All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 24, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:51
August 24, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 Podcast.
Trending large at Facebook, yet again, ladies and gentlemen, your host, trending number one at Facebook at this very moment.
And you want to know why?
How many weeks ago did we do this?
It has to be at least.
Maybe a week, maybe 10 days.
Here's what's trending number one on Facebook.
Rush Limbaugh, radio host, says Obama is encouraging lesbians to become farmers to attack rural states.
How long ago did we do that story?
You know what's amazing about this?
By the way, greetings, my friends, and it's great to have you here.
It's great to be back.
I'm a little tired.
I may take 10 minutes here or there during the program, like Mrs. Clinton does during debates.
You know, you got to do what you got to do to keep going.
800 282-2882.
The email address is new again.
It's a rushbow at EIBNet.us.
So we had this uh this story.
This is kind of interesting about Facebook in a way.
It's uh I I don't spend a lot of time there, obviously.
Nothing against those of you who do, don't misunderstand.
But this story is at least.
I have to have Coco Jr. tell me when I did this as a quick website search.
But it's nothing I made up.
The story was that the Department of Agriculture was extending grant money to lesbians, encouraging them to become farmers.
And I asked the obvious question, why in the world of all the things that you could give lesbians money to do something with, why in the world would it be farming?
And of course, my expert opinion was that uh the Obama administration is well, they're they're leftists, and they're constantly attacking.
They are constantly in aggressive forward march mode.
And the one area, one area of America that is predominantly conservative is rural America.
So what better way to make inroads in that than to dangle a bunch of money in front of some lesbians and say, in order to get it, you gotta go on the farm.
You gotta go out and be farmers.
It was a legitimate story.
I'd forget whose story it was, but here it is, trending number one at least a week later, maybe a week and a half later on Facebook.
It was last Wednesday, so it's exactly one week ago.
And it has just now found its way to Facebook.
Radio host says Obama encouraging lesbians to become farmers to attack rural.
Well, as far as it goes.
That's uh that is fairly accurate.
Anyway, folks, great to have you here.
The um the lead story in the drive-by media.
There are two lead stories.
The first lead story is that Trump is softening on immigration.
The drive-bys are attempting to say that Trump is doing what everybody knew he was gonna do, and that is he's not gonna build a wall, and he's not gonna deport a bunch of people.
And all that talk during the primaries and all that talk in the early stages of the presidential campaign about building the wall and sending people home was never gonna happen.
The drive by say, we told you, and now Trump is admitting it.
Trump is softening on immigration, and the drive-bys are out doing man-on-the-street interviews with Trump supporters.
They are trying to find Trump supporters who are ready to throw in a towel now.
They want to go out there, they want to find Trump supporters that feel betrayed.
They want to find Trump supporters that are mad about it, and they can't.
What they're finding is exactly what I told them would be the case last fall.
They don't understand the connection between Trump and his supporters.
It's not that hard to understand, particularly when I explain it so well.
It must be hard to accept.
It isn't hard to understand.
I think one of the problems that drive buys and others who don't understand it are having is that they may never have experienced it.
They may never have experienced this kind of connection.
It's what is happening, at least with the people on the street at the drivebys Are finding that Trump supporters are making excuses for him.
They're saying things like, well, you know, you have to do what you have to do to build your campaign.
Sometimes you have to moderate what you're saying.
Sometimes you have to do things in a different way to build your base.
Sometimes you have to change a little bit.
Whatever.
They're finding any number of ways to excuse Trump, supposedly softening on immigration.
I'm not, by the way, I'm not accepting the premise yet.
I'm just throwing it out as the drive-bys are suggesting it.
Byron York has a piece today at the Washington Examiner saying that whatever they're doing, the Trump campaign is now obviously confused.
And they don't know what they're doing and they don't know how to do it, and their immigration policy seems to be up for grabs now.
I'm paraphrasing Byron York's story, but this is the premise that the drive-by's are operating under.
Oh, here's something else, too, by the way.
I'm getting a lot of email after the program yesterday from people who are objecting to what they think that I said yesterday.
I'm always fascinated by what people hear, you know, as the nation's leading communicator.
As America's anchor man, as America's truth detector, one of my objectives every day is to actually be understood.
And I go to great lengths.
I say things sometimes in in two or three different ways.
I, in explaining things, try to anticipate things people might understand and address them and re-explain.
I go the full mile trying to communicate exactly what I mean, but it it always happens that there will be some who don't get it, nevertheless.
It's nobody's fault.
It's just human nature.
I received a number of emails last night, yesterday afternoon, from people who say, Rush, you know, you're really beginning to sound desperate on Trump.
I looked at them, I said, Wow, that's curious.
What in the world?
And what they were talking about was, you know, you you keep talking about this guy in the Washington Post, Robert Costa, who reported about a month ago that many in the Hillary campaign and many in the drive-by's, which is one and the same, are actually very concerned about people that are not being polled because they haven't voted in a long time because they're so fed up.
There are two numbers you put together.
70% of the American people think countries head in the wrong direction, and that's borne out in a number of different polls.
And then the other number is roughly 50%, the American adult population doesn't vote.
Every presidential race every four years.
So you put those two numbers together and you end up with a large number of people who may think the country's head in the wrong direction, but who don't vote.
And Mr. Costa's point in the Washington Post was he was talking to Charlie Rose.
So what if they show up?
What if those are the people that really, really love Trump?
They just fed up with everything about American politics.
They're fed up with the insider stuff, they're fed up with just everything that's happening, and they their protest is to not vote and tune out and just try to take care of themselves.
What if Trump's really, really firing them up?
And then there was a column yesterday by Selena Zito, who's a columnist at the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, in which she stated she'd ridden uh ridden around the state of Pennsylvania, and she found in all these rural areas and not just rural, but but small towns outside the big cities of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.
She'd found Trump yard signs everywhere.
This is no matter where she went, there was this overwhelming uh evidence of massive support for Donald Trump.
And she described these people to a T. These are people that uh you know used to define what was moral and immoral.
They used to define cultural do's and don'ts.
They used to define values and so forth, and now they don't.
They have been superseded and uh by cultural rot.
And they have tuned out too.
And so I I talked about both of those, and I alluded to the possibility, not with any hope.
I mean, I'm not doing this with any hoper, that that polling is missing them.
And I did make mention that there could be some great silent majority out there.
Anyway, the emails I got from people asking, boy, you're really scraping the bottle of barrel.
Rush, do you really think those people aren't being polled?
Do you really think there's a whole giant mess of people out there waiting to show up and give Trump a landslide win that nobody's finding and nobody's polling and nobody's talking to, and everybody is ignoring.
And I never have said that because I don't know.
I'm just sharing with you the thoughts and opinions of a couple of people here that intrigue me.
Robert Costa writing in the Washington Post and Selena Zito's piece yesterday.
Intrigue me.
I'm not suggesting that there is this giant swell, this giant unseen waiting to be unleashed movement that's going to deliver a landslide victory to Trump, nor am I sitting here trying to be phony and artificially optimistic about anything.
I'm just giving you the way of the land and analyzing it as I see it.
But so many people, I thought I'd been very clear about this, so I was happy to get the emails to find out how people are hearing this.
That they think that I am, I am uh doing what I can to get people to not give up to hold out hope.
And then the point of the emails, most of the ones that agreed, were it's not possible that there are that many people not being polled, that nobody knows about, that are lurking out there waiting for election day to show up and turn Trump into a landslide winner.
And you're doing your audience a disservice, Mr. Limbaugh, if you keep talking that one.
I'm not I'm not suggesting anything.
I'm merely reporting and reacting to what other people are uh are saying about it.
There's a there's another one today that I want to throw out to you.
I had I did a test discussion on this with Mr. Snerdley before the program started.
Sometimes I do that.
You know, people test market products.
I sometimes test market topics.
So Mr. Snerdley came in at the appointed time to do some things, and it's around uh 30 minutes for the program began.
So I hit him with a question.
I said, I said, Mr. Snerdley, look at the Clintons.
You'll get this.
Look at the that's the other big story is that half the people Hillary met with paid her for the privilege.
Half of the people, well, she's Secretary of State, half of the people, if not more, paid her, paid the Clinton Foundation tens of millions of dollars.
And if in fact, if you wanted to talk to Hillary Clinton, was she Secretary of State, the odds are you had to signal that you were willing to pay her foundation something.
And people, you know, the AP, it's a it's a blockbuster story.
The Clinton campus trying to say they cherry-picked a bunch of stuff.
This is not anything like it looks, it's as crazy.
Mrs. Clinton was too busy a Secretary of State to be doing all this kind of stuff.
This is an outrageous story.
It may be the first news story in a couple of years that the Clintons think is unfair to them.
We have to deal with multiple stories every day that we think is unfair to us or unfair to us.
But the question, here's here's here's what this is.
Michael Goodwin at the New York Post has a column.
He had a column on Sunday about the collapse of journalism.
And he's back today, and he's got a question.
Why do all this?
And he here's the pattern or the timeline.
Hillary Clinton runs for president 2008, loses.
Really humiliated.
I mean, it was hers.
That was to be her coronation.
The Democrats had promised her that, and they ended up throwing her overboard or under the bus, whichever is more appealing to you and your imagination, for Barack Hussein O. So Hillary says, okay, I'm going to do this again.
I'm going to run for president again.
And the odds are the soonest she's going to be able to do that's 2016 this year.
So what does she do?
She becomes Secretary of State in the Obama administration for the first term, quits, writes books, does speeches, gets rich to set herself up for her presidential run.
Now, doing all of that, they set up the Clinton Family Foundation, they have the Clinton Global Initiative, and they are in, and she sets up the private email server and all of this stuff that is inarguably scandal-ridden.
And much of it is inarguably illegal.
The question, why do it?
The question is, what is there that we still don't know about this?
Because there has to be something we don't know yet.
It may not be easy and provable to say that whatever's gone on is criminal, but boy, does it get close to the edge.
And it clearly is in violation of ethics.
So she sets up the server with her private email account, and you have to figure she knows this is going to get discovered.
Then we learn what's been going on when she was secretary.
So forget Benghazi.
I mean, we add this to all that.
She wasn't doing anything with collecting money.
If you wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State, you had to pay for it, and a lot of people did.
A lot of people paid 32 million, 10 million, uh 15 million, 1 million 750,000.
You had to pay her in order to get a meeting with her to discuss diplomacy.
Even if you're a world leader, if you're foreign government, you had to pay her.
The odds are, I mean, and not everybody, but it's an inordinate number of people.
Over half of her meetings that she took.
And this does not include, by the way, meetings with 16 diplomats from other countries.
This is strictly individuals.
So the question, okay, why?
You have to know that's going to get learned too.
You know that this is going to come out.
At some point it's going to learn, you've got to pay for play operation going on.
You've got your private email server.
You can get rich anyway, legally.
All you got to do is give speeches, write books, huge advances, and you can get plenty rich.
You can get far richer than you were when you left the White House.
Yet they did this.
They went right up to the edge, and they maybe crossed the line a number of times, ethically and perhaps even legally.
And these are the people that they monetized the Lincoln bedroom for crying out loud.
They sold access to the Lincoln bedroom.
If you wanted to sleep in a Lincoln bedroom, you had to donate to their re-election campaign back in the 90s.
So the question is why?
Why risk it all doing all of this?
It can't just be to get rich, because they could have done that without doing this.
They might not have gotten as rich.
But why do this?
And the theory is there's still something out there.
There's still something.
There's an answer to that question that they don't want us to know that could be devastating.
I have to take a break.
So anyway, Mr. Snerdley took a stab at uh at answering this.
And uh made me think I wasn't asking the question in the right way.
So I'm gonna keep at this along with everything else we got going.
Welcome back.
Great to have you.
L. Rushbone.
We have a new survey from the Pew Research Center or people in the press, the headline, Americans giving up on God and miracles.
Half of Americans who have left their church no longer believe in God, leading a surge of nearly 25% of the country who have no affiliation with any religion, according to this new survey.
The Pew research center said, what is this?
This is Wednesday.
So they said today.
The Pew Research Center said that a 49% of what they term nuns, N-O-N-E-S, no affiliation, left their church and religion because they don't believe anymore.
Another 20-cent percent, 20% said that they don't like organized religion.
Other reasons included common sense and a lack of belief in miracles.
The survey, the latest from Pew, demonstrates a growing trend in America.
More and more people are junking religion, and many are giving up on God.
Me ask those of you among the faithful a question.
It's a biblical question.
I don't want any calls on this.
We don't, we don't, we don't do that here.
Just ask him the question, it's a think question.
Do you believe God punishes nations and people who turn against him or who abandon him?
No calls on that, Mr. Sturdway.
We're not going that.
I just want you to think about the question.
Greetings and welcome back.
Great to have you.
El Rushbow, serving humanity simply by showing up, we have a new Reuters poll out.
Clinton leading Trump by 12 points.
This is a Reuters national poll, and it's among likely voters.
It's her strongest showing this month, according to a Reuters Ipsos opinion poll released yesterday.
Now remember something here, folks.
Reuters is recently changed their polling methods and their techniques.
Remember?
They no longer count undecided.
Nobody is allowed to be undecided in a Reuters poll.
And yet people are undecided.
There's still a bunch of people in any sample that you're going to poll, there are going to be some undecided.
So what does Reuters do?
Well, Reuters assigns those people to either Trump or Hillary based on what they think they are hearing those people say.
And ever since Reuters decided to not allow people to say they were undecided.
I mean, even though they are, they're not allowed to say so.
Ever since they did that, Hillary's numbers have gone up.
And Pat Cadell's made a big deal out of this.
Patel, this isn't one of the most, I don't know what you did, not dishonest, but this is one of the most misleading results that you can get.
Because undecideds are a huge number.
Undecided is a very important number in any poll.
The undecideds and when they break, you know, when do they make up their minds?
If you're going to do a poll where nobody in it's allowed to be undecided, and the pollster gets to ultimately determine where those people fall, uh, and they're obviously assigning more undecided to the Hillary camp than they are to the Trump camp.
So I just wanted to mention if you see the Reuters poll and it shows Hillary up by twelve, remember they've done away with the undecided aspect.
Now, back to this bomb, the blockbuster AP story, which the nub of this is the following.
Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at state.
More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State, gave money, either personally or through companies or groups, to the Clinton Foundation.
It's an extraordinary proportion, indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.
At least 85 out of 154 people from private interests who met or who had phone conversations scheduled with Mrs. Clinton while she was Secretary of State, donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs.
This, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to the Associated Press, combined the 85 donors, contributed as much as 156 million dollars.
At least 40 donated more than 100,000 each, and 20 of these people gave more than one million dollars each.
This is the very definition of pay-to-play.
And for all of those people out there saying, hey, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
This is just access.
This is not favors.
As I said yesterday, the access is the favor.
You pay to get Mrs. Clinton on the phone.
You pay to get a meeting with Mrs. Clinton.
That's the favor.
Then after you've paid and you get the meeting, and you explain why you gave the money.
Now, what would happen next is Huma Abdeen wiener or Cheryl Mills would get hold of somebody over at Hillary's office and say, sleazebag one here from some Middle East potentate is interested in giving you 20 million dollars and won't speak to you.
Hillary takes the call.
Okay, now everybody thinks that the guy giving the 20 million is expecting something and is going to get it, the pay for play.
He gives the 20 million, goes to the foundation.
Hillary, either as Secretary of State or on the come as president, is I mean, look, everybody knows what's going on here.
Because it's it's it's it's very simple.
If it ever became known that Hillary would not meet with or do favors to donors, the money would dry up.
It's just that simple.
And everybody knew you didn't have to send out memos.
The Clinton Family Foundation didn't have to advertise.
They didn't have to send out email blasts or any of that.
It just was known that you could buy Hillary Clinton.
That you could buy Bill Clinton, and buying Bill Clinton would help you buy Hillary.
It was well known.
No advertisement necessary.
Donors to Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea received quo for their quid.
And if they didn't, game over.
If Hillary didn't pay back somehow, if if that 20 million just sat there and nothing happened as a result, you think it'd keep coming in?
Everybody knew.
Everybody out there who wanted to buy access knew that they could.
This is something that look, it it seems obvious, but not a lot of people are talking about it.
Ask yourself this.
How did everybody who donated, and we're talking here over half, 150 over half of them?
How did they know to do it?
How did they know they could?
How did they know the Clinton concierge service was available?
How does Sleazebag potentate number one here know that he can reach Hillary Clinton by giving to her foundation?
They don't advertise it.
They don't send out email blasts.
So how did all of these people, again, as the as the AP says, just to give you the exact words, more than half the people outside government who met with Hillary Clinton while Secretary of State gave money, How did they know they could?
How did they know they could?
They did.
They knew they could.
And I'll tell you what, if after giving the money, nothing happened.
If it had become known that Hillary would not meet with you, if it had been learned that Hillary would not do favors, that money would dry up.
They're not sending that money in because they love Hillary, they love Bill.
There had to be a quo.
There had to be a quid.
There had to be a pro.
There had to be a payoff somehow, somewhere, or a promise to.
Otherwise, the money dries up.
The Clinton Foundation is a front organization.
A little bit of charity over here to keep everybody happy and occupied while a whole lot of corruption is going on over here.
It's a laundromat.
It's a laundromat for donations to the Clintons.
And again, they didn't have to advertise it.
People just knew.
How did they know?
No, no, I'm I'm I'm not asking it rhetorically.
I know you're, well, what do you mean, Rush?
How'd they know?
I mean, the Clintons have been known as who's going to think I know that's my whole point.
The Clintons have been selling access since the Lincoln bedroom days.
The Clintons have been Selling access since they've been in politics.
That's how everybody knew.
That's why they didn't have to advertise it.
The Clintons have been corrupt from get-go.
And Cheryl Mills and Huma Abaddon.
When these bribes came in, they don't seem to be embarrassed or insulted by it.
Imagine you're working at the Clinton Foundation.
And the phone rings, it's sleazebag potentate from the Middle East.
Hello, I wish to donate 50 million dollars to the Clinton Family Foundation in exchange for the 10 minutes meeting with Hillary Clinton.
Sir, how dare you think that the Secretary of State's time is up for sale?
There was none of that.
There was oh, well, how about if you want 20 minutes, make it 60 million?
Why was there no embarrassment?
Why why weren't these people insulted?
None of that because this was a well-oiled operation.
A laundromat.
Huma Abedin Wiener and Cheryl Mills were ecstatic when Slea's bags from around the world phoned in, wanted a meeting with Hillary and were more than happy to pay millions of dollars for it.
This open door corruption policy was working just as designed, and it didn't require any advertising.
Look, folks, if the Clintons were not interested in selling policy favors, well, then none of this would have gone on.
But here's the second route.
Okay, so sleaze bag potentate a, or pick any of them.
Pick any of these sleaze bags that are giving money to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
Everybody thinks that the Clintons have to perform in order to justify getting the money.
But Slea's bag potentate A gives pick a number 10 million to Hillary.
Hillary is going to come back to Slea's bag potentate A. And she's going to ask him for something somewhere down the line, too.
It's going to go both ways.
It's not just that Hillary is vulnerable.
It's not just Hillary has to perform and pay off.
She is now going to be able for granting the access and for doing favors for even though he's paid for it.
She can still ask additional favors.
So this is a two-way operation here.
And I circle back to the question why.
Why?
None of this is necessary to win the presidency.
None of this.
I mean, even if you don't know that Donald Trump's going to be the nominee, and even if even if you think you're going to have formidable opposition running for president in 2016.
Look at I I need more time to delve into this question.
I'm going to take a break now, but it's at tight.
We'll come back and continue down this road when we get back.
Okay, I'm going to get started on the on the phones.
People backed up here waiting patiently, but I want to I'm going to circle back to all this Trump immigration and the big question.
Why are the Clintons risking everything doing what they're doing here when they don't have to?
You may think you've got the answers, and you may have.
But it doesn't mean that I'm not going to keep asking the question.
Because there's something more here.
I agree with Michael Goodwin.
There's something we don't know yet, beyond what appears to be obvious.
In the meantime, Nathan in Lynchburg, Virginia, your first today.
It's great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hey, Rush.
How are you doing, man?
Very well, sir.
Thank you.
Hey, I was born in 1978, and uh I grew up with Reagan.
Loved him.
As I knew him as a child, and it was a really good time.
Um remember a lot of good things about uh the 80s.
Um I didn't really get involved in politics.
I have never voted before in my life.
Um I just registered, and the ironic part is I had a liberal friend who was running for Sanders that loved Sanders so much.
She believed in democracy and in voting, and she convinced me to go ahead and do it.
Although at first, as soon as I saw that Trump was running, I said, There is a chance, and I told everybody around me, all my friends, because I would always pick on them because they voted because I didn't believe in the system.
And I picked on them all the time about it, and I said, you know what?
I'm going to register and I'm going to vote this year.
This is going to be the first time that I've ever voted.
And it's not so much so that my beliefs about the system and the the rig system as Trump says, uh he just speaks my language.
And I truly believe that he he is Reagan-esque, and I believe that he can do something because he's not a politician.
And I I do believe in Trump.
And I tell you, it takes a lot for me to believe in someone.
Well, um what was it about I mean, you you grew up as a child, you admired, you liked Ray in the 80s.
I agree with you.
Um I mean, even though I got fired a bunch of times.
Those were good times.
Those are good economic times.
Country seems solid.
I understand.
But but what what is it?
You gr you went through that, and then you beg you got soured on everything.
What was it that soured you on it that you'd even want to register and participate?
The first Bush didn't he he was he seemed to me to be weak and impotent and old and like feckless altogether.
And you know, I was young at the time, but I could probably have voted for him.
And then Clinton came along, and then second Bush, and the second Bush was nothing but a trap.
Um and I wouldn't call myself a Republican.
I would never classify myself as a Republican, especially nowadays, but I would lean more towards being a conservative.
Yeah.
The liberty the libertarians are just full of it.
They're just wannabe tea parties.
I like the Tea Party, but I I could never really read.
What about the alt-right guys?
You like the alt-righters?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, you might want to revise that later, but we'll take it for now.
But still, Trump's excited you and has made you want to get engaged and get involved and and and participate for the first time.
Is that basically the upshot of it?
Yeah, that that that is it.
And you know what?
I probably will never vote again after this one.
Um unless someone like Trump comes along who speaks my language, who who knows the problem America's not afraid to say it.
Okay, we'll throw we'll throw that, we'll throw that in the hopper.
Uh he's representative of the kind of people Robert Costa's talking about out there, Washington Post.
We will be back.
Don't go away.
And we are off and running.
The EIB network in El Rushville.
By the way, I just want to remind you a new email address.
We scrubbed the old one.
We're getting 15,000 emails every minute during the program.
So we've uh changed it's L Rushbo at EIB Net.us.
And I check 'em now and then.
▲
Export Selection