is the average person with a wife expecting 75 years has 117 days, full days, not 117 days where sex takes place, 117 full days, 24 hours.
times one and seven that's how much sex the average American has which is 0.45% of their life and it seems low.
I mean it's based on you know what you see on TV and movies and so forth.
I mean with the sex that's all that happens on TV shows and movies anymore.
And when you read what people say about their own lifestyles on fake book and Twitter, you'd also get the idea that that's all anybody else is doing.
But you know what they've always said you know my dad always told me ignore the guys this is high school advice now ignore the guys talking about it.
They're the ones dreaming son the guys not talking about it are the guys you need to follow, investigate, pay attention to these braggarts are the guys who wish what they were saying was true.
That probably is still worthwhile advice, particularly of any of you who think that one of these problems with fake book and Twitter is that it creates so many people lie and brag about their lives on these sites.
And a lot of people, my life's so dull and boring.
I've got no reason to live.
Oh, my God.
Look at all this fun.
And it's all bogus.
Or a large part of it is bogus.
anyway old uh old Dave here is attempting to explain the low sex with Ed Rendell's comment that there are many more ugly Democrat women than attractive I love my callers folks I do.
Dave thank you.
This James in Philadelphia great to have you sir hello.
Rush an honor I've been listening to you since no OJ none of the time in 94 and 95.
That's right that's when it was by the way I played real quick I played Oakmont several times and you played it without the trees so I don't know if you ever played it when they had a full sack of oak trees all throughout the I did.
I played it in 2007 and the trees were there.
It is an entirely different it's beautiful.
You can see everything on the golf course today.
You know Nicholas just declared it in Golf Digest magazine the second hardest course in the world and he puts Carnoosty in Scotland as the toughest he ever played in the world.
Just a fact that uh Oakmont if you can play Oakmont you can play anywhere.
Well I played Carnousty but I don't remember it was it was 40 mile an hour wins.
Forty yard chip shots were blown offline that day so I mean that's how that was it was fun, but it was a windswept day.
But Oakmont, that's true.
I have never played.
And I've played I've played a number of U.S. open courses, and I've never I have never hit the ball as well and been penalized for it anywhere like Oakmont.
Well, five miles from where I live in Cherry Hills, the greatest course they call call in the world Pine Valley, and uh that's uh that's an exciting Pine Valley's no slouch either.
But I've I've done well there.
But but I'm not I'm not criticizing Oakmont.
Right.
Um I give you one example.
I forget which hole it was, but it was it's a par five.
Slight dog hill, slight downhill right.
There are trees, there are bunkers on the right side that I could get past easily.
So I do.
Take the driver out, and I hit one about three ten, because there was a following when it was downhill, and I'm in a bunker that I need a wedge to get out of.
Second shot in the par five wedge.
So it's uh I hit the ball better than I can as well as I can hit it.
If I'd if I'd have had any coarse knowledge, I would have used a three woods.
I mean, I couldn't have getting those bunkers, but they didn't look like I could hit them.
The the caddy was out for caddying, so there was nobody there to uh advise me.
Just things like that were happening all day long.
But I mean it's just brutal.
It's uh it's all right in front of you, but it's brutal.
Well, I'll get to my point at Fast Eddie Rendell.
I am from Philadelphia all my life, sixty-three years, and I live right across the river now, the Delaware River and Cherry Hill, and Eddie has always been in the news for one reason or the other.
He was Philly's DA, district attorney in the 80s.
All right.
Well, hang on.
All the golf talk, and we rather just hang on here.
Stick to the issues, crowd, you'll be rewarded.
We'll be back.
Back to James in uh in Philadelphia.
Before you resume your your fast eddy story, I just have to say, folks, I I can't imagine Johnny Miller, who, by the way, um, is a great guy.
I can't imagine anybody shooting 63 on that golf course.
And he did in 1973 to win the U.S. Open.
I can't conceive it.
I don't see how it is possible for anybody to do it.
But he did.
Nobody's gotten close to that since.
And I just hope television captures what that golf course really is when the U.S. Open comes up.
With the trees gone, it it it could.
It's just one of the great, great places.
It's so hard, you like it.
It's it's so impossibly difficult.
You don't beat yourself up when you don't do well there.
Okay, James, back you were you were talking here about Fast Eddie, and you you moved across the river to get away from him, I guess.
Well, I moved across the river, but I'm still within uh radio signal, and uh his exploits are are uh are just a very tremendous renowned.
I mean, Ed was de district attorney for eight years.
He was the mayor of Philadelphia for e eight years in the nineteen nineties, and he was governor uh from two thousand.
But his ex-wife was some power broker Democrat judge Hancho too, right?
Yeah, here's the situation.
Rendell and Bill Clinton are best buds.
In fact, I think Ed kind of is a little jealous of Bill's way with women.
And they became good buds, and Bill rewarded Ed for his friendship by putting Ed's former wife Midge gave her a federal judgeship in I guess in the nineteen nineties.
That's when it would have had to be.
They're around for social functions and when it's ne they needed to be seen together.
But right after Ed finished up his governorship in 2010, the next month, I believe it was early 2011, there was an announcement.
He and Midge were being separated.
Ed wanted to move on to other other exploits.
Younger flowers.
Uh yes, that you could say that too, yes.
And what it said was, and this was the classic Clinton S, they will remain good friends.
Oh, yes, of course.
So Ed basically used his how would I say it, he used his power and authority over women, and you know, and basically his friendship with Bill Clinton enhanced his ability and uh he got his wife a his former wife a federal judgeship.
Right.
Okay, fine.
But I'm t that's that's that's standard operating procedure for politics.
I mean, and that by the way, that kind of uh what would you call that?
You scratch my back, I'll scratch you.
That that's common.
That's that's in fact that that kind of inside stuff that average ordinary people cannot access.
That's part of what is going on in this campaign.
People have had enough of that stuff.
You know, that that's the kind of stuff.
Those kinds of connections are exactly why members of the establishment will do everything they can to protect the establishment.
And they'll put the establishment before country, they'll put it before party.
It's the precisely for that kind of opportunity and access networking and uh and whatever you have.
But you've reminded me of something.
Another story that hit while I was out, I think it was Monday or Tuesday, flight logs of Jeffrey Epstein's plane.
You know what they call that?
You know who Jeffrey Epstein is.
This is the pedophile that uh served House.
The Lolita Express, the guy had his own Boeing 727, called it the Lolita Express, because the underage babes that were Clinton appeared on flight logs maybe twice as often as has been reported.
Meaning he was on Epstein's jet a lot more than was reported.
And on several of those occasions, the Secret Service was not on board.
Clinton dispatched them.
Now, you can't just do that.
You can't just tell the Secret Service, hey, hey guys, I don't need you on this trip.
You know, stay home with your families and do it.
You have to fill out forms and you have to I mean you can do it.
There's nobody says you can't do it, but it's a process.
And like anything in the bureaucracy, there's reams of paperwork to support the decision that the Secret Service isn't going to be with you.
And so now people are wondering, did Clinton maybe take some of these Lolita trips?
Because up to now, uh nobody's made that connection.
That Clinton flew on Epstein's jet to do charity work in Africa and uh Mozambique and uh South Africa and wherever else Clinton went to look good.
Uh but the Lot Epstein has his own private island out there in the uh like a 73-acre private island that's uh big enough for the Lolita Express to land and take off and store enough jet fuel to get out of there.
And apparently there's a whole compound there, and uh, people looking to Clinton join Epstein and Prince Andrew and whoever the hell else was in the harem at one of these many events that uh Epstein promised.
And so all kinds of uh light.
A new light is being shined on some of these things.
Um Roger Kimball, who is I get one of the founders of PJ Media, uh very, very highly approved of website here at the uh EIB network, published a piece this was yesterday, on Clinton Cash, or It's Always Worse Than You Think.
You know, Peter Schweitzer has this book, wrote the book about Clinton Cash, and it is meticulously researched and footnoted, and it it documents it's why we all know who has donated to the Clinton Foundation, what foreign governments,
what foreign entities, what foreign international corporations, what individuals, you know, the people who've donated a sum total of over 100 million dollars to Bill and Hillary and their and their foundation.
And it is Schweitzer in his book that has researched and documented this and is able to conclude that these donations are occurring for one reason.
Uh many of them happened while Hillary was Secretary of State, uh, and have continued since, and have obviously been made, as I call it on the cum.
These are investments in a future Hillary presidency in which Bill would be involved.
These are people already purchasing policy preferences from the Clintons in advance.
That's what Schweitzer's book documents.
And they made a movie out of this now.
It's a, I guess it's a 60-minute uh documentary about it that's that's going to be airing sometime during the summer.
And what Roger Kimball has done is taken this book and has taken it seriously, and has written a piece that says it's it's it's even worse than what Schweitzer has come up with with the Clintons, it's always worse than you think.
He writes this in his column for PJ Media, my friend Ron Rodush, the distinguished historian outlines the case for believing that Hillary Clinton's the lesser of two evils compared to Donald Trump.
Ron says he's fully aware of Hillary's liabilities, yet he concludes on foreign policy there's more hope that she will take a course that asserts American leadership abroad.
And this is where we distance ourselves because that's absurd.
She's bought and sold to every foreign power there is.
Hillary Clinton is going to be led around the nose by whoever it is that's donated to her foundation.
Clinton Cash, the documentary film which I watched in previews yesterday.
This is this is uh this is Roger Kimball, is based on Schweitzer's book, and it provides a relentless, devastating portrait of brazen financial venality in exchange for political favors.
I read through Clinton Cash quickly when it came out last May.
There was no right wing hit job.
This is no right wing hit job.
It's rather a methodical and exhaustively sourced chronicle of how the Clintons parlayed Bill's celebrity, Hillary's position as Secretary of State, and her possible future tenure as president into a veritable Niagara of cash.
Eye popping speaking fees for Bill, 250,000, 500,000.
He even got $750,000 for some speeches.
Millions upon millions of dollars directed to the Clinton Foundation and its offshoots.
Where was the money coming from?
Did they actually find Clinton's wisdom that valuable?
No.
The money came from multinational corporations that need a favor.
Shady foreign financiers, dubious state entities in Africa, Saudi Arabia, Russia, South America, and elsewhere.
Are you worried about money in politics?
Well, take a take a long hard look at the Clintons operation for the last 16 years.
The AP has estimated that their net worth when they left the White House in 2000 was zero.
Now they're worth about 200 million dollars.
How'd they do it?
The Clintons have perfected pay-to-play political influence peddling on a breathtaking scale.
Reading Clinton Clinton Cash, Peter Schweitzer's book, is a nauseating experience.
At the center of the book is not just a tale of private greed and venality.
That's just business as usual in Washington and elsewhere.
No, what's downright scary is the way the Clintons have been willing to trade away legitimate environmental concerns and even our national security for the sake of personal income.
And there's the details of the Canadian mining industry, major donors to the charitable endeavors of the Clintons.
Uranium being sold to our enemies with the Clintons acting as intermediaries to make it possible, collecting their commissions.
I mean, the details just go and I'm going to detail you with uh Bobby with the details that many of you have already heard and know.
Not the point.
The thing about the Clintons is that people never understood what Whitewater was about.
And it's this is something that I bet befalls a lot of people.
Bill and Hillary Clinton combined were dirt poor, compared to the people in their orbit, compared to the people they hung around.
Clinton's from Arkansas didn't have much, his mother didn't have much, stepfather didn't have much.
Hillary of Chicago, middle class, uh nothing special.
But they go away to the Ivy League and they become educated and they're hanging around trust fund kids.
Everybody they know is filthy rich with old money.
Old blue blood inherited wealth.
And they're going to inherit it themselves, and many of them.
That's why so many of them are able to go to work at Time Magazine for $80,000 a year.
Because it doesn't matter what they earn because their inheritances are multi, multi-millions, sometimes billions.
Bill and Hillary are hanging around all this, and it's it's something that defines membership in this group.
Wealth is.
They don't have any.
And I'm convinced in the 1980s, people have forgotten this aspect of the 80s, but there were all kinds of people that were getting wealthy on real estate, any number of...
Legitimate.
The economy was booming.
As liberal Democrats, the Clintons were part of the group that believed all of that was shady.
That nobody earned that kind of money legitimately.
Liberals never believe that merit earns that kind of money.
There's got to be some cheating.
There has to be some chicaner.
There has to be under-the-table deals.
Nothing is legitimate.
They never applaud and appreciate hard work as being a payoff because they don't believe that's how it happened with people.
They're suspicious of it, as all liberals are.
That's why the rich are always targets.
Particularly wealthy people who earn their money as opposed to inherit it, our targets, new money people.
And it's it's it's thought to be luck, uh cheating, uh some something ill-gotten, that kind of wealth.
So the Clintons said they wanted to get that's what Whitewater was.
Whitewater was a scam.
It was a get rich quick scam.
It had nothing to do with political power, it had nothing to do with it, it had to do with getting rich.
The Clintons have been obsessed with that's what the cattle futures deal was.
They were they have been lifelong ticked off at not having any money.
When Hillary says they left the White House broke, in her mind, sh they were.
They couldn't hang around with their rich friends if their rich friends weren't going to pay for it.
That was humiliating.
It was embarrassing.
So Whitewater, and it didn't pan out, but it was supposed to be a get rich quick scheme like the Clintons thought everybody else was doing in the 80s.
So that's what they've set up here.
And they have they have sought and they are obsessed with it.
Bill and Hillary Clinton, it they're cl they're classic phonies.
They sit up there as liberal Democrats and they decry wealth and they impugn it.
Remember, they've got their daughter Chelsea out talking.
You know, I I I tried to get interested in money, but you know, I just couldn't.
You know, I just I just that's all planned.
That's the liberal Democrats, like the Kennedys, super wealthy people have to lie about, they don't care about it, they're not interested in it, raise taxes, go right ahead.
I don't think I'm paying enough.
That's part of the scam to make their voters think that they don't care about being wealthy when that's all they care about.
And the Clintons are proving that this is exactly what all of this has been about for them, in addition to whatever political damage they can wreak havoc on the country in the process.
And so they're willing to sell anything to get this money.
And now they've got it, and they still won't spend their own money.
They're still living off other people's donations, other people's money for everything.
And Chelsea is just as focused on it as any as either of them are.
And it's a giant scan, and that's what makes them in Schweitzer's book Dangerous.
So what Roger Kimball's writing about.
There's a little more on this I've got to add to it.
So be right back with that.
Look, if you want to know what Whitewater was, in the simplest of terms, the Clintons and Jim McDougall sold retirement lots to the elderly and some uh middle class families.
They advertised in small little newspapers, and then foreclosed on them if they missed a payment.
It could only miss one payment.
The fine print in the contract stated that the buyers didn't own anything until they had made the final payment.
30 years in some cases, you had a 30-year mortgage, you don't own it until you make the final payment.
And if you miss one payment, the property reverts back to the Whitewater Development Corporation, essentially.
So it was it was a foreclosure scam.
And it it, of course, it didn't, it didn't work in in the in the sense of generating untold wealth for the Clintons, but that's what it was designed to do.
But this is the when you when you bring Trump into this, I don't see anybody, you could read Schweitzer's book, he's in two books on these people.
There's no way you vote for Hillary Clinton.
I don't care.
You don't want these two back in the White House under any circumstances.
That's why when I see all these uh moderate Republicans and some of these libertarian financiers suggesting that they don't want any anybody that did third party, they just can't, they can't vote for Trump.
I think they're looking at this the wrong way.
With With Hillary, we don't want the Clintons anywhere near this country's leadership again.
We don't want to even flirt with it.
We don't want any more of Obamaism, which they would bring.
And I think if these people were using their heads, what they would do is start getting behind Trump now with like Nixon did Goldwater back in 1964.
They would do whatever they could to ingratiate themselves to Trump.
And that way they'd have influence with him.
You show the boss how valuable you are, just work with the guy.
If you if you find him repugnant and repulsive, that he's all you've got, you don't like it, find a way to get close to him and maybe have some influence over him with full-throated support, but that's got to be preferable to the Clintons.
We just can't go back to that.
There's new polling data on uh Trump and Hillary.
We have a Fox News poll out there, we have uh a Rasmussen poll out there as well.
More of your phone calls, and I still got some of the audio sound rush there, soundbite roster to get to, so we're still loaded.
Here is the point, folks.
▲
Export Selection