All Episodes
Previous Next
May 27, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:28
May 27, 2016, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, my friends, welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
Doing what I do every day, making the complex understandable, serving humanity just by showing up, all of that with half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair.
That's right.
We got one busy broadcast hour remaining here.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800 282-2882.
And the email address is L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Man all man, I checked the email during the break, and there is overwhelming response to the last audio soundbite I played, the Hillary Clinton ad featuring audio of Donald Trump on pregnancy.
So let's go back and we'll do it again.
Here we'll set the stage, and I'm going to address some of the comments I got in the email.
I'm not going to read the emails because they're pretty much common.
And they're all reacting to what Trump said about pregnancy and business.
So here's the stage.
Hillary has a series of ads that she's running on Facebook.
She runs them on Twitter.
She runs them on Instagram.
She runs them on Snapchat.
She never heard of these places.
This has other people doing this for her.
And one of the ads, well, what one of the themes for a lot of ads is war on women and how Trump is a misogynist and a sexist and a brute and a boar and B-O-O-R.
And somebody who is not sensitive to the needs, desires, and uh circumstances.
Women.
So Hillary and her crack staff have gone out there and found what they believe are audio sound bites of Trump that make their point.
They haven't the slightest idea what's happening to them.
They this is how to explain this again without using too many words.
This is classic.
This is Hillary Clinton and David Brock and Media Matters and their assumption that every American agrees with the way they think about things, and nothing could be further from the truth.
And in this case, they believe that every American agrees with militant, now gang type feminism.
And the people who don't are a Luddite minority.
A bunch of lunk cluckheads.
They believe that most Americans are mainstream leftists, interested in social justice and all that.
They also believe that most Americans think every Republican is a reprehensible jackass.
And so the attitude behind everything they do incorporates all that.
It's one of arrogance and condescension and a smarmy know-it-allism.
And so when it comes to your average ordinary Republican, they get away with this because your average ordinary Republican is so afraid of it, so cowed by it, that he doesn't react to it, other than to apologize or to uh no, no, I I please, that's not me.
Trump just throws it right back in their face, and they don't know what to do when it's thrown right back in their face.
That makes the third response on them, and they don't know what to do with the third response.
They it they launch an attack, and what they are used to is that's the last thing that happens.
They launch the attack, the media amplifies it, and the Republican under attack is duly destroyed.
Well, with Trump, they launch the attack, the media amplifies it, and then he throws it right back in their face and smacks them upside the head with it, putting the onus on them for the third reply, and they don't have anything.
Because they've never had to.
They don't usually get that far.
After they attack somebody and the media amplifies it, the Republican usually resigns, retires, or slinks away in shame.
Trump throws it right back at them, putting the onus on them for the third response, fire back, they've got nothing.
That's what this is.
They think, because this could work to destroy somebody like Romney or Jeb or whoever, they think, hey, it's a Republican, we'll use it.
And they they have this arrogant belief that every woman thinks that Trump is just a pure reprobate.
And all they have to do is highlight it.
You know, this assumption that everybody thinks like they do, they've always gotten away with that.
So you will hear music.
You will hear flourishing strings in music.
And there's a graphic over the music which says a message from your possible next president on pregnancy.
And then the ad plays something Trump has said.
In this case, it's going to be about pregnancy.
And then after the Trump audio is concluded, the flourishing music returns and the graphic returns and says a message from your possible next president on pregnancy.
So this thing takes 17 seconds to go by with all that.
And they think, I'm sure, that this is the kind of thing it's going to destroy Trump.
This is going to make every woman hate Trump, make every woman despise Trump.
And that's where they totally blow it.
It's where they are entirely clueless.
Classic.
And the email response I'm getting to this is just one little sliver of evidence that I'm right about it.
Here's the whole thing.
Message from your possible next president on pregnancy.
Pregnancy is never it's a wonderful thing for the woman.
It's a wonderful thing for the husband.
It's certainly an inconvenience for a business.
A message from your possible next president on pregnancy.
And that's the ad.
Now, my response initially was to take on the pregnancy is uh wonderful for the woman, uh, wonderful thing for the husband, inconvenient for the business.
But the point I wanted to make was these are the people who have portrayed pregnancy as an illness.
They don't portray pregnancy as some great thing.
Hillary Clinton and the feminizes of today do not portray femin pregnancy as some wonderful thing.
It's an illness if they need it to be.
It's a disease if they need it.
Whatever they need a pregnancy to be to justify an abortion is what it is.
Because abortion is the objective, not birth.
In a political sense, I'm talking about.
That's exactly so these people have no ground to stand on here when they want to start attacking what somebody else thinks about pregnancy.
These are the people who've defiled it by making the number one objective of it to abort one and then to claim that it's an illness in justification.
And make no mistake, again, as I say, if you're a young woman and you've not heard that, do not please doubt me.
Do not doubt me, because that was common in the 90s, and it still is.
Or they do portray it as an inconvenience.
Oh, it's an interruption.
It's the result of some guy who didn't take precautions.
Some guy had his way with a woman against her will, whatever they have to do to portray this as something worthy of getting rid of.
But the third element of this, where Trump says it's an inconvenience for business, my email reacting to this has been universal with one message.
He's right.
It is.
If an important member of your team gets pregnant and is going to be gone for months at a time, it is an inconvenience.
That, by the way, does not say that Trump disagrees with.
See, this is the difference.
He just is being truthful.
It's another one of these things you're not supposed to say.
When it comes to maternity leave, you're supposed to be universally supportive.
You're supposed to put the onus back on the employer.
You're supposed to never ever pipe up and talk about how an inconvenient it might be.
But Trump does because it is.
It requires somebody to take alternative measures.
You have a job that needs to be done.
You have somebody doing the job.
Now they're not going to be there for a couple of months for whatever reason.
You have to have somebody move in there that can keep doing the job.
And if some if if if you have the job available and somebody's hired to do it, it's meaningful.
It's not a no-show job.
So you've got to get somebody in there that can continue to do the work.
And in that sense, it is an inconvenience.
Now people like Hillary and her feminist buddies on the left think that this is a huge indictment.
That they're going to really nail Trump to the wall on this.
He just shows how insensitive he is.
This shows how selfish he is.
This shows how all it matters to him is his business, his profits.
All he sees is inconvenient.
He doesn't have any appreciation for what women go through any of that.
And of course, I'll guarantee it none of that is backed up by the way Trump actually treats women or behaves with women who work for him, which we've already documented.
Point is it's just another instance where Trump has uttered what any sensible person would say.
And it does say privately.
But wouldn't have the guts to say it publicly like Trump does.
Some people applaud him.
It's not going to backfire on him.
Mrs. Clinton thinks it is, and her associates think that it is because they're used to getting away.
I mean, how you really can't blame them.
They create this silly notion of a war on women, wherein an entire political party is supposed to hate women and is supposed to do everything it can to keep women down.
And they're actually media people who believe it and amplify it, and then you've got actual brain-dead Democrats that believe it.
So you can't blame people like Mrs. Clinton thinking they're gonna score with it.
But stop and think for war on women.
An entire American political party wants to conduct a war on women because they hate them.
Because they don't like them, because they want to keep no whatever.
It's absurd.
It defies all common sense.
And yet it become or it became a campaign issue.
And they're trying to now attach Trump to this war on women, and it's gonna blow up in their faces.
Because all they've got on this is the charge, but the evidence is something that they do not have.
Mike in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, as we um get back to the phones here on Open Line Friday.
Great to have you.
I'm glad you waited, sir, and welcome to the EIB network.
Hey, thank you, Rush.
I appreciate the uh the time to be on your uh show today.
And uh, just wanted to say uh all of us ditto heads out here who are loyal listeners, we love your show, we love you, and most of all, we love our uh military, all the in the spirit of Memorial Day, all the men and women who served and gave the ultimate price for our country.
Uh, thanks so much for for doing what you do for us.
Well um uh it's the other way around, but thank you.
I appreciate I really do.
Yeah, sure.
And uh hey, we um you know, just looking at the um the Barack's recent comments about the um the people, the world leaders who are a bit uh you know uneasy about the the possibility of Trump becoming president.
I really think that uh Barack himself talking.
I think if you just look at um you know the state of the world and the way things are, you know, his legacy is at stake here.
So I think if Trump becomes our next president and the slogan making a great America great again, you know, even that slogan is is really um sort of a smack at Obama's legacy.
So um I'm thinking he's gonna try to do everything he can just to keep that from happening, and in that in that effort, I don't think the Department of Justice will be able to bring well going.
I think they're gonna drop any charges that that Comey will bring on uh Hillary's email scandal.
I I don't know what your opinion is, Rush, but I really feel like it's gonna be swept under the carpet.
I know that your theory is um the private server that she had installed in her home.
There was some damning evidence there about uh possible the the Clinton Cash and the Clinton Foundation.
I think also there may have been some additional information regarding Obama and the way he handled Benghazi and and other issues during his um, you know his presidency.
So I think she needed to get rid of those.
Uh and then in that effort, I think Obama will be supporting her totally here moving forward through the election.
I I will repeat my theory on this.
And my theory evolved earlier this week.
Uh what was the news story that was uh it was more drip drip drip drip dip dip drip.
Oh, it was the Inspector General report on Hillary and her emails, which made it clear she has violated the law, which made it clear she has lied.
She's told everybody that there was not an investigation, it was just a review.
There is an investigation.
Do you know that this inve inspector general review produced three emails that nobody knew existed?
Why is that important?
It's important because Mrs. Clinton told everybody she'd reviewed all the emails and turned over 30,000 of them to the State Department and destroyed the others because they were about Hillary's yoga classes and her daughter's wedding and other such unrelated stuff.
And the inspector general going through these emails, there are three emails that were found that nobody knew existed were not part of the original 30,000 that she submitted.
I forget what they're about.
But here's what I think is happening.
I think Obama does not, in this case, as in every other case, want his fingerprints on whatever the objective is.
I think don't know the details or why, but I think there's bad blood there for some reason.
Uh it it may it may involve race and it's 2008 campaign and Bill Clinton and things he said about Obama, who carries grudges.
Barack Obama carries lifetime grudges.
And remember, Bill Clinton, among other things, was talking to Ted Kennedy in the 2008 campaign in South Carolina and said to Ted Kennedy, hey, you know, Ted, it wasn't that long ago a guy like this would be bringing us our drinks.
Obama doesn't forget stuff like that.
And so they turned around, they fired a race card on Clinton, and he got mad.
Hey, they played the race card.
I mean, I can't believe Jesse Jackson out there saying it.
I just thank you.
So I think that Obama's responsible for the drip-drip-drip-drip-prip.
The drip-drip-drip-dip-dip-drip could be stopped.
This is all the executive branch.
If Obama wanted to get that IG report shaped or flavored one way, he could.
Don't folks doubt me on this.
This this administration's already demonstrated that they're corrupt in this regard.
The rule of law doesn't matter.
And procedures and things.
So the things that we've always joked about, uh, the powerful doing to protect themselves.
This this bunch, I'm convinced, does it.
So if if they wanted to shut down the IG report, they could.
Or if they wanted to flavor it so that it was damaging or not damaged, they could do that too.
But Rush, but Rush, the inspector general is supposed to be independent.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And and Obamacare is not supposed to be able to be expanded with executive actions either.
Okay, I'm gonna take a break here.
I just saw the clock.
Hang on, I'll finish this in a minute.
Moving on to uh two other things.
Crazy Bernie ripped into Disney the other day.
Did you hear about this?
Bernie Sanders said, I say to Walt Diddy.
It's time to pay your workers a living wage.
It's time to provide affordable housing to your employees.
It's time to start manufacturing your products in the United States of America.
Well, it didn't sit well with the CEO at Disney, Bob Iger, who actually posted something on uh the private Facebook post seen by the rep. To Bernie Sanders, said Iger.
We created 11,000 new jobs at Disneyland the past decade, and our company's created 18,000 in the U.S. the last five years.
How many jobs have you created?
What have you contributed to the U.S. economy?
Whoa.
This is why Democrats are nervous.
Crazy Bernie debating Trump.
Crazy Bernie is the Democrat Party, and they don't want that scene.
There are a couple of three additional Trump headlines here.
I just want to run by you.
Bloomberg News Reaganomics Band gets back together to advise Trump on his business plan.
That would be Art Laugher, Larry Cudlow, and Stephen Moore.
Art Laugher, Larry Cudlow, and Stephen Moore are getting together.
Been working.
Well, actually, Cudlow and Moore have been working with the Trump campaign on its tax plan, advising Trump to cut some deductions for high income Americans and raise money by broadening a tax base.
Basically, it is Stephen Moore says it's the JFK Reagan supply side tax cutting agenda that worked to cause a big economic boom in the 60s and the 80s.
And he says we can do it again.
That's all that's all true.
Uh well, I'm going to reserve comment.
Laugher, no question, was a Reaganite.
Cudlow.
Yes, I mean, these are Reaganites in this.
I don't know if the Cudlow was there.
Stephen Moore was there.
Laugher was.
But it doesn't matter.
They're all right on the on the policy.
Next headline, Trump, I don't know yet.
What's the right thing for states to do on transgender bathrooms?
How does that answer sit with you?
I don't know yet what's the right thing for states to do.
This was on Jimmy Kemmel.
Wednesday night on ABC.
After Trump said he believes the decision on which bathroom transgendered people should use should be a state issue.
He was asked how he would vote if New York was deciding.
He said, Well, the party generally believe that whatever you're born, that's the bathroom you use.
Kimball said, but what about you?
To which Trump said, I say let the states decide.
After being asked again what he personally supports, Trump repeated that he wants the states to decide that they'll hopefully do the right thing.
When asked again what the right thing is, Trump said, I don't know yet.
You know what my guess is?
In the big scheme of things, this doesn't matter to Trump.
In the big scheme of things for Trump, this is not a hill to die on.
This is not something.
Let's go over there and people forget about it, whatever.
It's not.
But it is important to a lot of people because it's not about transgendered bathrooms.
And we're talking one-tenth of one percent of the population.
This is the latest salvo in the culture war being fought to totally overthrow and upturn the concept of Judeo-Christian morality that was part of this nation's founding.
That's what this represents.
That's why it's important to people.
It's not.
There aren't enough transgender people to worry about here in this in this sense.
I mean, you could solve this problem very easily with one bathroom with one toilet and a door that locks.
It's that simple.
And the fact that that will not be allowed, and that that solution is not accepted, is should be all you need to know about it.
If the if the problem is that transgendered people feel nervous or humiliated or ashamed, then give them ultimate privacy.
One bathroom, anybody can go into it one at a time.
The sign On the door says toilet or bathroom.
It doesn't say men, doesn't say women.
Doesn't say Signorita Muchacho, whatever, none of that just says bathroom.
You go in there.
Anybody can use it, male, female, transgender, whatever.
But it's got one facility, and you can lock the door.
But but but Mr. Limbaugh, what about like at a ballpark where they're okay, then have two or three of them, but there's only room for one person in there.
And the door locks.
Problem solved.
No, unacceptable.
And from uh Reuters, Trump vows to undo Obama's climate agenda in an appeal to the oil sector.
Right on, right.
Did you hear, by the way, what happened at the Exxon uh shareholders meeting?
Oh, this was so I read about this in one of my tech blogs.
These little techers, they were fit to be tied.
There were eleven different proposals that various shareholders had put forth at the Exxon shareholders meeting to advocate for to acknowledge climate change and global warming and to affect Exxon corporate policy, and all 11 of them went down to almost unanimous defeat.
You know the CEO at Exxon.
I don't I think it's still still the CEO.
One of the best names for an oil company CEO ever.
Rex Tillerson.
What a great name for an oil company CEO.
Not Thornton Bradshaw the Fourth, but Rex Tillerson.
And there was a Thornton Bradshaw, the fourth, and he ran, what did he run?
In fact, it may have been a West Coast Oil Company.
What was it?
Uh what was the four letters A C B O A B Cemember what it was.
Huh?
Yeah, Arco, Atlantic Richfield.
That Thornton might have been Thornton W. Bradshaw.
The fourth.
Or the fifth, Esquire, whatever.
Rex Tillerson.
CEO Exxon Mobil.
Here's uh here's Edward, Washington, D.C. Great.
You uh called Edward.
Hello.
Hello, uh, Rush.
Good afternoon, and uh happy memorial day.
Thank you, sir.
Same to you.
Thank you very much.
Hey, Rosh, I want to kind of turn away from politics if I could and ask you a question that I've been really kind of dying to ask you for a long time.
And it has to do with your career as a disc jockey when you started out your career in radio.
Um you know, one thing I have noticed, uh and it has to do just specifically about music.
I'm curious.
My question is what has happened to the quality of pop and RB music that was present in the late 60s and early 70s that has never been able to be reproduced in pop and RB music since that time.
And the the people I'm speaking of are like Al Green, the Detroit spinners, stylistics.
There's a that kind of great period of music that's it's still in dear to this day.
And I I seem it's my belief that uh pop music has never reached that height anymore.
And and I even see that uh in reflected in comments from younger people that I hear that who are acquainted with that music that you used to spin, that they just they say, I I wish I could have grown up in that area.
I just I just wish we had that kind of music.
And there's just not those types of names like very white anymore.
And I I'm curious, I I have a theory on it, but I'm curious from your point of view, as someone who was in that uh arena, why that is why that is Well, you know, uh a lot of this is generational.
My parents, when the Beatles hit, were asking, why aren't there people like Frank Sinatra anymore?
Yes.
Um so part of it is just generational, but you're you're specifically asking about RB and how did it morph from that to uh hip hop and rap?
Yeah, and and how it's you know, there it that is like a classic, you know.
When you Al Green, you know, it's like a classic RB.
I don't know.
Well, yeah, the artists are I mean, they they go there's a Roberta Flack, there's Donnie Hathaway.
Yes.
Uh there's James Ingram.
Um there is um uh any number of them.
What was the about uh the recently uh deceased Billy Paul?
Oh, yeah, Billy Pauly B Billy Paul had one of the greatest versions of your song.
Yeah.
Oh.
That was on the Me and Mrs. Jones album.
And me and Mrs. Jones are one of great all-time classics about adultery.
Oh God, yes.
Classy adultery, cla if there if there is such a thing.
Okay.
Lush lush production.
You had the whole Philadelphia sound.
You mentioned it.
Um you had uh the the Gamble and uh Huff.
Gamble and Huff writing and producing stuff, and you had Motown.
Uh and and Patty Austin.
Uh um Sadawa Watanabe and Patty Ross had a gr at a gr great uh crossover duet, um every other fool.
I I had look it, you know, I just chalk it up generational.
Uh these it I I think the popularity of 60s, 70s, and in some cases eighties music, radio stations still play it, satellite still devoted to it.
It still has an audience.
It is obviously it's a different quality, but I don't I don't know why.
I mean, I uh why does music change in any generation?
Well, I'm even curious, you know, if you What's your theory?
What what is yours?
Okay, I'm a musician and I have a theory from a musical standpoint.
At that time, uh you had uh different influences of music that were all present.
Uh you had talent that was available from the gospel, uh singer subcospel music, you had the jazz era, and you also had classical, and I kind of feel that all three of those integrated into one sound that used strings uh for from classical.
That would explain Barry White, Love Unlimited Orchestra, right.
Yeah, the orgus orchestral part, the uh uh the jazz influence.
There was the you know, there's a lot of great jazz players at that time.
And then the uh the s the the s the real soul that I I felt was that's from gospel.
And I I felt the kind of this is maybe uh I'd like your opinion really on that on this last point is that that was also the period when the Vietnam War was going on, and I'm wondering if that had some emotional kind of was an emotional character.
It might have because you know it's uh that's an excellent point because you go back and listen to Marvin Gay in the 1960s.
All love songs.
Yeah.
1971, Marvin Gay comes out with an album called What's Going On.
Yeah, oh yes, I know that.
It's all about war.
It's all about death.
And then Edwin Starr Motown comes out with a song actually called war.
What's it good for?
So there was the Vietnam War, there's no question it it was a it it served as a transition lyrically anyway, in terms of from going just to sweet, beautiful love ballads into social commentary songs that were still RB in flavor.
And then and uh people have said, well, you know, rush rap is the result of real circumstances in ghetto neighborhoods and how to get out of there and what you had to do to survive and so forth.
But the watch riots were going on when all this music you're talking about was being produced.
The watch riots are in 1968, and then you some of the great RB stuff you're talking about dates back to then, but I know exactly the music you're talking about.
I can't explain the metamorphosis of it.
It's uh it who can explain the culture, nobody can predict it.
You you look back and and I'm sure if somebody wanted an in-depth study, they could find.
I mean, the first what's the first rap group that really put themselves on the map with kind Sugar Hill Gang, and then but then you had the NW NWA guys with with the with the kill the kill the cop stuff.
Mm-hmm.
Um and and uh but before it run DMC, the early rappers were just rhythm rappers.
There wasn't a whole lot of social commentary in it, but it didn't take long for that to um evolve.
But I you look, bottom line, I miss it.
I still listen to all that stuff.
So I can still hear that or or listen to it, because all of that, even though I've lost my hearing, my Memory, my brain supplies the melody, my memory supplies the melody when I listen to that stuff.
And it remains uh the exact RB type music you're talking about, remains uh some of my all-time favorites.
Sister Sledge, you know, Nile Rogers back then was chic.
Uh another one of my all-time favorite sounds.
And Gamble and Huff.
Then you had uh Harold Melvin and Blue Notes.
Remember all that stuff?
It's just classically good stuff.
I don't know rap.
I I need close captioning to even understand it anymore.
But it's now taken over.
I mean, hip hop is it, right?
When it comes to top 40 pop hit rate.
Anyway, uh Edward, that's that's great.
I'm I'm uh I'm glad you held on, and I appreciate it.
I'm a little long.
I have to go because we're out of time.
Back in a sec.
You know, yesterday on this program I mentioned that Glenn Reynolds, the law professor at the University of Tennessee, had written a column on why obey the law anymore.
What is the Constitution?
Piece of paper.
Why do people obey it?
Why has it survived?
Which is an interesting case study.
And his point was if our leaders are not going to obey the law, if they're going to corrupt themselves and the Constitution, why should anybody else obey it?
It was a good point.
But he's got another one.
Two days later, he's backing up with another one in USA Today.
This one even more provocative.
Why the president needs to be white, male, and republican.
Glenn Reynolds, you know what the answer to this is?
The only way a president will be held accountable.
If if he's white, if he's male, and if he's Republican.
No other president, according to Mr. Reynolds, be held accountable.
Obama hasn't been.
The first female president will not be held accountable by the media, should be allowed to get away with whatever because she's historic, the first female, and besides, you can't hit the girl.
You can't be critical of the girl, so uh first Hispanic, same thing.
But you're and a Democrat, Democrat president, whoever, Bill Clinton, always going to be able to escape accountability.
But if you're worried about the Constitution and you want it brought back into power, you want the Constitution to prevail.
Elect a white male Republican.
The only type of president who will ever be held accountable.
Glenn Reynolds USA Today.
Uh best of show on Monday.
Happy Memorial Day weekend, folks.
We'll be back Tuesday.
Okay, folks, that's it.
Hope your memorial day is memorable.
Reflective and grateful.
See you on Tuesday, folks.
▲
Export Selection