All Episodes
Previous Next
June 27, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:19
June 27, 2016, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
For those of you in real linda means a program is even better than you hope.
Every day.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, Lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
Just quickly on the idea that things are tougher today.
The last caller's theory was it was a good theory that the reason people are turning to all powerful government is there's so many factions.
There's so many different people, groups competing for goodies, that it takes a central authority to hand them all out, to pass them all out.
And uh it it's it's an interesting theory in and of itself that we have been the left has succeeded in grouping people.
We are less a nation of individuals than we today than we are a collection of grievance-related groups.
And the grievance related groups all think they're victims of something.
And most of them think they're victims of white Christians.
It's just the way it's been explained and told.
I mean, that's who founded the country, it is said.
There's so much ignorance on the founding of this country.
There's so much so much lies, so many lies BS that have been told about it, that people like uh Obama and the left believe that the country was set up by a bunch of rich white Christians specifically to keep themselves in the money and power in perpetuity,
and expressly denied all peoples of color and women and LGBTs to lives of secondary minority status.
And they think the country, and they've educated people, that's how the country was founded.
So you've had, I don't know, now two and a half generations have grown up thinking the country is at best flawed, uh, at worst corrupt, and that it's time now to pay back, it's time now to get even with these people who have set themselves up to always be in power with all the money.
Rich Christians epitomized by people like Mitt Romney and Donald Trump and George W. Bush and all that, you get the drill.
I mean, that's that's that's how it manifests itself.
So we have groups, and the groups made up of what they think are minorities, and they're all victims of something, victims of powerful forces that are standing in their way of happiness, standing in their way of a good time, standing in their way of economic security, standing in their way of something.
So the theory goes that with this much division and this many people unhappy with grievances, that they're unable to address themselves.
They're unable to overcome these obstacles, they're unable to overcome this powerful majority, this denying them everything, that they've all turned to government to do two things.
Punish the majority and take everything away from them, and then give it to the victims.
And the guy's point was when you have this much division, uh, when you have this much unhappiness, when you have this much despair, people are naturally going to turn to government, not themselves, in order to make things fair and be economically uh equal and what have you.
Whereas he said, in the days of the founding, you didn't so you have so much, uh didn't so much have this much division.
There weren't uh all these grievances, and it's uh folks, it's something that's misunderstood about our early days.
As vicious as you think the media is today, and it is, it was no better back then.
And some would tell you that it was worse.
Some would tell you it was viciously worse.
Some would do the pamphleteers and the uh there were a lot of people that called themselves media back then that weren't just as there are today, people do the same.
But I mean, the the personal insults and the personal attacks in national politics were vicious.
It's never been sweetness in the light.
It's never been hunky-dory.
And a case could be made, even though they didn't do polling back then.
A case could be made that at the time of the Revolutionary War, a majority of Americans opposed it.
A majority of Americans, even back then didn't want to get rid of that big teat from Great Britain.
They didn't want to take the risk of fending for themselves.
So it was, it was, it was not, we were not homogenous.
I mean, to even get the 13 colonies to agree to form the United States.
There had to be all kinds of accommodations made with the Southern colonies on slavery, otherwise there would have not been a union.
And you go back, you read John Adams, and you read some of the early founders, that ripped them a new one.
The whole the slavery issue and what they had to do to found the country, tore them apart.
And so what they did when they wrote the Constitution, they built in what they hoped would be the mechanisms by which the words of the Declaration and the Constitution would apply to everybody.
And it was brilliant in that regard.
The people that founded the country and what they put together, what they made, the United States of America is nothing like it's being taught today.
It was truly brilliant.
It was magical, it was it was miraculous.
It was well intentioned, and it was among the greatest feats in human history.
And those who've studied it have that kind of reverence for it, which is why it's so painful to watch all of these groups that run it, don't even know what they're talking about.
Wine, moan, complain about unfairness and so forth.
The fact is that it was a struggle to unify this nation.
It was a struggle to declare independence.
It was a struggle to fight the revolutionary war.
It was almost lost on several occasions.
It was never homogenous.
Now, you didn't have divisions along the lines of uh immigration, but you stop and think Louisiana Purchase, and then the nation moved west.
You ever wondered you watch these movies of the old West and Judge Roy Bean and all these guys.
People are running around in knee socks and britches and tri-cornered hats and so forth.
How did those two things go together?
Well, they did.
The cavalry was running around as the national police force capturing Indians and so forth and putting them reservation.
But it was, it was you talk about there were all kinds of factions.
There were all kinds of different groups of people that are being swept up into this new place called America.
Whether they liked it or not, then states came along and ratified statehood, and all their diverse populations joined.
So, no, it's never been a cakewalk.
And we've never ever been totally unified.
We never ever will be.
And that's what politics is.
It's not just how we manage our affairs, but it's the quest for power that will define what kind of country we have.
And that's why you hope you have representatives of your point of view willing to actually fight for it, which a lot of Republicans haven't felt for a while.
The Democrats never stop fighting, just like the old communists.
They never go away.
They ever give up, never accept defeat.
And just like the uh the Brexit clowns over the European Union, they're not by no means have they conceded defeat.
They're gonna they're gonna lash out, they're gonna try to punish the Brits.
There's a faction even now that wants to kick Britain out of the EU today.
Screw this two years business.
You want out, fine, get the hell out.
We can't wait to punish your ass for leaving us like that.
They can't wait to do it.
It's all kinds of different attitudes about it now.
Before I get to the Brexit stack, and I'm not toying with you here.
I'm really not.
Because once I started, it's it's it's it's gonna go for a while.
But there's Trump news.
I want to get to that first.
First, the New York Times headline, Donald Trump slips further behind Hillary Clinton in new polls.
Now hang on to a second.
There are a couple of polls out.
One of them shows Trump back down double digits.
I think it's ABC News, Washington Post, and there's another poll that shows Hillary only up one.
But wait, but wait.
Before I get to the details, there's another polling story here, and it's for our old buddies at the Federalist.com.
Are you ready for this?
Headline, no, the polls are not biased.
Clinton really is leading Trump.
It's by Emily Eakins.
The conservative blogosphere, that's how she opens the piece.
The conservative blogosphere lighting up again with accusations of polling bias against Donald Trump.
However, Trump supporters should avoid giving in to this temptation to assume unfavorable results must be biased.
Clinton really is leading Trump and by nearly six percentage points, and you better, you better believe it.
You better accept it because it's not made up.
The blogospherian argument goes something like this.
Clinton is leading Trump by five to seven points in certain polls because the pollsters oversampled or overweighted Democrats by five to seven points.
If the polls are corrected to include fewer Democrats than the race is actually tied, they say.
For instance, one blogger argues that a recent CBS news poll inflated the number of Democrats in the poll, comprised of 28% Republicans and 35% Democrats.
Citing one pollster's calculations, she thinks that party ID in the U.S. is closer to parity.
28% Republicans, only 29% Democrats, rather than the seven-point Democrat advantage.
And she reasons, one blogger, that if you erase the partisan gap, that would erase Clinton's six-point lead over Trump.
And for you Trump supporters, this is a tempting narrative to believe, she writes.
But it simply isn't so.
She says, the fact is there just are more Democrats out there than Republicans.
And this has largely been the case since the New Deal.
And you better accept it, she says.
Okay.
Now that obviously doesn't mean Democrats always win, but it's unwise to assume a pollster is biased because its sample included more Democrats than Republicans.
Then she goes on to say and talk about how she's studied poll after poll after poll.
And she has found that the hundreds of polls aggregated, nearly 100 different pollsters, find the average Democrat make up any polls 38 or 34.8% and 28% Republican.
Roughly six-point advantage, very similar to CBS.
Her point is that look, I've studied a hundred polls, and they all have the same six to seven point Democrat advantage.
Because there are six to seven more Democrats identified than there are Republicans.
Now, interestingly when you go liberal conservative, it's not even close.
Almost twice as many people identify as conservatives as liberals, but they don't poll that way.
They poll party identification.
Now there are exceptions to this.
We've found polls that show the uh sampled a Democrat majority of 20%.
We we they're bad polls.
A lot of polls have gotten it wrong, starting in uh, well, two ten 2014, a lot of the Brexit polls were so bad it's not even funny.
But some of the polls have been right.
So anyway, Miss Eakin's point here is you Trumpists do not lie to yourselves like the Romney people did.
The Romney people went into the 2012 election thinking the polls were wrong by five or six points, thought Romney was gonna win.
It turns out the polls are right into money.
Don't lie to yourselves is her point.
Okay, that takes me back to the original story here.
New York Times.
Donald Trump slips further behind Hillary Clinton in new polls.
However, let me read to you A paragraph in this story.
This poll, by the way, shows Clinton with a well.
Let's review the data before I get to that paragraph.
Washington Post ABC.
Clinton double D digitally 51 to 39.
Wall Street Journal NBC, Clinton's smaller advantage, five points.
Both the polls released on Sunday show Trump in worse shape than he had been a month ago.
As voters in the latest polls expressed doubts about his preparedness and his qualifications to lead the nation.
Isn't that increasingly curious, given that's exactly what Hillary Clinton is saying?
Well, here's the paragraph.
Despite Trump's woes, not all the results of the new polls were heartening for Mrs. Clinton.
The Wall Street Journal NBC survey found that her lead essentially disappears when candidates from the Green Party and Libertarian Party are included.
She essentially tied Trump 39 to 38% together.
Third party candidates grab 16% of the Well, what isn't that kind of relevant?
Because the Libertarian candidate is not going away, right?
Gary Johnson's going to be there.
So isn't it doesn't this paragraph kind of undo the headline, Donald Trump slips further behind Hillary Clinton new polls?
Yeah, if it's just Trump and Hillary, yeah, but if you throw the other candidates in there, she's reduced to a one-point margin.
I don't know if these other candidates are going to hold up all through the campaign or what have you.
But the point that she's trying to make is that all of you Trumpists out there, don't lie to yourselves.
When you see your guy down in the polls, it's it's a mistake to lie to yourself and tell you they're not true because they're biased.
You better accept it and deal with it, and Trump better accept it and deal with it so as to fix it.
In the New York Post, Michael Walsh, five things Trump must do to win the election.
And I'm just going to go through the five.
I'm not going to read every point made about the five.
Number one, first keep pummeling Hillary.
Number two, learn a lesson from McCain and Romney.
And that is the Maverick was a media darling until he had the effrontery to actually run against Obama in 2008.
Romney was transformed from a successful Mormon businessman due into a rapacious ogre.
Overwhelmingly Democrat and partisan, the media votes with its pens and cameras every day.
Do not rely on overwhelming constant media coverage to cover for you, Mr. Trump.
Number three, skip the gotcha game.
You know, don't go out there playing Twitter games with Hillary.
Stick to the issues.
Number four, make it clear to the junior wing of the permanent bipartisan fusion party.
Who's boss now?
This is what Walsh calls the Republican Party, the junior wing of the permanent bipartisan fusion.
That's his way of describing the Washington establishment.
And number five, be yourself.
Take a break.
Back after this.
Don't go away.
Oh, there's one more.
What did I do with it?
Oh, yeah, and there's a Pete by Jonathan Tobin.
This is a commentary, which is a uh, yeah, you call it conservative website.
Jonathan Tobe, where in the world was Trump?
This guy is just beside himself that on the Friday of the results of Brexit, Trump is opening a golf course.
Why didn't Trump lead with Brexit?
Why does Trump so tone-deaf that there he is?
He's in Scotland.
He's in the UK.
The vote is coming.
It's one of the biggest things that ever come down in the history of the UK, of the EU.
And he starts talking about his golf course?
Where the hell was Trump?
Does Trump not have anybody telling him what to focus on?
Really upset about this.
And he's uh using it to indicate Trump doesn't even know what he's doing.
He doesn't have a sense.
He doesn't he doesn't even have the perception here to understand what's important on his own.
If there's not somebody there to tell him, hey, you better address Brexit.
Trump was taking care of business, he says, But not the business of running for president.
He was promoting his golf courses.
He was also doing something else.
He was actually supporting his son Eric.
Eric was in charge of that project.
You people may not know this.
But Eric Trump was in charge of the Trump Turnberry thing.
And it finished on time and it came in under budget.
And Trump went over there, of course, to brag about it to extol virtues, but also support his son.
But Tobin says, my God, this campaign's in enough chaos without Trump not knowing what the hell to even talk about.
I mean, you just don't go talk about yourself as a presidential candidate.
You don't talk about yourself.
You don't talk about your own business interests.
You don't brag about how good you're doing.
You don't brag about how well you're doing.
I'm telling you, I I think these people are well intentioned, but I still don't think they understand why Trump's support base supports him.
Now I know Trump has to grow a support base.
I'm not living under any illusions here, but I do know this as well.
A lot of people supporting Trump do so because they think he is profoundly competent in running things right and getting things built on time under budget and having them operate as they are intended.
And believe me, there are a lot of people supporting Trump who thinks there isn't a single person in Washington who has the slightest idea how to do anything right.
So Trump showing up bragging about how this project is going gangbusters and this one is actually gangbusters for him.
Now, whether he can build a base base, that's another thing, but we'll be back.
Mike Lee has a piece here at the Daily Signal how Congress should seize the Brexit opportunity.
And I'm going to set this aside.
I think it says a lot that see this this is here's here's a golden opportunity, something to build on.
The U.S. Congress, the House of Representatives could be, I know they recessed until July 5th.
It doesn't matter.
You could have members out there speaking to this day to crowded microphone fields, exactly what this means and how they're going to attempt to use this and its outcome here in the United States.
I think it's a but Lee's point is how Congress should seize the Brexit opportunity and how they could adapt it to things that are happening at exactly at this moment here.
But let me run through this stack of things just to share with you a little bit of the reaction to Brexit in the drive-by media, both both here and there.
CBS evening news with Scott Pelley on Friday.
He said that Brexit was approved by older, less educated voters.
It was opposed by younger, better educated voters.
Who says they're better educated?
You know what that flies in the face of practically everything in terms of conventional wisdom.
If the young are better educated than the old, how come the young are not given the reins of power by the time they turn 25?
Because it isn't true.
They haven't lived long enough to be more educated than the elderly.
No matter how you look at it.
Pelley also said that the older, stupid crowd now had established governance that younger Britons would have to live by.
In other words, you old dumb idiots have just saddled us with a bunch of stuff that we don't even agree with, and you're gonna make us live the rest of our lives with this, as though that's the first time this has happened.
But all of this is being thrown up as a means of getting rid of it or rejecting it or discrediting it, which is what the left always does.
Every time something happens with popular support they disagree with, what do they do?
They run out and immediately impugn and criticize the relative intelligence and other aspects of the people who voted in the majority.
So now it's the elderly, seasoned citizens.
By the way, not just them.
You can be elderly and be 45.
You're gonna be older than somebody.
But now you're an idiot.
You didn't know what you were doing.
You don't know what you're doing.
You're an old foe.
You're just a funny duddy.
And you need to be swept out of the way.
The young people are in charge here, and you don't get to tell young people what their country's going to be like for the rest of their lives.
Well, that's the young people can change it if they don't like it.
Why did they lose this time?
According to a UGov survey, 75% of 18 to 24 year olds voted for the UK to remain in the EU.
Only 39% of those 65 and overvoted to remain.
This is another story, this from uh uh the Huffington Post.
So the effort is on to impugn the people that voted for it.
Here's a story.
Vox, the Vox website notes the cluelessness of Oxford students on the Brexit vote.
So, in two stories we're told that the youth have all the brains.
The young people are the ones that's smart, the old people, the old fuddy dutties, they're the stupid idiots, and they saddle the young people with a bunch of stuff that they don't even remember.
The shocked reaction of Oxford University students to the Brexit vote yesterday was notable for the fact that they were so firmly ensconced in their liberal bubble that even Vox took note of their extreme divorce from reality.
As we shall see, it never occurred to these students that the vote would be to leave Brexit.
In fact, the Oxford students' clueless reactions to the vote were so laughable that people put in a phony laugh in the website here, an actual audio track of a phony laugh every time an Oxford student's quote was published.
So here we have a story in a liberal publication where Oxford, the creme to the crime, the Oxford students were so divorced from reality they had no idea what was even going on.
following two stories claiming that the elderly are the idiots.
Here's a point for you, Utes.
Utes.
The elderly people in the UK, they're old enough to remember what life was like before the EU.
And they're old enough and smart enough to prefer it.
They've had the benefit because of their years of being alive.
It's called experience.
And they have the benefit of that experience to know that life in Great Britain before the EU was much better than it is with the EU.
You young, know-it-all whippersnappers haven't the slightest idea what life in UK was like before EU because you weren't born or you weren't paying attention.
What else?
Brexit remorse.
UK lawmaker calls for Parliament to ignore the EU referendum.
The aftershocks of Thursday's referendum on British membership of the European Union continue to reverberate Saturday.
One lawmaker saying Parliament should just overturn the result.
Hell with it.
You mean like Obama would do.
Just issue an executive order and say, you know what?
The vote doesn't count.
We lost.
The vote doesn't count.
Screw you.
We're not leaving.
And then there's this paragraph.
It initially appeared that many voters quickly developed buyer's remorse after the vote.
More than two million people apparently signing an online petition calling for a second referendum.
They're trying to say that a bunch of people that voted to leave didn't know what they were voting for.
And when they found out what it meant after the election returns came in, these same people have now mounted a new petition drive to vacate the vote and do it again because they didn't know what we were voting on until it actually happened.
Young people again, by the way.
I don't even believe this.
I think this whole thing's made up.
I don't think two million people started a petition bribe based on a drive based on the fact they had no idea what it actually meant.
But this is what the establishment loves to do.
Paint the average ordinary citizenry as a bunch of absolute doofuses.
British voters feel regrets it, as many now ask, what is the EU?
This one, folks, this is uh this is from uh the New York Post, and it's uh it's a story about all these people that voted because there was a there was an election, and then they showed up to vote, and everybody was talking about it.
They showed up to vote, and they voted yes.
Because it's always yes, it's great things.
And then they found out that they were leaving the EU, and this story is about all the young people that voted who do even know what the EU is until they voted to leave it.
Again, following a couple of stories, many more than that, actually, about how the old people saddled the young with something.
But now the stories are basically the young didn't even know what they were doing until after they did it, and now want a do-over.
Yeah, look at this, look at this headline, the Washington Post by somebody named Emily Badger.
Ready for this headline?
Brexit is a reminder, some things just shouldn't be decided by the people.
It reminds me of Time Magazine headline 1995.
Something along the lines uh is there too much democracy.
It was it had me on the cover, looking surly smoking a cigar.
Something about is there too much democracy going on?
Meaning too many people don't know diddly squat participating.
Brexit, a reminder, some things just shouldn't be decided.
Not even a question, it's just a statement.
Here's uh here's Carl in Ashburn, Virginia.
Great to have you with us, Carl.
How are you doing?
Oh, hi, Rush.
Uh, nice to talk to you.
Uh good now, calling is I wanted to comment on that uh Supreme Court decision of the day on Bob McDonnell.
Yeah.
They voted eight to nothing, uh, which I believe is significant, saying that he was overturning his conviction.
Uh the reason I say that significant is because uh uh the prosecution knew all along what the laws were in Virginia and the federal government, the federal laws, and uh, but by uh prosecuting McDonald,
they kept him out of the uh working for the Cuccinelli campaign and getting him elected and raising money for him, and actually gave the state of Virginia to Hillary's uh fundraiser, McAuliffe for Hillary, and they kept McDonald from being a BP candidate for Romney.
Uh so that's a practical effect.
I'm not saying what he did was right.
I'm saying that it it was wrong.
Yeah, but there's there's more to this as there always is.
Now, what what he's talking about a Supreme Court decision here today that essentially vacated the conviction of the former governor of Virginia, Bob McDonald.
And everything to caller here, and Carl said is right about the rant.
You know, McDonald could have he could have been a big guy with Romney, it could have been that is it now.
Where does he go to get his reputation back?
All that.
However, however, this is nothing to do with McConnell.
What just happened here?
What just happened?
When you strip it all away, this is the establishment protecting itself, because the upshot of this is the Supreme Court has just made it harder to convict government officials of X. They vacated ate to zip the conviction.
It could be they thought it was all bogus.
It could be everything legitimate here, but at the same time, the legislative branch just said it's we're gonna make it harder to convict our fellow members over there in uh state governor, executive what have you.
Okay, well, we're off to our rousing start for another full-fledged busy week of broadcast excellence.
Happy to have had you along today.
We'll be back tomorrow.
Thanks so much for being with us today.
We'll thank you tomorrow after you're with us tomorrow.
We appreciate it every day.
Say it every day, look forward to it every day.
▲
Export Selection