All Episodes
Previous Next
June 30, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:33
June 30, 2016, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchorman, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day, and as usual.
Half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
It's a big, big deal.
It's a comforting notion to the left that when they call, they'll have a fair shot here.
Fairness is big to them, and we want them to know that we care about it too.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
Mentioned at the beginning of the program, there are a couple stories here in the old days that we would do these and have a great yuck and a great laugh about them, thinking everybody else would also find them funny and laughable, not realizing that a decent size of the population would be identifying with the subject matter and angered by it or in support of it.
So we haven't stopped reporting this kind of stuff, but we've changed, I have changed my attitude about it, realizing now that a decent number of people who hear it are going to not think it's funny, that they're either going to agree with it or think it's very serious.
Story is from PJ Media by Tom Knight.
And here's the headline.
Spoiled college graduate demands new dress code at job and gets fired.
This is about a kid who got an internship at a company.
And he shows up and he and his fellow interns decide that they don't like the dress code at this company.
And so they demand a change in the dress code because they're spoiled, rotten little children, and that's all they've had to do to get whatever they want growing up.
Demand and then cry, bellyache, caterwall, and make a general nuisance.
And we must not arm this stuff with them.
We can't say no to little Johnny.
So whatever little Johnny wants, little Susie wants, they've ended up getting.
Now, I couldn't anymore, as an intern anyway, it would never even occur to me to issue a demand about anything.
I wouldn't want to jeopardize the opportunity I had just, even in an internship, which I served.
I worked at the radio station in my hometown.
I went as often as I could without being paid for a year.
And the last thing I was going to do was tell them what they needed to change.
But that was then and this is now.
College kids have a pretty easy time getting their way on campus.
Just make enough of a stink and the university's cave.
And you know it to be true, folks.
Unfortunately, these students eventually reach a little place called the real world, where things are not so forgiving.
One recently wrote in to an advice columnist because the antics he'd gotten away with elsewhere suddenly didn't work.
We'll call this kid Junior.
Junior was at his internship and he wanted his company to have a more lax dress code.
He didn't like that they had to show up in a tie and maybe a jacket.
He wanted t-shirts and cutoffs.
He wanted to be able to dress the way he wanted to dress.
In addition, he and his fellow interns noticed one of the regular staff wearing shoes that were not precisely in line with the standard dress code.
And he thought, well, that's not right.
They can get away with violating the dress code.
These shoes didn't quite match.
So this individual got together with his fellow interns and wrote up a proposal for an alternate dress code accompanied with a petition.
So here you are running the division where this intern happens to be working and all of a sudden you get a petition and a list of demands about the dress code.
Well, here's what happened.
The next day, all of us, this is actually from the intern who wrote to the advice columnist.
The next day, all of us who signed the petition were called into a meeting where we thought our proposal would be discussed.
Instead, we were informed that due to our unprofessional behavior, we were being let go from our internships.
We were told to hand in our ID badges, to gather our things, and leave the property as soon as possible.
We were shocked.
Our proposal was written professionally, like examples I have learned about in school.
And our arguments were thought out and well-reasoned.
We weren't even given a chance to discuss it.
And the worst part is that just before the meeting ended, one of the managers told us that the worker who was allowed to disobey the dress code was a former soldier who lost her leg and was therefore given permission to wear whatever kind of shoes she could walk in.
But you can't even tell.
And if we had known about that, we would have factored it into our argument.
The reality is that colleges, educational institutions that are theoretically supposed to prepare these kids for the real world don't.
They do all of these students a disservice by cowering to every silly, childish demand that is made.
All this safe space stuff, micro-aggression stuff.
And then when these students hit the real world, you know, it's like, pow!
Except not everywhere.
There are some places in the real world where they would have been successful.
Probably a solar firm with a relationship to Obama or some other government-sponsored waste of time and money.
But that's what happened here.
Old Junior decided that the interns should dictate what the dress code was going to be at this company.
And make no mistake, a petition is indicative of a desire to dictate.
You know, you don't petition things expressing your desires.
You do a petition because you're trying to bully.
You are trying to use the show of force to intimidate the recipients of your petition into doing what you want.
You are trying to dictate.
That's what the purpose of a petition is.
And by the way, if that offends you, I'm sorry.
I know a lot of you think, well, we're going to do a petition.
It's a way we're showing our civil disobedience.
It's a way we're showing our unity or something.
No, it isn't.
You're bullies.
It's the way you're trying to dictate.
You think there's power in numbers?
Make no mistake about that, folks, a petition.
And I realize it's offending many of you because many of you probably signed a lot of them.
But they are an attempt to dictate.
In this case, how the company's dress code should work.
After all, where these kids learned to do this, they learned it at home.
They learned it in school.
All they had to do was show force and numbers and act like spoiled little kids, and they got what they wanted.
They learned to pressure authority this way in college, right?
What Junior and his fellow interns found out, what do you, and I don't even know if they learned this lesson, but you know what they found out?
They were unnecessary.
They were interns.
They had no experience.
They weren't God's gift to anything.
They weren't God's gift to anybody.
They weren't even needed, much less in demand.
They weren't even considered assets.
An intern program is generally one of these feel-good things you do to make the company look good.
And occasionally you find a diamond in the rough.
They weren't even needed.
They're a dime a dozen.
If a group of interns is unhappy with the dress code and decides to leave, it is not a problem to fill the job with somebody who wants it.
And not just in the case of interns in many paid jobs.
That's the rule of thumb.
So the company was doing them a favor, offering them an internship.
And they basically just spit all over it.
And you wonder if they've learned the lesson or if they're running around thinking that the world's an unfair place.
This is an example of how unfair it is, how oppressive it is.
This is why we need a big government to control people, why you need a big government to make these corporations do what we want them to do.
Little liberals, even though they may not have known it, in action.
And get this from the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Headline, why police were called to a South Jersey third grade class party.
On June 16th, two weeks ago, police recalled to an unlikely scene, an end-of-the-year class party at the William Tatum Elementary School in Collingswood.
A third grader had made a comment about the brownies being served to the class.
After another student claimed that that remark was racist, the school called the Collingswood Police Department, according to the mother of the boy who made the comment.
The police officer spoke to the student who is nine and said the boy's mother's Stacey Dosantos and local authorities.
And Dosantos said that the school overreacted, that her son made a comment about snacks.
They were serving brownies on the last day of school.
So the kid's talking about brownies.
And some other student says, that's a racist comment.
He's talking about fellow classmates as brownies.
And they call the cops and the cops showed up.
The boy's father was contacted by Collingswood police later in the day.
Police said the incident had been referred to the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency.
The student stayed home for his last day of third grade.
The mother Dos Santos said that her son was traumatized by this, that she hopes to send him to a different public school in the fall, and she wants an apology.
She said that she graduated from Collingswood Has School.
She's got two other kids, a 21-year-old who also went to Collingswood, and a three-year-old.
Her husband, the third grader's father, is Brazilian Dos Santos, so he couldn't possibly be racist, right?
The incident, which has sparked outrage among some parents, was one of several in the last month when Collingswood police have been called to look into scruple incidents that parents think hardly merit criminal investigation.
Who in their right mind would think this would ever merit criminal investigation?
But it did.
They were serving brownies.
A kid talks about the brownies.
Another kid said, and they call the cops.
That's worse in Port St. Lucie when they ran out of nuggets at McDonald's at some April 911, hoping to reach Obama to complain about it.
Back to the phones we go.
This is Leanne driving through Michigan.
Great to have you, Leanne.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hey, Rush, how are you?
Fine, Dandy.
Thank you.
Good.
Listen, I have a little bit of a different scenario about Loretta and Bill.
And I think that the conversation may have gone something like this.
Hey, Loretta, you know, I know you really love your grandchildren, right, Loretta?
And we want our grandchildren to have a good world to grow up in.
And, you know, we want them to have opportunities just like we had, right, Loretta?
You think that President Clinton might have attempted to scare the Attorney General about her grandchildren's future?
Well, you know, I didn't hear anything in that conversation other than about the grandchildren.
Did you?
The grandchildren and their travels, such as she taking over police departments and him playing golf.
Those were the three things mentioned.
Well, and the grandchildren's future and, you know, how they may grow up in the next 20 years and what political opportunities they may have in the future.
Well, look, I understand what you're thinking.
I mean, here you have Bill Clinton, who appointed this woman to the federal bench in the Eastern District of New York.
She's now the Attorney General.
And he finds himself in Phoenix and just happens to find out that she's there.
They arrange a meeting and they talk about the grandchildren.
And you're extrapolating here to think that what could there possibly be about grandchildren that's a subject matter unless Bill wanted to talk about futures and how they could be bleak or rosy and it's all up to her, that kind of thing.
Well, you know, all of this is about the future and what our future, mine, his, yours, our grandchildren's future might look like.
It really is.
All of this is exactly about that.
For all of us.
You know, I like what the gentleman before me said, but I think that's a throwback from 40 years ago.
Exactly.
That is when we actually had a Democrat Party that your parents or grandparents would be familiar with and would recognize, but we don't anymore.
Exactly.
Now, if your theory, let's just take us one step further, if your theory is the right one, let's say, then part and parcel of it is that Bill Clinton has to be thinking she would indict his wife.
Well, you know, he's a smart man.
I don't think he's quite as overt as some people might think he would be.
Yeah, I know.
But no, no, no.
My point is that why would he be thinking Loretta Lynch would do anything to cross him?
Why would he even consider that she could possibly, I mean, we're talking the Democratic Party here.
We're talking the presidential nominee of the Democrat Party.
Why would Bill Clinton be thinking that it's even remotely possible his wife would be indicted, necessitating this conversation with her?
Well, sometimes the truth runneth over.
I don't know.
Well, I'll tell you why.
I'll answer my own pregunta.
If Bill Clinton is thinking it's a possibility, then there's more than smoke here.
Now, I realize we're just, all this is hypothetical.
We don't know.
We're all guessing here.
But we are using intelligence guided by experience.
Bill Clinton's a known quantity.
Hillary Clinton's a known quantity.
We know how they look at the judiciary.
We know how they look at power.
We know how they've used it in the past.
We know that the last thing in the world anybody wants or expects is Mrs. Clinton to be indicted.
But if Clinton thinks that it's possible, then there has to be a reason for it.
If he's out there thinking she could be indicted and it's crazy close enough that he's got to go talk to the AG about it, then there's probably a whole bunch of reasons or validity for indicting her, which would be tantamount to be included in your theory.
If Clinton's running around thinking, she didn't do nothing wrong.
Hell, she hadn't done anything anybody else hadn't done.
This is crazy.
This is all ginned up to the vast right-wing conspiracy.
He would be thinking Loretta Lynch would think the same thing.
There'd be no way there's ever going to be an indictment, but he's going to go talk to her.
Thinking that there could be an indictment, that must mean that his wife's done something that could justify an indictment.
That's what I'm saying.
I think we all know there's been enough.
The investigation's up.
We all know, even if there's no investigation, what we've learned about these emails and how she's dealt with them and how she's lied about it and how the guy who set up her server has taken the Fifth Amendment 125 times in a deposition after having been granted immunity.
We've had hackers claiming that they have hacked into the server and they've got evidence.
Huma Abadin, I haven't gotten to this yet, but Huma, Mrs. Carlos Danger, she unloaded the other day.
She made it clear here that Hillary was asking people how to set up a server so that what she was working on would not be part of the State Department record.
Hillary didn't know how to do it.
She was asking around how this could be done.
We also know who we're talking about here, Clintons.
We know that there's no such thing as transparency with these people.
So now you add what we instinctively already know, intelligence guided by experience, with various expert opinion, like Judge Deneva, who has got contacts in the FBI, says this evidence is overwhelming that there will be an indictment.
Geneva's out there has been saying this for months.
We've heard what a straight-up law and order guy James Comey is, that he can't be talked out of it.
He can't be compromised, can't be corrupted, and yet there's been nothing happened.
We will continue.
Don't go away.
Okay, folks, we've got something to add to this now.
Something that's been further revealed about the conversation between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton.
But first, did you know, I did not know this, exhaustive research here during the commercial break has informed me that Loretta Lynch doesn't have any kids.
So they're talking grandkids, but she doesn't have any kids.
She doesn't have any grandkids then.
She only got married in 2007, which nine years ago.
Hmm.
Now, her new husband has children, and one of her new husbands, well, new since 2007, one of her husband's children is a daughter who's 21, but she would be a stepdaughter, not a granddaughter.
She was, by the way, Loretta Lynch's stepdaughter thrown in jail back in January for refusing to pay her Uber fare.
Hmm.
Now, here is the additional that we have just heard about.
They talked about grandchildren, golf, travel, the Brexit decision, and former Attorney General Janet Reno, according to Lynch.
This is according to ABC that Loretta Lynch weirdly mentioned that they talked about Janet Reno.
How in the name of Waco, Texas, does Janet Reno come up in casual conversation ever?
Why would they be throwing Janet Reno on a tarmac in the passenger cabin of a private plane in Phoenix?
Does anybody even know where Janet Reno is?
Does anybody even know what Janet Reno is doing?
Why would Janet Reno come up?
Well, you are asking the right person.
I can see it something like this.
Hey, hey, Loretta, you remember Janet Reno?
Yeah.
Hillary and I. Hillary is actually the one who found her.
She was so great.
I mean, whatever we told her to do, she was right there.
When we needed the banks, threatened to make loans to people who couldn't pay, but she ran in there and she threatened them exactly as we would have done ourselves.
Remember that kid, Elaine Gonzalez?
That kid that didn't want to go back to Cuba.
She flew down there herself, Loretta.
She flew down there and she picked up that kid and made it low.
She was going to take him to Cuba herself.
Whatever.
Do you know what happened to Branch Davidians, Loretta?
All we had to do was say there were children in there, and she opened fire like it would D-Day too.
Janet Reno.
That babe sure knew how to handle an ongoing investigation.
Now, that's how Janet Reno's name would come up.
Clinton can sit there and praise her virtues.
Janet Reno is one of us, Janet.
Janet Reno, Loretta, she was so loyal.
She never forgot who put her where she was, and she never forgot she'd have been nothing if it hadn't been for Hillary plucking her out of obscurity and putting her in there.
What a great AG she was.
It was like we were over there running it ourselves.
I can see that.
Can't you?
And Loretta Lynch is going, nip, nip, nip, nip, yeah.
Okay, I get it.
I get it.
Oh, by the way, Loretta, do you know you don't know where she is?
I tell you, she's still alive.
You haven't seen her in a while, but I guarantee you, she's still ticking.
She's still ticking.
Yeah.
We got a lot of people looking after Janet.
I think she runs around Donna Shillala now and then, but besides that, we know full well what a great AG she was.
Like I say, Jan, Loretta, it was as though we were over there running justice ourselves.
You think that's plausible?
Heck yes, it is.
Right.
Right, so right.
How Janet handles certain things.
So, you know, how Janet, be it Elaine Gonzalez or the investigating banks or threatening the banks or Ken Starr.
Oh, cocksha.
Loretta, you guys should have seen how she helped us out with Ken Starr.
If there's anybody besides my buddy Carville who could have turned that vanilla cracker into sex pervert, it was Janet Reno.
I can hear this.
I can hear this.
Okay, I've got some audio soundbites here for her back to the phone.
I knew Cookie was going to do this.
Folks, I will not be able to understand a word here.
We've got two soundbites of Christiana Monpoor supposedly interviewing Daniel Hannon, a conservative member of parliament, about the Brexit vote.
But this is not an interview.
This is an interrogation.
It's an allegation.
It's a prosecution.
But the last thing it is, is an interview.
And I just want you to hear, since I described it earlier in the program, I still, even I've got the transcript now because I have the soundbite, so I know what was said.
But when I watched the video of this, I couldn't understand what either of them were saying, except for a word here or there, maybe a sentence here or there.
But I couldn't keep up with it because they're both talking at the same time, which is impossible for people like me with cochlear implants to understand speech when there's more than one voice going at a time.
It breaks down.
But I could still tell.
And he never lost his composure.
He never.
In fact, the premise of the story in which the interview was embedded was that he just cleaned her clock.
I didn't see that because I couldn't understand what was being said.
Daniel Hannon shows us how to deal with the left-wing media or something, was the headline of the story.
But here's the first of the two bites.
I'm hearing, you know, a very much softer, gentler version of what you proposed during the campaign.
Temper some of the stuff.
Like what?
Like immigration?
Because you yourself have sort of stepped back.
So has Boris Johnson.
But what have I stuck back?
have said yes that let me get my yes i've said that that we want control back rather than no no you have said that maybe we're not Yes, when did I ever say the opposite?
You have ever seen that.
When did I ever not say that?
Okay, so here's the next one.
Let me just flow with it.
Listen, I really come out of it.
You've been through all of this on other channels.
The reason people voted, the majority of them, and I can play what they said, you should accusing me in this country.
No, I'm backtracking.
You've accused me of backtracking.
When have I ever said anything different?
You have said in your LEED campaign, and you are the lead spokesman of the lead campaign, that immigration and the free flow of movement was the sine qua non.
I've never, ever said that.
I've written a book called Why Vote Leave, saying how much of that is.
Would you agree that the campaign's main objective in terms of sovereignty was your idea that I backtracked?
Whatever that was, was that an interview?
Was that somebody in the drive-by media trying to find out what this guy thought about or why he voted the way he did or what he thinks is going to happen?
This is Christiana Monpoor as a card-carrying member of the establishment elite trying to rip this guy a new one.
It's exactly what that was.
Oh, just in on our EIB exclusive news wires from thehill.com, top Senate Democrats defend Lynch-Clint Clinton meeting.
Two of the Senate's top Democrats are defending a private meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton.
One was Chuck Hugh Schumer, who said she's an honorable person.
We know that.
Schumer, expected to be the next Senate Democrat leader, told reporters today, he said, she said nothing was discussed related to the investigation.
So you've got two choices.
You have to say that this didn't matter or she's lying.
And I think it didn't matter.
I don't think she's lying.
Harry, well, I think she weighed in.
All I can say is Loretta Lynch is one of the most outstanding human beings I've ever known.
No one could ever question her.
Her strong feelings about the rule of law and her ethics, I repeat, are the best.
We can certainly question her.
Certainly question her.
All these well, when it's involved Democrats, the appearance of impropriety doesn't count when it involves Democrats.
When it involves Democrats, all that matters is the nature of the evidence.
When it's Republicans, the evidence doesn't matter.
It's the seriousness of the charge.
But with the Democrats, that's never a factor.
There's another thing.
There's one other thing that they could say here about Clinton and Loretta Lynch talking about Janet Rito.
Janet Reno has Parkinson's disease, as you know, if you recall.
And she and Lynch were actually close.
I mean, the people that are in and out of government, this is probably true of both parties, know each other from way, way back.
I mean, that's what being a member of the establishment is.
That's what being an elite is.
You get in it, you know everybody in it.
And so one of the things I'm sure that since the Janet Reno thing has been introduced, they'll say, no, no, no, no, they were just commiserated.
She's an old friend and she's Parkinson's, they were just commiserating about her health.
It could be, you know, and they'll come out.
How dare anybody allege that Janet Reno is part of their nefarious conversation?
So but the Democrats are beginning to circle the wagons on this, with Chuck Hugheschumer and Dingy Harry now coming out saying, well, notice they did not exonerate Bill Clinton.
They said, Loretta Lynch, why she's as honest as a day is long.
Loretta Lynch has no way under the sun.
They didn't say that about Slick Willie.
You notice that.
So, yes, yes, yes.
I'm fully aware she's got Parkinson's, and it would be something they would talk about.
Clinton appointed her to see Loretta Lyncher, close way back, establishment, and all that.
Detroit next.
This is Steve.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Well, it's a pleasure.
Thank you so much for taking my call.
Thank you, Steve.
I appreciate that.
You know, I can't stop but laughing, but then being totally frustrated as well and all this corruption.
But, you know, Slick Willie and his infinite wisdom back in his gubernatorial days and making people go away and then his tenure.
These people are pros.
So in law enforcement in the state of Michigan for the last 20-plus years, I realized that this notion for some clandestine rendezvous is just not possible.
There's too many contingencies.
The agents have to do a ton of work.
It was definitely pre-planned.
So I'm sure the conversation was very unique.
Okay, let me stop you right there because I just, I want the audience to hear where you are.
Did you say that you are in or have been in law enforcement or security or some such?
I am currently.
You am currently.
Okay, so the story is presented to us.
I mean, this is literally how it's written.
Clinton was on the way to Sky Harbor to leave, found out Loretta was there and delayed the departure to go over and meet and send word that he wanted to go talk to her.
You say that the contingency is necessary for the security-wise, it couldn't happen ad hoc like this.
I highly doubt it.
I think it's pre-planned because there's just too many other.
You have to worry about Admiral's approach and so on and so forth to these agents.
So I think it was pre-planned.
Having said that, being pre-planned, they had an agenda to discuss.
And it probably wasn't about Jan Arino or the grandkids, and that's just what the media is putting out.
That's right.
Why would you if you're going to have a planned meeting that has an agenda, you're right.
Why would it be over such?
You can do this in an email.
Private emails.
It's in an email.
Yeah, I think for the most part, to me anyway, it's pretty obvious.
The content is, hey, don't remember who helped out your current boss campaigning in 2012 to keep him on the road.
You know who puts you in there.
You keep doing your deed, and you can write your own ticket or continue to write your own ticket once I'm the new first lady and my wife is now the commander in grief.
You can paint your own portrait.
You want to be the longest-running AG in history as a woman, a black woman?
Fantastic.
You want a nomination to the Supremes or whatever?
You let me know.
We'll take care of you as long as you take care of us.
Sounds plausible.
Sounds plausible to me.
Especially you want to be on Supreme Court.
We can guarantee your future.
If my wife becomes a commander in grief, then you can write your ticket.
You see something like that.
And that doesn't constitute a threat.
That's dangling a giant carrot.
Exactly.
Because she doesn't need money, I wouldn't assume.
It's about power and continued authority and well, true, but believe me, everybody, especially those people have gotten away with convincing everybody they don't care about money.
They're in it for the good works.
They're in it to help people.
Look at the Clintons if you think it's not about the money for people on the left.
It's always about the money.
And I guarantee you, it's living on whatever the AG salary is, that's not real money, not compared to the people that she would be palling around with, like it wasn't when Clinton was governor and Hillary was the Rose law firm and so forth.
But it's always about the money.
And I'll tell you this, no matter how much they have, it's never enough because you can always lose it.
You always need a pad.
You know, if you earn, it's human nature in a way.
Let's say, just pick some random numbers here.
If you earn $100,000, it's not enough.
You live based on $100,000.
You think if you got $150,000, you've got a pad now.
You won't change your way, but it just works no matter what you earn, you live it.
So the prospect of more always Essentially equals a cushion.
Now, this is not true for billionaires, of course, but I'm not talking about salaried people like we're talking about here.
Most people live their incomes because most people have to.
And so, whatever it is that you have is what you need.
So, there's always more.
There's never enough.
It's human nature.
It's not greed per se.
Not saying that some people aren't greedy, but I'll just tell you this.
The greatest example of greed that you will ever run into, without exception, is Democrats running the United States government.
That is where greed is.
You talk about never being enough.
You talk about never doing with less.
I mean, even when they talk about a tax cut, what's the next thing you hear?
Well, we've got to find a way to make up the difference.
Because the U.S. government will never, ever, it's not even conceivable they will do with less from one year to the next.
People, liberal democrats, it's true of people, I think, in Republican circles too, depending on how establishment they are.
The real greed is in Washington among people who run the federal government.
There's never enough.
We'll be back.
Well, history is being made as we speak.
The Defense Secretary is lifting the ban on transgenders in the military.
You know why?
So that we now, as taxpayers, will have the privilege of paying for sex change procedures.
Oh, you don't think?
▲
Export Selection