All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 11, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:25
August 11, 2016, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, I'm trying to think of new ways to characterize Mrs. Clinton.
I've been listening to a little bit of her speech here.
And how she's going to have this government group to focus on helping small business and this government group to focus on big business and this group to focus on high-paying job with dignity.
And all I can all I she folks, she's full of crap.
I mean, I I for all the years I've been following Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton economics.
She's full of crap.
The things that she's describing and talking, A are exactly what has been going on going on the last eight years.
I I'll never forget one of these, one of these Obama job summits.
They actually televised it.
And it was one of these early things that Obama would do.
He would announce a study group of a bunch of progressives and liberals.
He's calling up to the White House, where they're going to spend all day tackling a problem like job growth or high-paying jobs with dignity or whatever the heck it was.
And then the end of the day, they were going to report to Obama.
As though the problem was solved.
Because Obama, because of the power of his personality and the fact he's president, had been able to get the best minds in the country to come to Washington for a day, to the East Room in the White House, where they've been meeting in study groups, one in every corner of the room, and the end of the day they come together and they report to the big guy.
Problem solved.
And literally, that was the image that Obama wanted to project.
Never had to show any results because liberals never do.
All they have to show is how much they care.
All they have to do is express their gloriously wonderful intentions.
And Obama was going the extra mile.
He knew that he alone couldn't do it.
What an admission.
This is a man with an ego in check that we need, people said.
Here's the first president to come along to realize he doesn't have all the answers.
So he assembles a bunch of Nimrods.
One of the guys, I'll never forget being there in the work study group, the employment study group, was the foreign policy columnist of the New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman.
Thomas Lupe Friedman.
And they was seen beaming and smiling with all of his other left wing buddies as they were sitting in the East Room, really thinking they were hot crap.
Really thinking they were hot stuff.
Man, the president had called on them and they were in there and they had their sleeves rolled up.
That's how hard they were working.
And they were sitting there and they were talking to each other, and they had their pens and pencils, and they were taking notes, and they were comparing notes, and they were what were they doing?
This was an extended faculty lounge theoretical discussion.
Engaged in by people who've never had a job in the private sector, and certainly by people who've never hired anybody or had to make payroll or anything of the sort.
And of course nothing came of it because look at our language and economy and look at our languishing job circ circumstances.
Nothing ever came of it, but it didn't matter.
All that mattered was Obama convened a meeting.
Obama had a job summit, and Hillary's talking about doing one for herself and another summit here and another summit.
She's just full of it.
She doesn't know what she's talking about.
She's doing nothing but articulating a bunch of pap theory that is not applicable in the real world.
She th I you know I I folks, I s I have such great resentment for these know-it-all leftists who have they they look down.
They look down their noses at people who work, they look down their noses at people in the private sector and sit there and think they don't know what they're doing, a bunch of plebs.
We're the smart people, we're the ones with degrees, we're the ones that went to the Ivy League, or whatever it is they tell themselves, and they tell themselves they have all the answers, and if they just had the wherewithal to wave their wand and implement what they believe, then magic would happen.
Well, that's what we've had the last eight years.
We've had an extended faculty lounge with all kinds of people coming in and out of it, weighing in on what they think they ought to do, and there's not a single one of them that has any practical experience in the field of endeavor of economics, as it relates specifically to those jobs summits.
But she does, she's she doesn't, she doesn't.
Well, I don't know if she knows that what she's saying is full of crap or not, that's the thing.
But these people you never know.
Do they really believe this stuff or do they just know what to say?
Do they just know how to say it?
Anyway, folks, welcome back.
Rushlin baughir at 800-282-2882.
We uh in the midst here of the fastest three hours and media.
A couple of things I've referenced during the program.
Let me get into them.
Seth Lipsky in the New York Post today.
Liberal attacks on Trump are so unhinged it might get him killed.
Let me give you a you know, I can remember it wasn't that long ago.
You you good taste.
So you wouldn't even discuss this in public out of fear of giving somebody the idea.
You know, it wasn't that long ago.
You didn't even mention.
If you did, the Secret Service did call on you.
I I was on I was on when I saw the headline in New York Post, I was uncomfortable.
Damn right, and I'm reading it and I got uncomfortable.
It wasn't that long ago you didn't talk about this stuff.
But Seth Lipskey is weighted into it.
What are liberals going?
Let me read the to you his lead here.
What are liberals going to say for themselves if Donald Trump gets assassinated?
That's the opening sentence.
I don't think they would say much.
The question is, what would they do?
Where would you next see them?
If you don't know, just take a look at liberals on Twitter and take a look at the other things they celebrate.
And you'll get a pretty good idea what they would do if Trump were to be assassinated.
Mr. Lipske writes that's a question worth pondering, as a new effort is underway to delegitimize Trump in the wake of his remarks on the Second Amendment.
Leftists are accusing Trump of trying to incite an attack on Hillary Clinton from Second Amendment people.
They've been using such intemperate language that it wouldn't be surprising if somebody took a shot at Trump.
In fact, the feds suspect that a British national tried to do so at a Trump rally in June after attempting to grab a police officer's gun to carry out the assassination.
Scott Adams, the famed cartoonist of Dilbert, had already been mocking Hillary Clinton for pairing the idea of President Trump with nuclear disaster, racism, Hitler, the Holocaust, and whatever else makes you tremble in fear.
In other words, the guy that does Dilbert has been making fun of Clinton because Clinton has already conveyed Clinton's telling her support.
This is the thing.
They want to go out and try to make a big deal out of Trump and his Second Amendment people comment.
Hillary has already tried to tie Trump to raise it to Hitler.
And she's not the only one.
You know, it doesn't take much to unhinge a bunch of people.
If you convince them that somebody is the incarnation of Hitler, and you do it not in a joking way, but you're dead serious, like Hillary and the Democrats have been, there are some unhinged people out there who by God not gonna let that happen here, they'll say to themselves.
So they've accused Trump of being Hitler after accusing Bush of being Hitler.
They've associated Trump with uh racism, nuclear disaster, the Holocaust.
The incitement got so bad that Scott Adams, the cartoonist for Dilbert, in a satire on blog.dilbert.com endorsed Hillary.
He did so, he explained for my personal safety.
He said, My safety is at risk if I'm seen as supportive of Trump.
So the Dilbert cartoonist did a parody.
We did this in 1992 when I endorsed Bill Clinton.
I did it for different reasons.
I did it to expose how Clinton lies.
Dilbert is doing to make sure he's not harmed by people that hate Trump.
And Seth Lipskey writes it's no joke to judge by the newswires.
This week in Bloomfield, New Jersey, police reported that a man was assaulted with a crowbar for wearing a Donald Trump t-shirt.
In the latest Bruhaha, Trump tried to uh tried to mark the difference between Clinton and himself in respect of the Bill of Rights.
Command that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.
Trump, like all Republican candidates for president, is for strict obedience to the Second Amendment, which has been called the palladium of our liberty.
He's allied himself with and been endorsed by the National Rifle Association.
Well, Hillary Clinton's the opposite.
She favors the radical regulation of guns.
Not once has she ever protested against the fact that in much of the state she served as senator, the second amendment might as well not even exist, so strict are the laws.
And this is the point Trump was making when he warned that Clinton wants to essentially abolish the Second Amendment.
And then if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.
Although Trump quickly added, Second Amendment people, maybe there is.
I don't know.
But I'll tell you what, that'll be a horrible day.
If if Hillary gets to put her judges, right now we're tied, four justices appointed by each party, you see what's going on.
Quote unquote Trump.
Well, the Democrats immediately jumped on it.
Trump suggests gun owners act against Clinton as the headline.
The New York Times put over its page one lead story suggesting that Trump was inciting gun rights supporters to take matters into their own hands.
And this isn't the first time that outfits like the New York Times have attended, intended or tempted to impugn people like this.
They do it every day, folks.
A classic example is whenever there is a mass shooting.
With one exception.
When cops are shot, they don't try to blame me.
When cops are shot, they don't blame Talk Radio, but any other mass shooting, the first thing they do is try to find out if the shooter was a fan of talk radio.
And then they try to link the shooter to the Tea Party.
And then they try to link the shooter to any Republican organization they can.
Every time one of these events happens.
So this that they did with Trump, this is nothing new.
This is what they do.
Mr. Lipskey writes that Democrats use that kind of talk to avoid discussing the merits of the Second Amendment.
They're stuck with a leaked recording that captures Clinton saying the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment.
There's a recording of Clinton saying that she would she would use executive orders if she had to implement drastic gun control measures.
And he even quotes Thomas Friedman.
Thomas Friedman, who I saw show up at one of Obama's jobs summit workshops.
Yes, Mr. Friedman was sitting there just beaming.
He was in his little study group in one corner of the room, and Obama was making the rounds, visiting one group and chatting, then going to the next group in the next corner and chatting and then the next group.
And when Obama showed up, everybody stopped their hard work.
Their diligent theorizing.
And they chuckled and they laughed, and I'm sure they all felt special.
I'm I'm I'm sure they all felt like they were the creme de la creme, that they mattered more than anybody else because they had been recruited to create jobs right there in the White House.
Man, what heavy stuff.
And Thomas Lupe Friedman was into it.
You could see he thought he had arrived.
was where he has been meant to be.
He's a Foreign Times columnist who thinks the Chai Combs have all the answers.
Thomas Friedman thinks that the secrets to restoring American greatness lie in our being able to copy the Chai Combs.
Yeah, because the Chai Combs are able to get bridges built.
They're able to build roads.
They're able to employ all those people.
There's so much freedom in China.
Oh, and it's just wonderful, growing place.
And everybody lives the same as everybody else.
It's just wonderful.
Well, Seth Lipskey points out that in a foreign affairs column this week, Thomas Friedman goes so far as to liken Trump's remarks, Second Amendment people, to the kind of talk that got Israeli Prime Minister Itchak Rabin assassinated.
Forget politics, Friedman says of Trump.
Trump is a disgusting human being.
His children should be ashamed of him.
I only pray that he's not simply defeated, but that he loses all 50 states, so that the message goes out across the land unambiguously, loud and clear.
The likes of you, Trump, should never come this way again.
What in the world would Friedman mean by that?
That's what he actually wrote in his New York Times piece.
Donald Trump is a disgusting human being.
His children should be ashamed of him.
The likes of Trump should never come this way again.
What does that mean?
You have some of these wacko leftists reading the New York Times.
So that's why Lipskey wrote the piece.
Oh, yeah.
Will Smith was over in Abu Dhabi, right?
What what did I American Yeah?
Will Smith, another brilliant political tactician.
He's in uh is it Abu Dhabi or Dubai.
It was the uh United Arab Emirates.
And he said the United States, he's speaking of foreign audience, United States needs to be cleansed of Trump and his supporters.
Well, how do you do that?
Back to the phones we go, El Rushbow and the EIB network.
Here is uh Bill in the Upper West Side of Manhattan.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Bill, hi.
Uh, great to be talking to you, Rush.
Everything you have said so far is so right.
Um, as far as that instant fact check that CNN is running, I just wish the next time Hillary uses the word racist connected with Donald Trump that they go to Wikipedia and they look up Chappaqua, New York, which is where the uh Clintons live, and they will find out that it is less than one percent African American.
In other words, the Clintons could live anywhere anywhere they want, but they live in a lily white community, but that's not why I called Rush.
Uh, I wanted to hammer away some more on the Clinton Foundation.
Uh, it occurred to me about a year ago that uh sort of a back way uh to get this investigated since the Justice Department is has muzzled the FBI uh is to get our own New York State attorney general to uh to check it out because one of the things that he does is he enforces charities law, and the Clinton Foundation has its headquarters in Midtown Manhattan.
Uh so I wrote him a couple of letters, never got a um any kind of response.
Really?
Um I'm surprised to hear that.
I'm shocked that the Democrat AG in New York, Schneiderman ignored you.
Well, there were real issues there.
Um one of the things that there were actually two things that sparked it.
Uh one was a report in the New York Times that he his uh uh department had found the time to investigate the living conditions of two chimpanzees at our state university on Long Island, uh, just you know, uh to check up to make sure they were being treated properly.
But the other thing that sparked my letter was a shakedown by the Clinton Foundation on this much smaller foundation, which was oddly reported in the New York Times May of 2015.
Um and the headline of that story was an award for Bill Clinton came with five hundred thousand dollars for his foundation.
So this little foundation wanted to give Bill Clinton a lifetime award, and they had to put up a half million dollars for it.
Right.
But it gets worse, Rush.
And here's where the Attorney General of New York comes into it.
It's not gonna do it.
Yeah.
The um uh executive director, the smaller foundation was incensed about this.
She went public.
That's how the story got into the newspaper.
She was fired.
She fired off a uh a formal complaint to the attorney general to enforce the charities law.
There was even a link for it that I saw.
And it just went into a black hole.
And it's disappeared.
And she was fired, and that's the end of it.
She had a gag order put on her.
Period.
End of story.
So they really have to be investigated on many levels for pay-to-play.
Well, from your mouth to their ears, but it has been made abundantly clear.
If the top of the heap, if Loretta Lynch and her gang in the public integrity unit at the DOJ have told the FBI to go pound sand because there's not going to be any investigation of the Clinton Family Foundation.
Then why would you expect the Attorney General of New York to do it, working under the auspices of Governor Cuomo?
He's out there, you know, worrying about whether fan duel and draft kings are ripping people off.
Whereas the Clintons get away with it left and right.
It's one of these things.
That's I've would love to get to the bottom of it.
Uh I think we already are.
That's the frustrating.
We know what went on there.
The goods are out there.
It's making that compelling and interesting to people that don't care about it.
That's the challenge.
That's right, my friends, a man, a legend, a way of life.
You know, I have I need to rephrase my question about Hillary Clinton.
I it's even better.
Question is just staring me in the face, and it's because it's just right there in front of my face.
I missed it.
I mean a question that might serve as a persuasive comment on her.
Remember, my focus is on people who know things are not right, who are not happy, think the country's in the wrong track, but they haven't been told who's responsible.
In many cases, they don't think anybody is.
In many cases, a lot of people think it's just cycles.
You know, just the downtime.
And uh, as far as they know, uh last person to blame is Bush.
Yeah, because that's when we had the collapse.
Yeah, that's when he had a financial collapse.
That's when we almost broke the whole financial system of the world.
And poor old Obama, he's been coming in here, he'd been working real hard to try to fix it.
And man, it must have been even worse than anybody knew.
Because he'd been working really hard to try to fix it.
They don't blame Obama.
They should.
Millennials don't either.
And even if they're not so much still blaming Bush, they don't know.
They don't know why.
There are specific explanations for people's unhappiness, doom, and gloom in terms of their view of the future.
It would have really helped, you know, and I don't mean to be beating a dead horse here, but it would have really helped over these past eight years if the Republican Party had been explaining these things.
But they were afraid to.
Anyway, before I explain the question, I have the soundbite that I mimicked Mrs. Clinton on from her speech in Detroit today.
Actually, Warren, Michigan, to the, I think it was the economic club of Detroit, that's what I was told.
Same bunch that Trump spoke to.
I'm not sure it was the same group, but it was an economic speech.
This is what I made fun of, mimicked when she said that what she's gonna do on day one to start building and creating high-paying jobs with lots and lots of dignity.
Starting on day one, we will work with both parties to pass the biggest investment in new good-paying jobs since World War II.
We will put Americans to work, building and modernizing our roads, our bridges, our tunnels, our railways, our ports, our airports.
We are way overdue for this, my friends.
We are living off the investments that were made by our parents and grandparents generations.
We will also help cities like Detroit and Flint connect underserved neighborhoods to opportunity expanding affordable housing, and we will repair schools and failing water systems as well.
Okay, feeds right into my question.
But first, underserved neighborhoods.
You know, who was the first president that started calling tax increases investments?
Do you remember?
That's exactly right, Mr. Snerdley.
It'd be Bill Clinton.
And so here she is.
I starting on day one will work with both parties to pass the biggest investment in new good paying jobs since World War II.
It's that easy.
We just gonna invest in new good paying jobs?
And then she specifies it.
We will put Americans to work building and modernizing our roads, our brid Why do not people realize they've heard this?
If this was gonna happen, it should have happened in 2009.
And should have kept happening in 2001.
We should have rebuilt the roads and bridges by now.
After eight years of Obama, why hasn't this been done?
Why does this have to be done over?
Why does it have to be done in the first place?
Why wasn't it done when Obama spent almost a trillion dollars on it?
That's what I why don't people ask that?
Whether the media reports, they hear her making the speech.
Why don't people wait a minute, wait a minute, Obama said that?
Obama said, why don't they ask?
Why do we have to do this?
I thought we did that.
Of course they know we haven't done it.
So they should be asked, well, why did we do it then?
Why do we apparently don't ask that?
This ought to embarrass the hell out of this is so incompetent.
This is so obviously fake.
This is so obviously boilerplate.
She ought to be embarrassed to say this.
She's following a president who promised to do all this eight years ago.
And she's talking about it as though it's a brand new revolutionary idea.
When what it is is a lie.
It was a lie in 2009 when Obama promised it with a porculus, and it's a lie here.
My question is this: I've been too limiting.
I have been too narrow in my questioning of Mrs. Clinton.
The truth of the matter is that Hillary Clinton has been in public life for 30 years.
And for the past twenty-five, she has been at the nadir of power.
She meant First Lady, she's been a senator, she's been Secretary of State, she has run for president.
This is the second time.
Why after all of these years of consistent policy, theory, and belief?
Why has what she believes led to this?
Why has what she believes not made a difference?
Why has what she advocates not happened?
Why, after thirty years of compassion and caring for the children?
Why are more kids aborted every year than the year before?
Why?
Are families busted apart?
Why are there more single mothers than ever before?
Why?
Why have things gotten worse?
Hillary Clinton, we were told at the Democrat Convention that nobody has done a better job of caring for the downtrodden.
Nobody's cared more for our children than Hillary Clinton.
She cares more than you parents care about your own kids.
Barack Obama looked us in the eye at the Democrat convention and he said, Bill, you may not want it, but I gotta tell everybody.
She is more qualified to be president of either one of us.
Bill.
You know it and I know it.
My mouth fell open on that.
Because where is it all?
She's been prominent.
Children's Defense Fund, First Lady, Hillary Carroll, she has been at the forefront of all of the policy initiatives offered and implemented by the Democrat Party.
Where is the hell with utopia?
Where is the increase?
Where's the upswing?
Where is the economic growth?
Where is the job creation?
Where is the roadway to utopia?
It's a long way of saying I think Mrs. Clinton disqualifies herself on the very basis of her 30-year record.
Thirty years nothing to show for it other than a bunch of accolades about how much she cares?
How much hard work she has put into caring?
But seriously, 30 years?
Why do we still need to build roads and bridges?
Thirty years, why do we still need a job summit put together by the White House?
Why, after 30 years, and many of these years run by the Democrats, why haven't these ideas worked?
Why is Mrs. Clinton even needed?
Why aren't we reveling in so much joy and happiness and prosperity?
Why can't she just retire?
With the legacy of job well done?
Instead, we get a Hillary Clinton after 30 years in government complaining about the things she was complaining about when she was running as first lady.
When she was handling bimbo eruptions and when she was handling Hillary care.
Why, after 30 years is there not a shred of evidence that what she believes and what she has helped to implement worked?
And therefore, why is there such blind support for this woman?
Who cannot point to a track record at any time in her 30 years to say, give me the full boat, give me the full White House, give me all the power, and I'm gonna build on what I've done to date?
She can't even say that, because there's nothing to build on.
We are in a permanent state of decline, and we're being told to accept it.
That's our new norm.
That our best days are behind us, and we can't hope to recapture them because our best days behind us were actually kind of phony.
Yeah, they were built on a false premise that we were a superpower, but we really weren't.
We were racking up all this debt, we had to pay the credit card off that Reagan ran up like crazy.
That's what they told us.
Why after 30 years can Hillary Clinton not point to anything in her career and say, Remember when I did that?
Well, give me the full boat and let me really make it happen.
She can't do that.
Why?
Why is Hillary Clinton's 30th year in public office sound identical to her first year?
Same complaints, same acknowledgments of problems, same rotten people, same rotten corporations, why haven't they been put in jail?
Why haven't these evil corporate guys finally been punished for all of the drugs that they've put on the market that kill people and make people sick?
Why are they still roaming free?
Why?
Is there still global warming?
Why is there still climate change for 30 years?
Hillary Clinton, the Democrats have been warning us and telling us that big corporations and people wasting energy are creating this situation.
We're going to destroy the planet.
Why, after 30 years have we not turned that corner?
Why are we still at day one?
Why hasn't anything Hillary Clinton proposed that would solve any of these problems actually solved anything?
You realize they were warning us 30 years ago of climate change, destruction of the planet?
Where is all of the progress in saving the planet?
Why, after 30 years, do we have to give her the full vote in order to take the first step toward solving these problems?
I think the full public record of Hillary Clinton itself disqualifies her.
Her public resume is one of failure.
Failure.
Now she cares.
I don't know how much she cares.
They say she cares a lot.
Cares about kids, loves kids, done more for kids than anybody in America.
Show me the evidence.
Show me where caring accomplishes anything.
I care about a lot of things.
Doesn't get them done.
So why isn't her 30-year track record, her 30-year resume, why isn't it seen for what it is?
Abject failure.
Lack of any appreciable accomplishment in the areas of her agenda that she promotes and has been promoting.
Why has the only thing that's really changed in the last 30 years of Hillary Clinton being in public life that she and her husband are now worth 300 million dollars?
They've done pretty well.
Nobody else has that they've been trying to help or caring about.
How is it that's the single greatest thing of note about Bill and Hillary Clinton is their personal wealth accumulation in their 30 years in public life, earning government salaries?
If you ask me, her political life is the greatest disqualifier of her candidacy that anybody could come up with.
An emailer points out that Hillary's done great charity work for children in foreign countries through the foundation.
Really?
Why don't they talk about it then?
And what's that got to do with being president anyway, creating jobs?
You people, you Hillary, you got nothing.
You've got nothing.
That's the whole point.
▲
Export Selection