He is addressing something called the 2016 Global Entrepreneurship Summit.
I only had a chance to listen to a little bit of it because, of course, the program just resumed.
I don't think he's that into entrepreneurship.
I don't.
I don't think he knows what.
I'm trying to.
He's talking about the diversity he sees in the room.
He says, I'm sure some of you are from small villages.
As I travel around the world, I met, you know, a majority of the people in the country in this world are under 30.
He's talking about the different races and creeds he sees in the audience and how the entrepreneurs need tools to be successful.
And I'm hearing throughout this, you might think you're building it, but you're not.
I'm trying to be nice.
I'm trying to be accommodating here.
But I just, I've never been of the belief that Obama really thinks entrepreneurship is what it is anyway.
I mean, how can you believe that?
How can you believe in entrepreneurship when one of your active philosophies is that people that own their own businesses and build them didn't really do it?
How can you believe in entrepreneurism if you subscribe to the Elizabeth Warren theory, you didn't build that?
What does race have to do with entrepreneurism?
What is what do you come from?
A small village.
You know what that means, don't you?
Some backwater.
What does that have to do with anything?
What is your skin color?
Where does where you're from?
What's it have to do with anything?
How is that a factor in entrepreneurism?
Everyone needs, everyone deserves a chance to succeed.
Who guarantees that?
You know, United States of America handled that long ago, Mr. President.
We don't need lectures from you on opportunity.
That's what this whole country was about from the get-go.
And he talks about it like it hasn't ever been present, that it's always been part of prejudice and bigotry, and not everybody has had that opportunity.
And not everybody has it.
So he's come along, and his big government guys are going to mandate everybody has an opportunity.
And how do they do that?
They do it by denying opportunity to some.
And that's exactly what socialism is.
That's exactly what all these isms are.
Like Obama believes in, you manage everything from a central planning location, usually where your government is, you plan everything because most people don't have the ability to do it themselves.
They won't get the outcome you want.
And so you think everybody has to have opportunity.
You start out.
Obama starts out thinking this is a racist country that has been discriminating against certain people from the get-go.
And it takes somebody like him coming along to punish those who have had all these advantages from the get-go and to transfer those advantages to some.
So he's not about expanding opportunity.
He wants to shift it based on his own belief that it's not fairly distributed because the country is inherently flawed, if you will.
This is what bugs me about people like Obama.
It's not just him.
This is how socialists look at it.
He's the worst, and he's the epitome of it.
But I'm telling you, it just didn't...
Maybe I've got to allow for the fact that I'm not entirely objective here, but I'm trying to be.
And it just didn't sound to me like he really was comfortable talking about entrepreneurism from a standpoint of believing in it.
Because I don't know what those other things have to do with it.
Skin color, the size of your village?
What?
What?
The size of the village you come from?
Are there any villages in America?
Well, I mean, there are, but not in the way he means.
The term village is not meant to, it means something economically.
It means something racially.
It means something all these surface areas, the way liberals look at people.
Kids get raised in a village, and it takes a village, but it's even more than that.
Anyway, cookies rolling on some of this, and maybe before the program ends, I'll get to give you some examples of what I'm talking about here, where he just doesn't sound.
In fact, it's so Fox already pulled out of it.
CNN's already pulled out of it.
They were both carrying it.
It was really a dryball kind of thing.
The reason they tuned in is because they're expecting him to react to Brexit, and he hadn't done that by the time the program began.
Okay, let me close the loop on this money business because in talking about how the political professionals think they're going to take Trump out, they're going to use the usual playbook stuff, take Trump out like they took Romney out.
They were only able to take Romney out because Romney does not a criticism of Romney.
Please don't let anybody call him up and say I'm ripping him.
I'm not.
I'm simply telling you that the connection Trump has with his supporters slash audience is unique.
Not every politician has it, and certainly not every public figure has such a connection with their audience, but Trump does.
It's deep.
It's loyal, and it is resilient.
And the only guy that can ruin it is Trump.
The media cannot come separate Trump from his supporters.
Only Trump can do that.
They're trying.
They're going to keep trying because they think they can.
They did it with Bush.
They did it with Romney.
They did it with McCain.
They did it with Bob Dole.
They're able to do it with practically every Republican comes down the pike.
All it takes is Harry Reid saying a friend told him Romney hadn't paid his taxes in 10 years and it's over.
But these kinds of things aren't going to work on Trump.
Now, the reason I'm going here is because those of you who told me last week, he's got to run commercials.
He's got to run commercials.
He's got to be able to have enough money to run commercials to respond to Hillary.
There's a part of me that says, yeah, obviously, but I wish it wasn't necessary.
As I say, folks, I'm old enough now that I've been around and I've seen a lot more things than I had seen when I started this program 27 years ago.
I have seen presidents in action.
I have been to the White House a number of times.
I have been to fundraisers.
I have seen what happens at fundraisers.
I've seen how elected officials treat fundraisers and donors.
And believe me, the world revolves around them.
It's the most amazing thing.
I know people who have donated big to presidents.
I know people who have raised money big for presidents.
And they are treated like kings by the politician and his organization.
They are constantly invited to parties, seminars, private gatherings where the candidate or the president will explain policy, but only to them.
And they brag about it, which is fine.
That doesn't bother me.
You know, they'll come back from one of these things and they'll ask me, have you ever been to one, knowing I haven't, because I'm not a donor.
No, I wasn't able to make the trip to Big Sandy.
No, I wasn't able to go hunting with the president.
What happened?
Oh, let me tell you.
And then he started telling me all he told him about policy and the secret stuff that he didn't tell anybody else.
What it made clear to me was we've all known that money is the mother's milk of politics, but it really, really, really, really is.
The people that raise it and the people that give it are the first people that get any elected officials' attention.
Now, you know this.
I'm not telling you anything that you don't know.
But I have seen it up close.
And it is obvious the potential for corruption that exists here.
Back in the early 90s, mid-90s, a friend of mine, I'll just tell it was Bill Bennett.
Bill Bennett is coming off the success of his book called A Book of Virtues.
And he was actually, he'd been education secretary for Ronaldo's Magnus.
And he was actually toying with the idea of running for president.
So he convened a meeting in a private banquet room downstairs at the Four Seasons Hotel in Georgetown.
And I was invited there.
And it was an exploratory meeting for one purpose, to see if it were possible to ask a bunch of experts if it were possible to be elected president without having a major fundraising effort because Bill didn't want to do that.
I wouldn't want to do it.
I wouldn't want to spend every waking hour asking people for money.
A, I can't do it.
It's not my nature.
I just don't.
But secondly, you've got to pay them back.
Nobody gives you money for nothing.
And that's the lesson with the Clintons.
Nobody gives you money because they like you.
And we're talking tens of thousands, millions.
Nobody gives you that kind of money without an expectation for it.
It has to be paid back somehow.
You pay it back with policy.
You pay it back with an ambassadorship.
You pay it back by continually inviting them to dinners at the White House.
You pay them back with whatever.
I just couldn't, Bill wasn't interested in it.
And to a man in this meeting, everybody said, no, it's not possible.
There were some consultants there.
And of course, they would say it isn't possible because if anybody gets elected for president not spending money, they don't get paid.
And ever since then, I have, it was refocused here with this situation with Trump.
Okay, Hillary's out there running her besmirch and impugned campaign.
Trump doesn't have a whole lot of money in the bank to respond to it right now, so he's not.
And people telling me how bad this is.
And I say, you know, it may not be.
I said, you're falling into the trap of believing everything that's in the political handbook.
And that is, at the top of the list is you can't do anything without money.
Trump has, now, admittedly, it was primary election, but Trump hasn't spent a lot of money, not compared to, I mean, George or Jeb Bush had a $115 million super PAC, and he has six delegates.
I just, it's not a dream, but it's something I do think about.
Wouldn't it be just great if somebody could actually get elected without having to spend all that time raising money?
Wouldn't it be great if somebody get elected president without having to pay all the donors back?
Wouldn't it be fabulous if somebody could get elected president without this giant do bill?
Now, don't misunderstand.
Some of the donors are many of them are good people and they're donating because their ideas are those embodied by the candidate, and that's really what they're doing.
They're promoting the ideas, but many of them are desirous of things in addition to that.
So when I see Trump not respond because he can't spend the money, I'm secretly hoping it isn't going to hurt him.
I would love for Hillary's massive ad campaign to be pointless and worthless.
I would love for it to bomb out.
I would love for it not to, you know what?
If you look at the polling data, it isn't hurting Trump.
Whatever ad campaign she ran last week or is still running, if you look, if you pay attention to drive-by media, they are shocked that Trump has not been destroyed already.
They can't believe that Trump is still leading her in two battleground states.
They can't believe that he's within, what is it, five or six points, five points.
They can't believe it because Hillary's been running all these ads.
Hillary's been doing a good job of portraying Trump as unqualified, not the right temperament, and Trump hasn't reacted to it.
And Trump's been making boneheaded statements out there like going after the judge for being a Mexican.
They can't believe it.
They simply can't believe.
It's like David Rodham Gergen the other day after Trump's speech that just eviscerated Hillary and that didn't cost him any money.
And that speech, that speech, folks, that was a grand slam of a speech.
It upset the media.
It upset Hillary.
And there still hasn't been anybody come out yet and say that none of it was true.
David Rodham Gergen tried, if you recall.
David Rodham Gergen goes on CNN and says, you know, you can't quote.
You can't slander.
You can't lie about people like that.
Quoting from that discredited book by Peter Schweitz is not discredited.
Peter Schweitzer's book, Clinton Cash, is not discredited.
It has been quoted on the front page of the New York Times and the Washington Post.
A bunch of drive-by media fact checkers.
There's a story about how CNN ended up with big egg on their face and were profoundly embarrassed.
They had a couple of fact checkers and they put them up on camera.
They were going to just destroy this book and they couldn't because they can't find anything wrong in it.
And they made a cardinal error.
Same thing like you never grant immunity if you're a lawyer.
You don't grant immunity to a witness not knowing what he's going to say.
Well, they're out there all saying that this book has been discredited.
None of it's true.
The Clinton Foundation does nothing but donate to charities.
They can't find any evidence that what Schweitzer has written about Clintons and their foundation and the fundraising and the getting paid for speech.
They can't find anything where he's wrong.
The book has not been discredited.
So Trump delivers this massive speech.
It hit home run after home run after home run.
It hit Hillary Clinton ways the Republican Party has never, ever gone after her before.
It was success.
It didn't cost him a dime.
It just cost him the time at whatever staging it was at his own hotel down there in Soho.
And then the benefit was the media is out there following it up by saying it's filled with innuendo and lies, maybe even a libel slander in there in the Schweitzer book and zip.
So I was telling these people, I think it'd be great.
It would be fabulous if somebody had whatever it takes to overcome this need for money.
Remember, the conventional wisdom is that, yeah, you can do this like Trump has done it during the primaries.
But once you get to the general where it's not about national votes, it's about states.
It's about swing states.
It's about battleground states.
And you've got to have targeted expenditures, great ads running against your opponent in those swing states.
Trump doesn't have any of this, and he's leading in two of the three swing states.
Wouldn't you love it if all of this could be accomplished without having to raise a billion dollars or a hundred million even or whatever?
Believe me, it is a limiting factor.
I know it's one of these necessities for 99% of the people that get into politics.
But I am one of these people that think not having to pay it back and not owing anybody for it because you didn't take it would be one of the most liberating aspects of any candidate officeholder's life.
Yeah, so they're still watching Fox right now.
They're ripping Trump for promoting his golf course.
First words out of his mouth in Scotland today.
Why not?
He's got the world tuning into it.
And he's got his brand new golf course ready to go, including suites in the White House.
He knows he's going to eventually get to the Brexit result, but why not promote his business?
That's who he is.
He's being who he is.
He's genuine.
Isn't this what people have said they want?
Have you seen the mayor of London?
I guess it Drudge is calling London Londonistan now.
The Mayor of London is Sadiq Khan, newly elected mayor of London.
He's a Muslim.
And following the UK's decision to exit the European Union, Sadiq Khan, Mayor of Londonistan, took to Facebook today to express his support for the many London residents who hail from other parts of Europe.
He wanted to make sure that they knew that they would be totally supported by the city of London.
That if there are residents of London from other parts of Europe, don't sweat it.
You're going to be looked out for, taken care of.
Business insider, is this not always the case?
Headline: Voters had a tantrum.
Now what do we do?
You know, starting with 1994, when the Republicans won the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years, Peter Jennings, the late Peter Jennings, goes on his radio commentary on the ABC radio network and says the voters, the children had a temper tantrum.
And the headline here at Business Insider, basically, Brexit was a tantrum.
What should we do about it?
Which means, it wasn't serious.
It's not what they really think.
And the kids just, they just had a moment.
But boy, now what do we do?
It's not.
So it's another way of impugning and discrediting the meaning of the vote.
You ready for it?
This is actually what Peter Jennings said on November 14th, 1994, during his daily ABC radio commentary.
This was not on the ABC Nightly News, his radio commentary that I did.
Quote, some thoughts on those angry voters.
Ask parents of any two-year-old, and they can tell you about those temper tantrums.
The stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming.
It's clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around.
It's the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way.
Well, imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage.
The voters had a temper tantrum last week.
Parenting and governing don't have to be dirty words.
The nation can't be run by an angry two-year-old.
Parenting and governing don't have to be dirty words.
Whoever said parenting was a dirty word.
And it wasn't, let's see, this is shortly after there'd been a debate, 1992, between Perot, presidential debate, Perot, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton, and the ponytail guy.
I think it was in Richmond.
Ponytail guy stood up there and said, asked him, when are you going to treat us like you're kids and start taking care of us?
And Clinton jumped all over it.
Bush looked at his watch, and Perot tried to figure out how to kick the guy out.
Clinton walked up to him.
That's such a great question.
You know what?
I think about that all the time.
I look at this whole room and I see people that I would love to parent.
I'd love to be their father.
I think of you in that way.
I love all of you like you were my own children.
That place melted.
Bush looking at his watch.
Oh, geez.
And then Peter Jennings comes.
And now they're saying this about the Brexit vote.
The voters had a tantrum.
Here's Obama.
I got one soundbite here.
Well, we actually have two.
We have one on Obama describing entrepreneurism and the other one describing his reaction to Brexit.
This is this afternoon in Palo Alto on the campus of Stanford, the Global Entrepreneurship Summit.
I guess Obama's the keynote speaker.
Here's the soundbite.
You look out across this auditorium.
You're all of different backgrounds and cultures and races and religions.
Some of you are from teeming cities.
Others are working in small rural villages.
But you have that same spark, that same creative energy to come up with innovative solutions to old challenges.
And entrepreneurship is what gives people like you a chance to fulfill your own dreams and create something bigger than yourselves.
We live in a time when more than half the world is under the age of 30.
And that means we've got to make sure that all of our young people around the world have the tools they need to start new ventures and to create the jobs of the 21st century.
Well, then what the hell are you doing talking about entrepreneurism?
Because you just blew the concept sky high.
This is fascinating.
He doesn't know what it is.
It's not that.
No, no, he knows what it is.
He just doesn't believe in it.
He doesn't believe entrepreneurs can do what they do until he first, or the government, whatever, gives them the tools.
Yes, the tools that they need to create the jobs of the 20th.
Mr. President, entrepreneurs are not creating jobs.
They're inventing things.
Entrepreneurs are creating products and services.
They're not creating jobs.
They don't do what they're doing to provide people health care, Mr. President.
They're not doing what they do to advance your social agenda.
That's not who entrepreneurs are.
And it doesn't matter whether they're from a small rural village.
It doesn't matter whether they're Asian, African-American, Mexican.
What matters is their heart.
What matters is their ambition.
What matters is their uniqueness and their creativity.
And also what matters is how much you're going to get out of their way.
Talk to any entrepreneur, particularly successful ones, and they will tell you of the obstacles they had to overcome.
Some of them natural, I mean, they're competitive, but others government regulation here, government obstacle over there.
But even beyond that, just Obama's attitude about them.
They're great because they're diverse, but they can't do anything unless they're given the tools.
In the 21st century, tools to go out and start new ventures and create jobs.
That's not why entrepreneurs do what they do.
That's an ancillary effect.
That's a bonus.
You might find, I'm just to disprove me, you probably find you can go out there today, find a bunch of leftist entrepreneurs.
Somebody says, why did you want to invent that widget?
Because I wanted to create jobs, man.
I heard Limborg say that's not why we do.
That's why I did it.
So anybody comments?
That's not why they do it.
They're not doing it to advance health care.
They're not doing it to provide health care.
They're not doing it for any other.
They want to make money.
They want financial independence.
They have a product they believe in, a service.
They want to invent it.
They want to create it.
Anyway, the next bite, the Rock Hussein O, and this is just a quick, it's a 15-second reaction to the Brexit vote.
Well, the U.K.'s relationship with the EU will change.
One thing that will not change is the special relationship that exists between our two nations.
That will endure.
The EU will remain one of our indispensable partners.
Really?
Okay, fine.
Fine.
But it was just back in April.
He went over to the UK.
He was in Londonistan, and he told them that they're going to go to the back of the trade queue.
We played that soundbite earlier.
That if they separated from the EU, that they're going to go back to the end of the line of our trading partners.
Great Britain, the UK, will go to the end of the line.
Today he said nothing will change.
Special relationship that exists between our two nations.
What special relationship?
You mean the one that caused you to send the bust of Churchill back?
It's on my nerves sometimes.
Okay, taking a deep pause, brief pause because we're going to go back to the phones.
And our next caller is seven years old, named Avery in Richmond, Virginia.
She is an avid reader of Rush Revere and Time Travel Adventures with Exceptional Americans.
Hi, Avery.
How are you today?
I'm good.
Well, I'm so glad you called.
I really appreciate your patience in waiting for me to get to you, too.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, what's up?
Why did you call today?
To what do we owe this great pleasure?
Well, I just really like your books, and I wanted to tell you that they were really good.
Well, thank you.
How many of them have you read?
I've read all of them, actually.
Naturally, yes, of course.
And do you have a favorite?
Yes.
The most recent one you wrote, I believe, Rush Revere and the Star-Spangled Banner.
That's it.
That's the most recent one.
Rush Revere and a Star-Spangled Banner.
That's your favorite.
That's great.
That's cool.
Yeah.
I really like your books.
Well, thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
I'm not going to ask you why, because that would be greedy.
I'm just going to accept the fact that you like them.
And you know what?
I assume you like Liberty.
Yes.
Yes, I do.
Okay.
Well, I want to send you a Liberty stuffed animal.
We've made a bunch of.
They're cute as they can be.
You will love this.
And that's if your parents would not object.
I'd like to send you this little package of goodies that we send out to people who get in touch with us and tell us how much that they like the books.
Would that be okay with them, do you think?
Yes.
Yeah, I'm sure.
Okay.
So if you would, just don't hang up here.
And when we finish the call, we'll get your address and we'll send this stuff out.
Hopefully we'll get it out as soon as next week.
But do you have any brothers or sisters?
Yes, two older brothers.
How old are they?
12 and 17.
12 and 17.
Wow.
Okay.
Well, that's, and you live in Richmond, Virginia.
What grade are you going to be in when school starts back up?
I'm going to be in third grade.
Oh, and the 12-year-old really likes the books, too.
12-year-old does, too.
Okay.
Has a 12-year-old read them all as well?
No, he doesn't.
Well, yes.
Okay.
Now, do you each have your own copies or do you have one copy that you've shared?
One copy that we share.
Oh, no, no, no.
Got to fix that.
We've got to give you your own copies of each one.
And I'm going to send you some audio on CDs, audio versions that I, of course, narrate.
That way you can put the CDs in.
If you get tired of reading now and then or want to experience them again, you can just listen to me read it.
So we'll put a bunch of stuff together for you, Avery, and I cannot thank you enough.
You're just great.
I appreciate it.
Okay.
Well, thank you very much for having me here.
I ran around your books, and it's just really cool talking to you.
Well, thank you.
Avery, do you, do you, does your family have an iPad?
Yeah.
You like it?
Well, it's an old one, so it's kind of glitchy.
Glitchy, yeah, that's bad.
When they get glitchy, that's bad.
Okay.
Well, I'll throw a couple of those in there, too, with this for you and your brother, two of them to share them around and so forth.
That'll be.
Okay, thank you so much.
Do you draw?
Are you into artistry at all?
Yes, yes, I am.
All right.
Well, I'm going to throw in a little apple pencil that allows you to make big-time, really good drawings on your iPad, too.
So you're more than welcome.
I'm happy to do it.
If you just don't hang up, remember to hang on here, okay?
Okay.
And tell everybody in your family, said hello, Avery.
Okay.
All right.
Bye.
Bye.
Seven years old, folks.
Seven years old.
And we will be right back.
Looky here, folks.
From the Daily Caller, federal lab forced to close after disturbing data manipulation.
The upshot of this is a federal laboratory has been manipulating data on the environment for over 18 years, and they had to shut it down.
Nearly two decades and $108 million worth of disturbing data manipulation with serious and far-ranging effects forced a federal lab to close.
A congressman revealed yesterday.
We're talking about the inorganic section of the U.S. Geological Survey's Energy Geochemistry Laboratory, Lakewood, Colorado, manipulated data on a variety of topics, including many related to the environment.
From 1996 to 2014, the manipulation was caught in 2008.
Nobody said anything about it.
They continue to track it for six more years.
Some of this data ended up in global warming predictions, climate change analysis, and so forth.
It has been discovered that Hillary Clinton's State Department calendar is missing scores of entries.
This is above and beyond the email scandal.
Now, when you're in government, whatever, you're in a ranking position like a cabinet secretary, your calendar is meticulously kept.
Everything official you do is recorded by your office.
And it is kept by law as part of the federal record.
And Hillary Clinton's State Department calendar is missing scores.
A score is 20.
Scores of entries, which means somebody has gone in, more than likely, and deleted a number of appointments Mrs. Clinton had from the calendar.
And they made the decision, look, it's better to just erase this stuff and then apologize later and say, oops, we don't know what happened, than to leave them there for people to discover later.
Peter Schweitzer has blasted CNN and NBC for not investigating Clinton Foundation cash.
Not only have they ignored his book, they have not investigated on their own the allegations that he makes and the truth that he has uncovered.
They're engaged in a cover-up.
I'll tell you, there's going to be a cumulative effect of all of this stuff on Mrs. Clinton.
This is not going to be the free ride to coronation that everybody on her side has thought this was going to be.
Eric in New Orleans, Minnesota.
Great to have you here on the EIB network.
Hi.
I can't tell you how excited I am for this.
I've been listening to you since I was probably six years old.
My dad got me into it, you know, right from the beginning.
I'm 33 now.
Well, you're a rush baby.
A real baby.
Pretty much, yeah.
Real live rush baby.
Cool.
Never thought I'd ever get the chance to talk to you, though, so it's a pretty big honor for me.
I appreciate it.
Thank you very much.
Same for me.
I'm glad you got through.
It's exciting.
Anyway, just today, I had a revelation about stuff that I heard you talk about as far back as maybe 1992.
I think it was the first time I heard you mention it.
You'd referred to an unseen silent majority that the media doesn't talk about, and Uncle Sam doesn't talk about.
And everybody points the other way, that there's this group of people that's sort of under the radar.
And when it really gets awful, you know, that's the group of people that steps up and stands out and says eventually, look, you know, we're tired of what's going on, and we just want to tell you what we want.
And when I was investigating this Brexit business, I began to think, because I heard polls just as early as yesterday morning saying it was, I think it was a 75% chance of staying in.
Right.
And it's, you know, as if we believe polls anymore.
Pauling did it was all wrong on this from the get-go, too.
Well, yeah, because I just, I was thinking, yeah, they're probably going to stay.
They're probably going to stay, you know, because like everybody else, even though I don't want to believe a lot of things that they say, you know, there's so much doom and gloom.
It's seductive.
I know it takes a conscious effort every day to stay vigilant and not fall prey to the traps the media leave.
It's hard to do, even for somebody as accomplished at it as I. And never forget this when you're reading polling data, Eric.
People that do polls today use them for shaping public opinion as well as reflecting public opinion.
They use polls to make news, which ought not be the case.
And silent majority, that's actually an invention of Richard Nixon's.
But I'm glad you called.
It's great that you got through.
I'm out of time, sadly.
I have to go.
Folks, that's it.
We are sadly out of busy broadcast moments here at the EIB Network, but we will be back on Monday.
Hope you have a great, great, great weekend.
And take it easy.
We'll stay vigilant here.
Whatever happens between now and then, we'll tell you.
And as a bonus, we'll tell you what to think about it, too.