All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 12, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:40
August 12, 2016, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, folks, I want to expand on a point I was making right before the previous hour concluded, because I checked the email and a lot of people have told me that was a brilliant riff.
You should do it again.
I'm not going to do it again, but I want to add some things to it.
Because it really does.
We had a call, are we becoming like the evil empire?
And I said no, and I described evil empire, puts people in jail and don't agree with them.
We're not quite there yet, other than the guy that did the video about Benghazi.
But that's that's not what's happening to us.
What's happening to us is exactly what Angelo Code Villa said was going to happen to us.
They said was already is happening to us, folks, and I'm going to explain this in greater detail.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Right now, Open Line Friday, big final broadcast hour of the busy broadcast week.
And I am your highly trained broadcast specialist, although I didn't need a lot of training because I have innate talent on loan from God.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
Send an email, it's L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
The simplest way to explain this, and I don't want to use any names on any off chance that I'm wrong about it, but it is my contention that all of these CEOs, sidling up to Obama, I don't think very many of them actually agree with his policies.
I don't think we have a bunch of socialist anti-capitalist CEOs.
We have a few.
Don't misunderstand.
But I think a lot of people, and this is what's different.
It used to be that no matter where you were in American life, whatever your walk of life took you, if you were a CEO, if you were an employee, if you're middle manager, uh you were loyal to that, but you're also loyal to the country.
If you were a businessman, your your business practices were in part based on your belief in your country.
And I think what's happened now since Obama, and I think actually Bill Clinton started this.
I mean it may have been common, but I think Bill Clinton, by selling the Lincoln bedroom, uh and virtually selling anything associated with his presidency to business people, began this, and and Obama has just expanded it now.
This is what cronyism is.
People who otherwise wouldn't vote for Obama and think Obama is rotten for the country, man, are eager to do business with him if it'll further their own business prospects and damage their competitors.
But in addition to that, what has happened is that there is the widest gulf between the elected and the people that govern us and the people who are governed.
There's always been, I think, a strain of people at the top of any chain thinking they're better than everybody else.
But there was always humility with that.
And acknowledge, okay, I may be better, but they're still citizens and they're still my customers, or they're still my neighbors or what have you, in the sense that we were all in it together.
But I think now there is an arrogant condescension among our nation's elites where they want no part of people not in their club.
How else do you explain this eagerness for unlimited illegal immigration?
How do you explain amnesty?
The only way to it, because it makes no sense.
It makes no sense that you would literally erase your own country's borders in exchange for cheap labor, in exchange for future Democrat registered voters.
The pain that that's gonna cause average American citizens, you don't care about anymore because it isn't gonna affect you.
You live or operate or travel in circles where this influx of illegals, to use this example, you're never gonna see them unless you hire them.
You're not gonna have to put up with the rampant crime.
You're not gonna have to put up with people that can't speak English and having to deal with them.
You're you're not gonna you're not gonna encounter that.
And you don't want to encounter it much more than that.
You don't want to, you You look as down on those people as you do anybody else that's beneath you.
You want them here, because it's cheaper labor for you, or it's a way to win elections over Republicans.
But you don't want to be around them.
But you have the ability to avoid them.
But we, everybody else, don't.
You're opening the floodgates, and these people are flooding cities, towns, neighborhoods.
They are being profoundly negatively impacted by it.
You're not, if you're a member of the elite.
That's the only way it can be justified.
If these people were as affected by it as everybody else is, they wouldn't be for it.
But because they can get favors or invitations or whatever from the elite in power, fine.
And that's what's changing.
And it's not just here.
That's always been the case in the Western social democracies, Western Europe.
And it's getting even worse there now.
It's it's it's it's almost fucked like a like a you heard the old caste system that exists in India where you're born into whatever caste and you're there for the rest of your life.
You never get out of it.
Well, the American population's always been able to have upward mobility based on all these great things about American dream and American exceptionalism, you know, the old cliches about hard work, ambition.
They existed here.
It was real here.
But now people are getting to positions of power and getting close to positions of power not because of any achievement, not because of any accomplishment, not because they've innovated it just because they gave somebody enough money to get noticed, or because they have agreed to support some leader and his nefarious policies.
But along with that, has become this has a risen this gap where the elites no longer even have any interest in what life is like for everybody else.
They just close their eyes to it and assume everything's gonna be okay in the end.
But they are not inflicting any of the discomfort or pain, suffering, however you want to characterize it, on themselves.
Now, Angelo Codvilla mentioned exactly this in his great piece on the ruling class versus the country class.
And his what one of the many things he nailed was that the country class, meaning the vast majority of people in the country, the non-elites, don't even have a party.
They will no longer have a party that represents them.
And that is the result of this great divide.
The elites are now comprised of people of both parties, and membership in the elite club, the establishment, Trumps everything else.
Well, where are we here?
We have the Republican Party went through its process and found a nominee.
And now that party in large measure wants nothing to do with that nominee.
Proving Code Via's point.
Trump's nomination and its candidacy is proving Code Via's assertion in spades.
They don't like the nominee for whatever reason, so they're not detending the convention, they're not going to endorse, they're not going to support, and worse, they're going to try to undermine their own party's nomination.
And who are they blaming?
You're blaming people in the media like me.
Yeah, it's my fault.
Or the fault of who knows whoever else in the media.
Fox News, you pick them.
It's our fault that a real conservative didn't get the nomination.
You know what these people don't understand?
They never have understood it, apparently.
I gaze out over my audience here.
I don't actually see you, but I know you're there.
I know Who you are.
I have a deep, deep connection with you.
You all, you all were gonna get excited and support Trump no matter what I said.
It's not a chicken or egg question here.
If I had that kind of power, the Democrats have never won an election in the last 28 years.
If I had, if I had that kind of power, a bunch of Republicans, they wouldn't have gotten away with getting as close as they got to amnesty.
I mean, it's it's absurd.
The way these establishment people look at you.
I mean, this divide, you don't even have a mind of your own.
You're a wandering nomad, an empty vessel, a sponge, a mind-numbered robot waiting for somebody to tell you how to think and what to do.
And I have never looked at you that way.
The exact opposite, in fact.
So Code V, I mean, he was so right about many of the things that he asserted.
And in the midst of this, what's what's frustrating about it is that it is true to say that Hillary Clinton is among the most vulnerable, the weakest candidates that the Democrat Party has nominated in I don't know how long.
The Republicans want to talk about what a big boondoggle that happened in their party with Trump.
But let me tell you something.
Hillary Clinton is a sitting duck.
And I'm a little frustrated at times that Trump doesn't go after her, primarily on her areas of vulnerability that I think he should.
He'd be pounding her on any number of things, day in and day out.
But he is who he is.
And you deal with it as it happens.
And I just I think that I don't know what is out there that could have changed.
But the overlying or the underlying characteristics that have created all of these circumstances, predate Trump.
The Republican Party is in the trouble that it's in because of the Republican Party before Trump even decided he wanted to be president.
So no, we're not the evil empire in the sense that the Soviet Union was, or in the sense that communist countries are.
But we are divided, and we are we are more divided than we've along many different lines.
We're divided on economic lines.
The elite versus the non-elite, the elite or wealthy versus the non-wealthy, we're divided racially more than we've been since the civil war.
This is my whole point.
The vast majority of these last years have been under the leadership of the Democrat Party.
And they've had all of these time, all of this time to implement their utopia.
And you listen to Hillary Clinton campaign, and she's complaining about the same things that she was complaining about 30 years ago.
Health care, taxes, the rich, all this class envy stuff.
It's 30 years since she came on the scene.
Hasn't she made one improvement?
She's had all the time she's been Secretary of State, she's been First Lady in charge of Hillary care in the first go round.
She's had every bit of chance, every ample opportunity to implement these great policies that she says are gonna give us a great country.
Obama ditto.
Where is it?
Why do 70% of the people think we're headed in the wrong direction?
Because we are.com.
This is not a conservative place.
The Hill.com next president faces possible Obamacare meltdown.
Not possible, it's certain.
Obamacare is gonna implode, and when it does, it's gonna leave a lot of people in the lurch.
People who believed all of the panaceas and the utopian-like lies that were told about it to sell it.
That it was gonna be free, that wasn't gonna cost much, that everybody was gonna be insured that premiums are gonna come down, that you're gonna get whatever care you needed.
Isn't gonna happen.
And by the fact, the way this fact that this is gonna implode this meltdown, it's in the design.
It is designed to melt down.
It is designed to fail.
And when it fails, what the regime is hoping, it'll be Hillary in this case, if she's elected, what she wants is for you to be so scared, so frustrated, so angry, so unhappy that you demand the government take over all of it.
Screw the insurance company, screw the doctors, screw the hospital, screw.
Just let the government that's what they want you to say.
So that they can finally create national socialized medicine under the guise that you have demanded it.
Well, you will only demand it if it fails, if it melts down, which it's in the process of doing, because it was impossible for Obamacare to prosper, thrive, or even last the way it was designed.
This has always been.
They know that you don't want socialism.
They know, and they have known for as long as they've been seeking national health care that you oppose it.
So they can't come out and just campaign on it and say we're gonna have national health care socialized medicine, the government's gonna take over from the moment I sign it.
You'd never support it if that was the case.
No.
They have to tell you your premiums gonna come down.
They have to lie to you.
If you like your policy, you get to keep it.
Like your doctor gets to have to lie to you in order to get this boondoggle passed.
They have to fool you.
They have to trick you, because you would not support who they are and what they want to do if they were open and up front about it from the beginning.
And by the way, after they get it passed, Democrats and Obama, they get together and have a little party and they celebrate the tricks and the techniques they used to fool you.
And that's all part of the condescension.
They may lie to themselves, say, yeah, people are not they're not smart enough to know what's good for them.
We had to do this to give them what's best for them.
They wouldn't know what to ask on their own.
That's how they they might lie to themselves and tell themselves that.
But what they're really doing is applauding themselves for being so easily able to trick you.
Because you're so stupid.
Don't doubt me.
Back in just a second is Open Line Friday continues.
It is open line Friday.
This is Barry in Columbia, South Carolina.
I'm glad you called, sir, and I appreciate your patience.
I thank you, Rush.
It's an honor.
Uh Rush, I called to uh ask about uh or if you had any thoughts on why the National Inquirer hasn't come out with some of this uh uh answers on this uh controversy uh swirling around Hillary Clinton.
Uh you know, they were able to come up with the uh goods on uh Ted Cruz's father and and his meetings with uh um Lee Harvey Oswald and and uh other stories, you know, the woman gives birth to a two-headed goat and uh different things like that.
Now, let me ask you a question here.
Yes, sir.
Are you are you asking this uh uh question from a uh uh uh a position of not being a Trump supporter, or are you a Trump supporter?
Uh well I am a Trump supporter now, yes.
Okay.
Okay, so I'm hearing a tone in your question.
You think that maybe Trump was eager to destroy Republicans using his buddies at the National Choir, but he doesn't want to use the inquirer to destroy Hillary, which might mean that Trump really doesn't dislike the Clintons as much as he might want you to think.
Oh, that that's quite a possibility.
Yes, that's why that's um I I thought I detected that.
I'm about your age and have uh been exposed to the inquirer all my life, and and like I said, the uh uh you know the stories that uh usually come out in the inquiry were were stories about you know oddities and things like that.
And and Uh you know, I was yeah, I was just kind of wondering about their silence, you know, it's kind of deafening.
Uh all this uh, you know, they were able to expose John Edwards and the price of his haircuts and his girlfriends and the price of his haircut.
Yeah.
No, they took Edwards out.
Uh I I just for people that don't understand.
What we what we have is a fine guy here, don't misunderstand.
But our caller is not all that convinced that Trump is really a political enemy of Hillary Clinton.
That Trump is maybe a wolf in sheep's clothing and really is there to damage the Republicans.
And he's got his buddies at the inquirer taking out crews, but where is all this gotta be stuff on Hillary?
Where is it?
He's an open-ended question.
I understand where it's coming from.
We are out of time in this segment, but I'm not gonna dodge this.
I'm gonna answer this question when we get back.
I have an answer for you.
Well, I don't see I've seen that before.
Rince Prebus interviewing Donald Trump at a Trump rally, Trump's in Erie, Pennsylvania, and Rince Primus came out to warm up the crowd.
I've not seen that before.
Place is going nuts as Trump comes out there.
Okay, the uh National Inquirer is owned by and operated by people who are said to be very close to the Trumpster.
And Trump is uh he's he's hailed the National Inquirer uh throughout the primary season as a trusted uh source, as a uh credible source, to the chagrin of many,
uh provoked anger in many people, particularly the Ted Cruz episode where supposedly Ted Cruz's dad was seen in a photo with Lee Harvey Oswald uh weeks, days before JFK was shot.
Um so people think that there's a connection that Trump can get the inquirer to run some, you know, very damaging stories on Trump opponents.
And they think there's evidence for that having happened during the primary.
So our caller said, where is that stuff on Hillary?
Caller obviously doesn't believe that uh any is going to be forthcoming.
Caller is of the opinion that Trump is actually not in this to beat Democrats, but to do damage to Republicans.
I would just say this.
I have by the way, I don't know.
I I I didn't know that Trump was close to the acquire guy till the allegation was made during the campaign during the primaries.
All of that was news to me.
However, I think if if there's anything to it, uh Trump's not gonna well, if let me put this if the inquirer has anything, they're not gonna run it now in August.
They're gonna wait till after Labor Day.
They're gonna wait till it enough time so that people don't have enough time to forget it, or for something else to come along.
And and uh erase it from buddy's memory.
The old October surprise thing.
But I do know I do a lot of Trump supporters have been very excited to see what the inquirer might bring forth on Hillary or Bill or what have you.
So we'll have to see.
Now I'm gonna circle back here to Hillary releasing her tax returns.
I I've seen a bunch of different data on this today.
The first story I saw was a CNN infobabe with actual Hillary tax return.
She's going through the pages and calculating various numbers, and she had concluded and reported that the combined federal and state tax rate that the Clintons had paid was 42%.
And that would be true.
That's pretty much accurate.
It should be over 50%, given that their official residence is New York and the feds, but they took some deductions, obviously.
But this is important.
I I can't recall, and I could be wrong about this, but I can't recall a presidential candidate having released his tax returns with an effective rate any higher than twenty-five percent.
I think Romney, remember this didn't help him.
The tax rate calculated that Romney had paid was fourteen or fifteen percent.
Uh Nothing illegal.
He had just used every tool available in the existing tax code.
What the Clintons have done here, they knew that these would be the returns being released and previous years, but this year, look, actually tax year 2015.
They knew that that was going to be the year released.
So I think what they've done, they they dramatically reduced their income for 2015.
The 2014 income was around 30 million.
The 2015 income is around 12 to 13 million.
60% of their income is Bill Clinton's speeches last year.
Well, we know that Hillary earned $21 million in two years just doing speeches herself.
So the Clintons actually, and this is strategic planning.
You can't fault them for it.
You can point it out, which I'm doing.
They obviously planned in 2015 to report much less income than in the prior year.
So that it might be written, look at the Clintons didn't earn as much.
Why the Clintons are not as filthy rich as we thought.
Why the Clintons are closer to you and me.
Look at Hillary actually, they went 30 and then they only earned 12 or 14.
Wow, the Clintons, well, it's supposed to redound to them positively.
And then they release the returns as such that it's calculated they paid a rate of 42%.
That's more than most Americans pay.
You'll find at the top 1%, that's about what they're paying.
You just don't know that because it's never reported.
But there aren't that many deductions, folks.
You can if you want to lose control of your money, you can shelter a lot of it, but you lose control doing it.
Shelter it over here, put it over there, charitable donation there, charitable donation here.
But these people reporting uh tax like Romney 14, 15%, that may be what the government got, but he didn't keep 85% of it.
It had to go places where he lost control of it in order to get the deduction.
It had to go to investments here or there.
But it's not what people don't understand about this is that when a candidate or anybody in this tax atmosphere today has an effective tax rate on their return of 14 or 15 percent, that doesn't mean they found a way to cheat the government and are walking around with 85 or 80 percent in their pocket.
They lose control over a lot of it.
By virtue of where they put it, they're putting it places other than the government.
They make the decision like I'd I'd rather this business, that charity, this whatever, this 501c, I'd rather they get my money than the government.
But they don't get it themselves.
It's a really convoluted thing.
What the Clintons have done here is structure their 2015 payment so that you see they're paying a 42% rate and going, man, oh man, the Clintons are not cheating anybody.
Wow, the Clintons are wow, they're so honest.
Well, look at the Clintons, man.
They're not taking any deductions, they're not cheating it.
That's what they want you to conclude.
After you realize that they earned 20 million dollars less in 2015 than the previous year.
So you're supposed to, wow, what man.
They're sacrificing for us.
The Clintons are actually losing money in order to serve us.
That's what they want to be able to say, and they would-that's what they want you to conclude.
And it's not coincidental that Hillary today is demanding that Trump release his.
That's obviously part of the plan.
Now, here's one more bit of information about the Clinton tax return for 2015.
Hillary and Bill deducted $1,042,000 in charitable contributions last year.
And you're supposed to, wow, $1,042,000.
A million?
Well, well, the Clintons are really a lot of compassion.
They really care about the town trun.
Why did you see that, Mabel?
A million dollars and 42,000 in charity.
Now, at their rate, I think the maximum deduction you get.
You don't get to deduct all of that.
You get to deduct.
I think 39.6% of every dollar.
And if Obama gets his way, the wealthy will only be able to deduct 25% at most of every dollar.
But of that one million, 42,000 the Clintons donated to charity.
One million of it went to their own family nonprofit, the Clinton Foundation.
The documents show that the Clintons earned, oh, I was wrong, it's $10,745,000 last year, mostly on income from giving speeches.
Of that, they gave just over a million to charity, but the donations can hardly be seen as altruistic since the money flowed right back to an entity that they control.
So it it's so circular, they're charitable giving that it is mind-bending.
So they get paid to give speeches to people who have given to the foundation, and then they pay the Clintons on top of it, and then they donate the money they get for the speeches back to the foundation.
And the vast majority of their income is giving speeches.
Hillary reported some royalties from her memoir.
So given that that is my report on the Clinton tax returns, I want you to listen to Alan Allison Cossack, CNET.
She was on this afternoon with some other people, Wolf Blitzer said, so Bill and Hillary.
So most of the income I take it uh from last year's income that he generated, largely from speeches.
She did very little of that, right?
Because the previous two years, she had made 21 million doing speeches.
But Wolf probably doesn't even know that.
So Alison, she didn't do very many speeches.
She didn't contribute because she was already running for president implication.
She was already in government service.
She wasn't taking anything.
She's such a wonderful person.
Isn't that right, Allison?
It is pretty stunning, though, to see the huge difference in income from 2014 to 2015.
I do want to mention one other thing, charities.
And it goes without saying that if you're going to make less money, you're going to um certainly donate less to charities.
So we saw uh a donation of $1 million in charities versus $3 million to the Clinton Family Foundation.
So that $1 million is happening in uh 2015, $42,000 uh going to other charities in 2015.
So if you look at last year, almost 10% of gross income uh was donated to charities.
Oh, they're so wonderful!
I look at them what they earned, they gave the charity itself.
That's a great went to their own charity.
You happen to know what the pass-through on the Clinton charity is?
In other words, you give a dollar to the Clinton charity, how much of that dollar ends up in charity?
You give it their foundation.
You know what the pass-through on the Clinton is like 30 cents.
The administrative costs on a dollar have donated to the Clinton charity, like 70 cents.
I think I saw that somewhere.
72 cents, something like that.
They pay a lot of people at that foundation.
They pay a lot of family members out of that foundation.
Yeah, of course, there are people that work for the foundation.
You have uh secretaries, you have fundraisers, you have liaisons, there's a lot of people that earn money from that foundation.
Yeah, yes, my friends.
That way the Clintons don't have to pay them.
Charitable donors.
Do.
Okay, so Donald Trump's an eerie, and he's on a roll.
I've been laughing myself silly here the last three minutes.
He's talking about campaign donations.
And he's got this crowd is raucous.
This crowd in Erie is just loaded for bear.
And he's saying, I'm funding my own campaign.
I'm paying for it.
I didn't finance it.
I'm borrowing it.
I'm paying it.
Right?
Right?
And I spent last and all these other experts.
Look, I know a guy spent a hundred million, came in seventh.
I spent one tenth of that, and I wanted a landslade.
Who do you want for your president?
Huh?
And they erupt.
And he turns around and basks in all the applause and the glory.
This one reminds me of Trump in the uh in the primaries.
And he's uh he's got a piece of looking.
Pennsylvania, you're not doing too good, you people.
You're not doing too good.
Look at all the manufacturing jobs you lost.
You didn't lose them.
They were taken from you.
Yay, erupt in applause.
So here's uh here's Michael in Orange, Texas.
Open line Friday continues.
How are you, sir?
Uh, pretty good.
Thank you for taking him off call.
My dad's sir.
Very happy.
I would like to connect the dots with Arab Spring and ISIS.
Obama encouraged and even praised Arab Spring while American troops are being pulled out of uh Iraq during the same time that he was calling ISIS uh JV team.
Now they're the varsity team.
Is there a connection?
Sure.
Did you ask me, is there a connection?
Yes.
See, this is what this is now.
This is a frustrating thing about Trump.
See, Trump didn't acknowledge the bit on time.
I acknowledge the bit on time.
When I engage in what I've always called being absurd to illustrate absurd or illustrating absurdity by being absurd, well, that is, I'll give you an example of it.
Barack Obama founded ISIS.
He's the founder of ISIS.
Predictably the media will erupt and go nuts, and a lot of people will go nuts, and you let them go up, and you stand by it for a couple hours.
No, I damn well met.
And then once you've got everybody really revved up and focused, then you reveal the gag.
And then you say, no, of course he didn't found it, but he may as well have, because then when you've got everybody's attention, then you explain the woeful inept policy of Obama leaving Iraq that left it fertile ground for ICE.
ISIS is really nothing more than Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
And they were around even during the George A. George W. Bush days, but they didn't manifest into this dominant terror group they are till Obama pulled out of Iraq.
Well, Trump blew the timing.
He stuck with it one day too long.
If you're gonna do something like this, which is uh uh, I don't know, call it a bit or whatever, it's a technique.
If you're gonna use a technique like this to focus people's attention so that when you tell them what you really mean, you've got 100% of their attention.
That's how you do it.
Sometimes, folks with you, I even told you before I'm gonna do it.
Folks stand by, we've got a media tweak coming up.
Later tonight, they're gonna go bonkers over this.
And I let you in on it sometimes, even before I do it.
Um Trump just waited a day too long to let everybody in on what he was talking about.
Now he's out there, no, I was being sarcastic.
No, I was being sarcastic.
His instincts on this stuff are right on the minute.
Timing needs some advice.
Patrick Kennedy is on uh CNN right now saying, I don't like, I don't like people calling Donald Trump crazy.
We shouldn't call people crazy.
It's not fair, it's not right, it's too demeaning.
Donald Trump's not crazy, we shouldn't call him crazy.
Trump for his part's out there, he's just he's having a ball at this particular rally.
There are a couple interruptions, and the cops cut the protesters out and tried, don't we love the police?
▲
Export Selection