Well, I told you, my friends, that it would be worth the wait to get to the program here on Monday, and you can take the weekend off.
I wish I could.
You know, I would relish the opportunity to ignore what's going on like I afford you the opportunity to ignore what's going on, at least for the weekend.
And you tune in here, you find out what you missed, you find out what happened, and as a bonus, what to think about it.
And as such, we are loaded.
It's great to have you with us.
Another full week of broadcast excellence commencing right now.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address, ilrushbow at EIBnet.com.
I'm going through a stack here of Brexit news that I have collected all weekend.
I just want to go through it piece by piece by piece.
I just want to share it with you, maybe comment on some of it, not comment on some of it, but it is eye-opening.
It is fascinating.
And I am, I'll tell you what, of all the things about it that suddenly hit me, I'm struck by how it came as such a shock to everybody.
And there are reasons why it came as such, I'm talking about people in Great Britain, people in Europe, not so much here, but over there.
It came as a total shock.
In fact, folks, it has eerie similarities to our 2004 presidential campaign.
If you'll recall, at 5 o'clock on Election Day, when the second wave of exit polls came in, John Kerry, who, by the way, served in Vietnam, his campaign manager came in.
A guy named Bob Shrum came in at 5 o'clock after the second wave of exit polls and said, may I be the first to address you as Mr. President?
And they literally thought they had won.
They thought they'd won so bad that when the actual votes were counted and it showed that Kerry was going to lose, a bunch of leftists got all upset about it and thought that the exit polls were real and that the votes were fake and wanted to implement the outcome as determined by exit polls.
Well, the same thing happened with Prime Minister Cameron.
At 5 o'clock, a pollster walked in.
A pollster who never gets anything right walked into his office and told him essentially that the Leave faction was going to go down to a landslide defeat.
At 5 o'clock on the day of the vote, the Brit Prime Minister was informed that his side was going to win in a near landslide.
They started popping the champagne and backslapping.
And it was a mere few hours later and they began to get the actual count in and they saw the handwriting on the wall.
Journalists were shocked.
All kinds of people were shocked.
College students were shocked.
Why?
How can something like this be happening in a country and nobody in elite positions have any idea of it?
The media didn't know.
The prime minister didn't know.
The pollsters got it wrong.
And similar things happen here.
I mean, the ruling class is not just a facet of American life.
It's worldwide.
There are elites everywhere and they want to unify under the term globalism.
But how in the world could anybody have been surprised?
Well, they were.
And when you hear some of these news stories, like the young people in Great Britain are all out of whack because they voted in large numbers to stay in the European Union.
The seasoned citizen group voted to leave the European Union.
And the youths of Great Britain are all mad that their older parents and grandparents have determined a future for them that they don't want.
Others want to redo the vote and demand that whatever side wins has to win by 20%.
It's, I don't know what it is.
It's depressing when you get right down to it.
There is so much absolute ignorance.
I don't even know here if we even have a country.
I mean, look at what's going on.
We don't have borders.
We now have a Supreme Court that's not a court.
It is a rubber stamp for the Democrat Party's left-wing agenda.
It has become essentially a partisan legislative body.
The Supreme Court has.
The presumptive Democrat nominee, who, by the way, appeared at a campaign rally in Ohio today, and she had Focahontas with her.
That would be the estimable Elizabeth Warren.
And you know what?
Did you watch it?
You didn't.
Well, see, I couldn't help but watch it.
It was on the monitors in here, and I saw it, and I said, should I turn on the sound or just should I ignore this?
I said, I got to do it.
I got to turn on the sound.
It was Overwhelmingly obvious was that Focahatis is much more popular than Hillary is.
Oh, it's not even close.
At least in the limited portions I got to see, she just had them revved up and Hillary came out there and basically, and as Elizabeth said, isn't Elizabeth great?
Wouldn't anyone want to have Elizabeth on their side?
I mean, Elizabeth Warren, Focahontas.
There's going to be a lot of buyers' remorse no matter what happens over on that side.
But anyway, folks, back to it.
We don't have borders.
Oh, ready for this?
Sound bite coming up.
David Brooks, our old buddy, a conservative columnist, New York Times, he's had a realization.
He maybe thinks that the elites may have overstepped on immigration just a little bit.
Maybe have brought in too many.
Maybe have brought in more people than should be here at the moment.
Here, grab soundbites eight and nine.
Now, David Brooks, by himself, no big deal, don't misunderstand, but in the sense that he is a mirror for what the elites and the establishment think at any given moment.
This was back on Friday night on the news hour at PBS.
Judy Woodruff said to David Brooks, hey, the vote in the UK to leave the European Union.
What do you make of this, Dave?
I'm as pro-immigration as the day is long.
But we've asked a lot of people who are suffering in this economy to accept extremely, radically high immigration levels.
And we've probably overflooded the system.
And so while it's easy, and I do condemn the vote to leak get out, a little humility is on the part of the establishment, frankly, that we've flooded the system with more than it can handle.
And secondly, we've not provided a good nationalism, a good patriotism that is cosmopolitan, that is outward spanning, and that is confident, and therefore a bad form of parochial, inward-looking Trumpian nationalism has had free reign.
You don't hear this.
You just don't hear this kind of admission from anywhere inside the ruling class.
You don't hear this anywhere in the establishment.
And I'm not suggesting it means anything.
It's just self-contained, interesting.
Don't worry that it portends change on the part of the established.
It doesn't mean that at all.
This is just a self-contained opinion by David Brooks, a rather lowly member of the establishment, but he's still there.
And these ruminations of his are his alone.
Maybe other people are thinking.
I don't want anybody to get the wrong idea.
I'm not suggesting, hey, hey, folks, there may be something up.
Maybe the establishment is starting to get it.
I don't think that's what's going on.
Brooks is starting to maybe see things because he's right, whether he knows it or not.
They have flooded the system with more than it can handle and at the expense of nationalism.
And this is exactly what's going on.
He's a little concerned about it.
And here is the next one.
Woodruff said, wait a minute, is Trump the only one of the two candidates speaking to these people like you just talked about?
If you ask Donald Trump supporters, do they think immigration is good or bad for the country, 80% say it's bad.
Do they mind that they are around people who don't speak English well?
Three-quarters mind.
And so there's just not an intolerance, but a sense that the country is getting too diverse and that somehow they're the losers in this process or the country as a whole is a loser in the process.
It's a sinking ship.
And so that is, I think, at the central core of what Trump is tapping into.
It's a sense of collective loss as much as personal loss that's driving by those rulers.
That's a key point.
That's a key thing to admit for Brooks and people like him, to admit that this is not personal on the part of all the people voting for Trump, that they are Americans and that they are worried about their country, not themselves first.
That's a big admission.
And again, I'm not attaching any weight to this in terms of it having any meaning in the sense of policy change.
It's self-contained.
It is what it is.
But I just, I thought it was interesting to share because it's such a divergence of direction from that that you usually get from Brooks, the columnist New York Times.
Now, I just personally am asking myself why, but I don't think things happen in a vacuum.
There has to be some outside influence on Brooks has made this.
I don't know what it is, but it would be interesting to me.
But he talks here about, do they mind that they're around people who don't speak English?
Yeah, but not because they don't speak English.
It's because of what it means for the country for crying out loud.
It's not intolerance.
It's a sense the country is getting too diverse.
It's not that the country's getting too diverse.
It's that we're losing the country.
These guys think in oddball terms even.
It's not diversity in and of itself is not a problem, except the way these guys define it.
Diversity is how we equal greatness in their world.
And diversity is not how you get to greatness.
Merit is achievement, accomplishment, and all that, not skin color, makeup, quotas, racial guidelines, and all that or ethnic guidelines, but these people think it is.
But anyway, it's interesting.
And I think it's an offshoot of the Brexit vote and the fact that nobody saw this coming.
It was a huge groundswell of opinion, 5248, and nobody saw it over there.
Not even journalism saw it.
Journalism is supposed to be deep in the mud, figuring out everything going on, and they were bamboozled.
They had no idea what was going on.
The reason for that is arrogance, flummery, contempt.
There's no interest to know what people think if they are not part of the establishment or if they are the equivalent of Tea Party.
Like this guy over there, Nigel Farge.
Nigel Farge is one of the leaders of the Brexit movement.
He is the equivalent of the most hated Tea Party figure in America.
Pick your name.
Doesn't matter who.
Sarah Palin, he's despised, openly written of in hateful, derogatory ways, just literally hated.
And there's no interest in finding out what he really thinks.
And there's no interest in finding out just what support he has because it's all illegitimate as far as the elites and the insiders and the establishment are concerned.
But the fact that they didn't know, and it's the same thing here, folks.
I mean, take it.
How many people do you think unless still bamboozled by Trump?
Still can't figure that out despite months and months of efforts on my half, my behalf, or efforts made by me to explain it to them.
And they still don't get it because they intellectually are not curious enough to remove the blinders and actually go where the answers to these questions are.
They have no interest whatsoever.
And for that reason, I think they're ripe for a takedown, but it isn't going to be easy.
Anyway, so we don't have any borders.
The Supreme Court's gone, even at eight members in a case like this.
You count on Justice Kennedy to join them, the four libs.
So you essentially have a 5-3 leftist court now.
But it's not a court.
It is a partisan echo chamber of the Democrat Party or leftist agenda.
You have a Democrat nominee, Hillary Clinton, who's wiped away, just erased all objections to corruption as a disqualifying factor for Democrats.
Democrats are making it clear they don't care how corrupt their leaders are.
In fact, the more corrupt their leaders are, if it enables them to defeat us, the better.
So here's to corruption.
If it takes corruption, if it takes all kinds of Clinton funny money, Clinton foundations, if it takes selling the White House and selling the presidency to foreign entities, fine, as long as that helps beat conservatives.
This wasn't the case that long ago.
Budgets don't mean anything anymore.
The debt doesn't mean anything.
The deficit, the national debt, none of it has any relevance.
None of it has any limiting meaning.
There is no responsibility whatsoever coming out of Washington when it comes to budgeting, when it comes to economics, when it comes to legislation.
There isn't any responsibility or even adult behavior coming out of that town.
Social Security and Medicare, racing to insolvency.
Public school bathrooms and how they are used became a presidential concern.
Voter ID, a way to ensure legitimacy at the polls, is considered unfair.
Yeah, we can't embark on any major step to ensure legality and fairness at the polls because it's called racism and sexism and bigotry and everything else.
The president enforces laws of his choosing in defiance of federal court and federal appellate court rulings.
And if I understand this Supreme Court decision today on abortion, back alley abortions, I guess, weren't really a problem because all Texas did was try to enhance safety procedures for women who wanted to get abortions.
No, no, no, no.
The left said you are not going to put any limit whatsoever, even if it means popularizing the equivalent of back alley abortions.
And I'm going to tell you, folks, when it comes to abortion, yes, the substance of the issue matters, but beating us is just as motivating and just as important.
If you doubt me, listen to audio soundbite number one, Jeffrey Toobin, legal beagle, CNN, who was asked by Jake Tapper today, the Supreme Court could have divided 4-4.
They could have kicked this back to the lower court, and that would have upheld the Texas law, but they staked out a stance on this just.
As we have said so often, this decision was in the hands of Anthony Kennedy, who was the swing vote.
What makes this decision so significant is that after 2010, after the Republican landslides in all the state legislatures, many states, not just Texas, passed restrictions that are very similar to these Texas rules: Louisiana, Mississippi.
And so if the Supreme Court has now struck down these restrictions, it is very likely that other courts will strike down a variety of restrictions that Republican-dominated legislatures have passed since 2010.
Don't doubt me.
You hear of all the things this guy could have said about this ruling, the substance, he didn't even talk about it.
What did he talk about?
The crucial importance of this victory is how it thwarts the results of the 2010 Republican landslide midterm election victory.
That's what's important about it.
We will be back.
Now, here's what the Texas law basically did that's been struck down on abortion.
But I'm telling you, as far as the left is concerned, the big deal here is that the meaning, one of the things that happened as a result of the 2010 Republican landslide has been beat back.
Beating us is as big a deal to them.
This did not threaten abortion, but they believe any law, any law that stands in the way of any abortion anytime has got to be stopped because it's a trend toward banning abortion.
What would have happened here?
Texas argued before the court that in its 2013 law and subsequent regulations were needed to protect women's health.
The rules that Texas implemented required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.
And the law forced clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery.
And the pro-aborts looked at this as efforts to limit abortion.
What they were were efforts to make it safer to the extent that it might have limited abortion by eliminating certain clinics.
Yeah, you could say that.
And that's what the pro-aborts are.
No, no, no.
We're not going to limit our clinics.
You're not going to shut us down no matter what goes on in there.
Doesn't matter.
You are not going to win.
You're not going to have one win when it comes to abortion.
Abortion is constitutional, and we're not going to allow you one maneuver, even if it is legitimately made, to have qualified doctors and qualified outpatients.
They don't care.
Making sure the abortion happens is the nut of the political agenda.
And defeating us in the process is not just icing on the cake.
It's practically as important as the substance of the case.
We have a couple of Elizabeth Warren soundbites I talked about earlier, her with Hillary, when we get back.
No, I'm not exaggerating the Supreme Court decision here.
That's why I said apparently back alley abortions weren't really a problem.
Apparently, abortuaries that are no better than veterinary clinics like Kermit and Cosnell's apparently no problem.
You're not going to put any limits.
You're not going to put safety standards.
You're not going to do anything to our abortion clinics, even under the guise of making them safer.
It might make it tougher to get an abortion.
We're not going to allow it.
And that's exactly what the court said.
So the next time you hear them talking about, they're not.
I mean, this is filthy, is what it is.
You know what?
The grating thing is that these are the people somehow get the credit for having all the compassion for their fellow human beings.
These are the people who get the credit for having so much love and tolerance, compassion, understanding.
They are brutal, these people on the left.
Now, get this.
Folks, we're under assault.
We're under siege everywhere.
Richard Posner.
He may pronounce it Posner.
There are two different pronunciations.
Vladimir Posner, Soviet Union spokesman, friend of Phil Donahue pronounced it Posner.
I think this is a, he's a judge.
He's a Seventh Circuit judge, Richard Posner, appointed by Reagan, important to keep in mind here, and has been alternately praised and condemned by judicial analysts.
This guy, Posner, Posner, however you pronounce it, Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner, posted a little article at slate.com saying that it's time now that U.S. judges stop studying the Constitution.
The Constitution, as a reference point for the law, is outdated, past its time, unhelpful, and irrelevant.
He said in his post at Slate: I see absolutely no value to a judge spending decades, years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation.
It's only the official law of the land.
And here's a Seventh Circuit Judge saying it's worthless.
It's the law of the land, the amendments, its implementation, it's a waste of time, even if you spend seconds studying it.
His post said, 18th century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc.
of the 21st century, which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the post-Civil War amendments, including the 14th, do not speak to today.
The stories at Mediaite, they conclude this with this paragraph.
Posner, an influential jurist who has served as a federal judge for 35 years, has previously voiced his disregard for the Constitution.
Quote, I'm not particularly interested in the 18th century, nor am I particularly interested in the text of the Constitution.
I don't believe that any document drafted in the 18th century can guide our behavior today during a 2015 colloquium.
This look, he's not a dumb guy by any stretch, but this presents a total misunderstanding of what the Constitution is.
Profound distortion of what the Constitution is.
This is stunning.
The Constitution planted the roots of American exceptionalism, again defined by the fact that America was the exception to the way and the rule of life for humanity decades, centuries before.
The Constitution, well, Magna Carta, Magna Carta, I guess we'd have to say Magna Carta was first, but the U.S. Constitution, the first document to ever limit the government.
And that is why the opponents want to get rid of it, because it limits the government.
It does not empower government.
It empowers citizens.
It empowers individuals.
The Constitution spends all of its time, the Bill of Rights, defining what the government cannot do.
And that just irritates people who think the government ought to be able to do anything and everything because other people, average people, are not competent or qualified to make their own decisions.
Or it's worse than that, it's just people that are totally power-mad and power-hungry, who do not believe in representative government, do not believe in republics.
But to say that the Constitution cannot guide our behavior today, it has successfully, that's one of the brilliant aspects of the document, is its timelessness.
Really, really, the whole thing is a miracle.
The entire United States is a miracle from the drafting of the Declaration to the Revolutionary War to the Pilgrims arriving.
The whole thing is a miracle.
And the drafting of the Constitution had never been done before and it hasn't been done since except in a copycat kind of way.
But there's no value in studying its enactment, its amendments, its implications, because what's in it isn't relevant to today when it does, it's the law of the land.
Anyway, this guy's appointed by Reagan, and he's been around for 35 years on the court, which just illustrates how people can lose their grounding.
It's amazing.
This is the kind of thing, by the way, it's going to be latched on.
There's a whole movement on the left that agrees with this and that thinks the Constitution, as I've told you before, they call it a charter of negative liberties.
You know, when I first heard that term, how can liberties be negative?
What the hell does that mean?
And it was insider lingo for leftists who think that the Constitution, negative liberties, because it tells government what it can't do.
And that's not good.
We, we, we need something that spells out what the government can do, what the government will do, not what the government can't do.
And it's forever going to come under assault and attack in a variety of ways.
And this is just most recent one.
Now, Elizabeth Warren, popularly known here as Focahatis, was in, where were they?
They were in Ohio somewhere, Cincinnati.
And it was a Hillary Clinton appearance, but the parts I saw, Elizabeth Warren, Focahatis, was far more well-received and popularly treated than was Hillary.
We have, what do we have?
Two or three.
We've got actually five.
Now what we're going to do, we're going to do two, three, four, four A, and then 22.
Here we go.
When Donald Trump says he'll make America great, he means make it even greater for rich guys just like Donald Trump.
Great for the guys who don't care how much they've already squeezed from everyone else.
Great for the guys who always want more.
Because that's who Donald Trump is.
The guy who wants it all for himself.
And watch out, because he will crush you into the dirt to get whatever he wants.
That's who he is.
A small, insecure money grubber who fights for no one but himself.
You know, my tendency is to laugh at this, but I've been doing that for 25 years and it doesn't work.
I mean, this is just, it's outrageously hilarious.
It's so out of touch and so wrong about who Trump is and people like Trump that it is obscenely absurd and hilarious.
But the fact of the matter is that whole crowd in there bought every word she said.
Donald Trump hasn't taken anybody else's money to get where he is.
Elizabeth Warren does and has.
Hillary Clinton does and has.
There isn't a single member of the Obama administration in the cabinet that's ever held a private sector job, folks.
They're all academicians, theorists, think tankers.
None of them have ever held a job.
None of them have ever owned a business.
None of them have ever had a payroll.
They are the money grubbers.
They're the leeches.
They are the true architects of greed.
There is no greater institution of greed than the United States government and the Democrat Party, which runs it, sadly with some Republicans tagging right along.
Donald Trump hasn't gotten what he has by taking it from anybody else.
But Hillary can't say that.
And Bill Clinton can't say that.
And Elizabeth Warren can't say that.
But they're out there saying he didn't build that.
He crushed everybody.
He crushed everybody into the dirt.
It's just absurd.
Donald Trump is full-fledged capitalist 101, as are many successful people.
And look how they are derided.
Look how they are ground into the dust and ripped to shreds.
Guys who always want more.
I think the Clintons always want more, right?
As far as the Clintons are concerned, enough is never enough.
They're constantly seeking more.
They're constantly usurping more.
Ditto Elizabeth Warren.
Ditto every other one of these leftists leading and living off the money of other people and then seeking to be seen as compassionate in the process.
Here she gets around at poor Hillary next.
Just look at her history.
She's been on the receiving end of one right-wing attack after another for 25 years, but she has never backed down.
That's right.
She doesn't whine.
She doesn't run to Twitter to call her opponents fat pigs or dummies.
No, she just remembers who really needs someone on their side.
And she gets up and keeps right on fighting for the people who need her most.
And this is the biggest myth under the sun that Democrats and people like Hillary are out there doing it for other people and doing everything they can to ensure fairness and treatment and so forth for other people.
Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Warren, how is it that the middle class hasn't seen a wage increase in the entire eight years of Barack Hussein Obama and you people running the show?
Why is that?
How does so many people not working?
How does that add up with you people looking out for everybody else?
You've been looking out for the little guy for as long as I've been paying attention.
And for as long as I've been paying attention, the little guy keeps getting the shaft, but you people.
And we'll be back.
Okay, now we go from Foca Hadas to Mrs. Clinton herself.
Campaign rally this morning in Cincinnati.
We've got the greatest country and the greatest economy in the world.
Let's start acting like it.
And let's make it clear that the companies have to be part of that greatness.
There we go.
And let's set the goal of making sure that Wall Street and the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes.
Oh, it is, what is that?
25-year-old argument?
The rich aren't paying their fair share, led by Wall Street, led by the big banks.
What this might does not include, I happen to hear this, is right before this, she went on a tear, ripping American corporations for practically being un-American and trying to subvert the economy, not paying their fair share, screwing workers.
You name it left and right.
We've got the greatest country.
We've got the greatest economy.
We don't anymore.
We do not have a great economy right now.
We have an economy and a country in decline.
And seemingly, the Democrat Party is happy to manage this decline rather than to inspire and promote greatness and improvement.
We've got the greatest country, the greatest economy in the world.
Let's start acting like, what the hell does that mean?
Let's start acting like it.
And let me get clear.
Companies have to be part of that greatness.
As I say, this stuff is just, it's demonstrably, provably BS.
And it has been for as long as the Democrats have been using it.
But a large percent of people in this country buy into it, hook line, and sinker, 100%.
Here's the next Hillary bite.
We are not going to let Donald Trump bankrupt America the way he bankrupted his casinos.
We are already.
You write a new chapter in the American dream, and it can't be chapter 11.
If you believe that Donald Trump's wrong for America and that our best days are ahead of us, please join us in this campaign.
We are stronger together.
We're stronger when we grow together, when we lift each other up, when our economy is working for everyone, not just those at the top.
I've heard this before.
We're stronger together.
Please join us.
Best days ahead of it.
We're stronger together.
Oh, I'm going to be a while remembering this, but that's important.
That dates back to something specific.
We're all in this together.
We're stronger.
It's a phrase.
It ties to something.
I can't recall it right off the bat, but it's not just a phrase.
It has meaning, and I'll find it at some point.
stronger when we grow together, when we lift each other up, when our economy is working for everybody.
I just...
It's frustrating.
I hate to keep harping on this, folks, but it's been, we're 27 years following this stuff.
And it is as wrong today as it has been for the last, it's even, it predates 27 years.
This class envy stuff.
But with the economy the Democrats have created where people can't find jobs and can't afford basic necessities, this is going to sell.
It's the old Santa Claus argument.
It's hard to run against people who make you think they're going to give you whatever it is you want or need.
And that's what we're up against.
Here's Elizabeth Warren making fun of Trump.
I still think he gets under their skin.
I think this is indication of it.
Donald Trump says he'll make America great again.
It's right there.
No, it's stamped on the front of his goofy hat.
You want to see goofy?
Look at him in that hat.
But when Donald Trump says great, I ask, great for who exactly?
Yeah.
For millions of kids struggling to pay for an education?
For millions of seniors barely surviving on Social Security?
For families that don't fly to Scotland to play golf?
Well, for crying out loud, who gave us all of this?
Who is it that has turned the entire student loan program into an albatross around college graduates' necks?
Who is it that's basically turned the college education into its own obstacle?
Who is it?
It's Democrats and their constituents.
And I'm going to tell you where this is going to lead.
I'm going to make you a prediction right now because there's both these two, both Hillary and Foca Hadas, had more to say about this than just this bite.
And I'm going to make a prediction to you.
And I've been expecting this for a long time.
I think at some point in this campaign, Hillary is going to propose forgiving all outstanding student loans.
She got close to it today by saying it was unconscionable or outrageous that students should incur so much debt just trying to get an education.
You mark my words.
And Obama and the Democrats run the student loan program now.
So at just the right time, they could announce a plan to forgive all student loan.
You wait.
Don't be surprised.
All right, we're on a full boat of calls.
And let's see, a lot of people want to talk about the, yeah, the Supreme Court abortion decision.
Ready for that?
We've got a review, a huge stack of Brexit reaction stories from the UK and here.
And you might think, well, it's old.
I don't care about it.
No, no, it is.
But this stack is informative, instructional, education, entertaining.