Rush Limbaugh Program - September 1, 2016, Thursday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 1, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:20

September 1, 2016, Thursday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Buck Sexton here, Info Rush on the EIB.
	I promised you that we would talk a bit about Hillary and her response or the response of the Clinton camp, such as it is to Donald's speech last night.
	We got a tweet from her last night that Trump just failed his first foreign test.
	Diplomacy isn't as easy as it looks.
	I have to say that this is one.
	First of all, the visit to Mexico, if someone's trying to be objective, even if they don't like Trump and think that everything he stands for is terrible and he's going to make Genghis Khan look like a soft touch kind of guy.
	Even with all that, you would have to say that the travel to Mexico yesterday and the way that he set this whole thing up from a media perspective was pretty good.
	It all came together in one day, and it's absolutely dominating the news cycle, and it's completely and utterly changed the conversation on politics with regard to everything.
	I'm seeing right now on Fox News, they've got an alert up that in Ohio there's been a little bit of a Trump bump in the polls.
	I'm expecting that there'll be something along those lines in some other states and some other polls.
	I think there's a Rasmussen poll that shows, maybe it's out today or maybe it's earlier in this week that shows some closing of the gap.
	But be that as it may, people only focus on the Trump polls that make it look like it's a lost cause and he has no chance and it's all over for him.
	When all of a sudden it goes the other way, we don't really hear about it.
	But Hillary says or tweets from her official campaign account or her official Hillary account that Trump failed his first foreign test.
	So I think that that's well, it looks foolish because this is for everybody who supports Trump, this was a very strong speech.
	It's going to invigorate his coalition, whatever that may be.
	The Trump voters see this and they say this is the issue where he wasn't allowed to sell us out.
	This is the issue where if he had done the pivot that had been talked about for a few weeks, I think there would have been a lot of pause from even some of the more stalwart Trump defenders, certainly in the conservative media sphere, but also just in general among his supporters.
	I think that when Trump and Hillary go head-to-head in the debates, by the way, on foreign policy, it's going to be an opportunity for everyone to see that, yeah, Hillary knows the sound bites and she knows the talking points.
	We should work with our allies and we should do more to build strong agreements for trade.
	The sort of stuff that you would expect a ninth grader in a sort of model UN conference to say.
	That's what Hillary tends to say on foreign policy.
	Not a single foreign policy achievement that she can point to of any significance from her tenure as Secretary of State.
	Really was made Secretary of State because of her last name and because of her connections and name recognition and political clout, really the clout that her husband built up.
	And then all of a sudden we're supposed to just say, oh, well, she was Secretary of State.
	So that means that she's brilliant on foreign policy issues.
	Sorry, not buying it.
	And Trump's going to get up there.
	And yeah, is he going to be able to name the prime minister of a bunch of random countries?
	Probably not.
	Is he going to win a geography test?
	If Hillary, actually, I don't know.
	I don't know how we do against Hillary in geography.
	It might be closer than you think.
	But he'll be able to say things like, you've already had your shot at foreign policy and you were abysmal.
	You did a terrible job of it.
	You were pathetic on foreign policy as a Secretary of State.
	Now, a lot of very important, powerful people from the foreign policy establishment have come out and said that they're much more in favor of Hillary than of Trump.
	But one, I would expect that to be the case.
	She knows these people.
	She's worked with them.
	They're friends with her.
	And also, you know, the foreign policy elites, it's kind of a clubby bunch anyway.
	And somebody who comes along who just says things that are based more on gut instinct and a sense that America should be no longer ashamed or no longer walk around with its sort of tail tucked between its legs, but just be proud of the fact we're the greatest country around.
	That sort of pseudo-jingoism is too much for them.
	They don't like that.
	They get freaked out by all that.
	So anyway, Hillary said this about foreign policy.
	I think Trump's going to do better against her in the debates on foreign policy than a lot of people realize because of Libya, because of Syria, because of the Middle East, and because of just a record of failure.
	And you can say what you will about somebody not having had a shot.
	If you've done a job and you failed at the job, I think that's worse than never having had the job, if you know what I mean.
	And that's what I would say.
	So, speaking of failure, you've got all of these different media outlets out there that are completely losing their minds over the Trump speech.
	They think that this was a catastrophe.
	In a sense, I think they're all actually really happy with this because it means that they get to return to their favorite theme, the favorite theme of the anti-Trumpers on the left, right?
	Not the Never Trumpers on the right who are understandably concerned about his constitutional literacy and all the rest of that.
	Okay.
	But on the left, it's all he's a racist, he's a xenophobe, and he's hateful, and he's a dictator in waiting, which I have to say, it's interesting to see the left, the same people that want to make sure that evangelical bakers make that birthday cake or make that wedding cake, rather, pardon me.
	They're the same people that talk about Trump being a fascist.
	So Donald Trump breathes fire in immigration speech.
	That's from the BBC.
	Mother Jones, Donald Trump just gave his most extreme immigration speech yet.
	And I love this from Mother Jones.
	Just because, because why not?
	They throw in some tweets from David Duke's Twitter account because that somehow is reflective of what Trump said.
	I mean, this would be like pointing out, this is when you point out, you know, any jihadist who's engaged in a mass casualty Islamic terror attack on U.S. soil.
	You're going to go back and see, do you think more likely to be a registered Democrat who votes for Democrats or a Republican?
	Is that really a fair argument to just sort of bring up all the time?
	Well, Donald Trump constantly has to be asked about David Duke as though he's somehow a part of the campaign or someone that Trump knows or respects or anything else, which we know he does not know him and disavows him, and they keep asking him to disavow him.
	But this is just a sort of continuation of the old media game of, you know, wait, you know, when did you stop beating your wife?
	Well, I've never beat my wife.
	So you're saying that you've really, it's been a long time since you've beaten your wife.
	That's a fair.
	Well, no, actually, I've never actually laid a hand on my wife.
	Well, we're going to have to verify that you've never, they just keep bringing it up, keep trying to create this association in the minds of everybody.
	Because if they can convince enough independents that a vote for Trump is a stamp of racism, a sort of stain on your, I was going to say on your immortal soul, but I mean, let's be honest, a lot of Democrats, do they really even believe in that stuff?
	Come on.
	That's for foolish people who read the Bible.
	That's what Democrats think.
	Some of them.
	Not all of them.
	Some of them.
	A lot of atheists of the Democratic Party.
	A lot of atheists at the right too, I guess.
	Neither here nor there.
	Point here being that if they can convince Americans or they can convince independents that a vote for Trump is racist and a vote for Trump makes you a bad person, then they win.
	So that's the main effort here.
	That's what they're trying to do.
	Oh, you also have a Mexican president blasting Trump's policies as a huge threat.
	This was after the meeting yesterday.
	So this being reported on by Reuters.
	And there's more and more.
	Oh, Slate, which is another left-wing site.
	It's fun to read the left-wing sites because they're all just in a panic.
	Oh, my gosh, what are we going to do about Trump?
	Trump finally clarified his immigration stance and it's vile.
	I'm sure there'll be a piece on Vox soon about ways to prepare your inner emotional self for the next scary Trump speech.
	So you get all that happening.
	Then you can take a look at actual Hillary policies on immigration because they're all saying that Trump's policies are terrible, that it's the worst thing you've ever seen in your life.
	This is going to destroy the economy, lead to trade wars.
	It's white nationalism rising.
	All this stuff that you hear.
	And yet, when you go and you look at Hillary's website, which I find to be an interesting little exercise, you see specifically on immigration reform, the categories that she breaks down, the things that she says, they all don't last very long at all when you subject them to even the most cursory scrutiny.
	She says, do everything possible.
	This is from her side.
	Do everything possible under the law to protect families.
	If Congress keeps failing to act on comprehensive immigration reform, Hillary will enact a simple system for those with sympathetic cases, such as parents of dreamers, those with a history of service and contributions to their communities, to make the case to be eligible for deferred action.
	So she's just going to go around Congress.
	Isn't it fascinating that Trump is the fascist, that Hillary's the one that openly advocates for just saying that Congress doesn't get to write immigration law, that she would, as president, determine what the immigration laws will be and will not be.
	And let's not play this game of, oh, refusing to enforce a law as a blanket policy is not the same.
	Negating a law is not the same as rewriting a law.
	Yeah, it is an executive repeal of a law, de facto.
	That's what it is.
	And she says that she will defend Obama's DACA and DAPA executive actions.
	You know, already one of these is stalled in the courts.
	The courts, which, as we discussed yesterday, are now stacked with leftist loyalists because Harry Reid, crafty Harry, made sure that the nuclear option was in place for Democrats to completely transform the courts, not just by number, but also by temperament, to make them as progressive as possible in preparation for a Hillary presidency.
	A lot of alliteration there.
	Sometimes it happens.
	So that's another aspect of this.
	DACA and DAPA, she's just saying that we're going to do this on, I'll do this on my own.
	And anybody who's an honest constitutionalist believes in separation of powers should automatically be taken aback by this.
	But of course, it's Hillary Southern's going to sort of go along with all this stuff.
	This is another great one.
	Expand access to affordable health care to all families.
	We should let families, regardless of immigration status, buy into the Affordable Care Act exchanges.
	Mentioned this in the show yesterday as well.
	This is critical.
	We were promised by Obama himself that this would not happen.
	We were promised all along that there would never be, illegals would not, because the only way these exchanges are able to pretend to stay afloat, and by the way, they're collapsing left and right anyway, is with infusions of taxpayer cash to the insurers.
	You got to pay these fines, right, if you don't get the insurance.
	You have a cross-subsidy going on from people who make a certain amount of money to people who make less money.
	And this is all just a scheme for the redistribution of wealth via health care.
	And taxpayer dollars are going into this, being shoveled into this whole thing to keep it afloat.
	And now illegals are going to be, this is just another form of welfare for illegals.
	That's what it will be.
	And it was Congressman Wilson yelled, you lie in the State of the Union address at President Obama because we should actually get that.
	Can we pull for the next?
	Let's pull that clip in a minute.
	I'll get that.
	We should play it, so everybody can remember.
	That was a promise, a promise that was made from President Obama that there would never be illegals would not be able to buy into these exchanges because that would have been, think of the opposition.
	Oh, and now we're already there.
	Now we're already there.
	I haven't even gotten through all of Hillary's horrendous immigration policies yet and the lies that are inherent in what she's promising and proposing.
	We'll finish some of that on the flip side.
	Buck Sexton, InforRush, 800-282-2882.
	We will be right back.
	Buck Sexton here, InforRush today.
	Thank you very much for joining.
	We mentioned right before the break that moment when President Obama was at the State of the Union address and he was addressing the union and talking about the state of it.
	And who said that there were a few lies out there about Obamacare?
	And he said, for example, that there were the death panels.
	And then he went on to say that there's this lie being generated by right-wing talk show hosts about how, I mean, gosh, what's with all the hate about right-wing talk show hosts?
	We're lovely people.
	You know, people just get to know us.
	About how illegals would be able to buy into the exchanges.
	He said, absolutely not.
	Reform will not extend to illegal immigrants.
	Play what he said.
	There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would ensure illegal immigrants.
	This, too, is false.
	The reforms, the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
	It's not true.
	And one more.
	So that was where there was the yell of you lie, and everyone got very upset.
	It was very disrespectful, they said.
	So that was President Obama saying the reforms wouldn't apply.
	Now, I know what people will say to defend Obama on this point.
	I can already anticipate it.
	They'll say, no, but this is Obama didn't extend it to illegals.
	Yeah, but the framework was created so that they would extend it to illegals.
	And we all knew they were going to do that as soon as they had more government control and as soon as this law, which isn't really a law, it's really just more a set of government powers that they can sort of enact or not enact as they see fit.
	And it's so big, and no one's even read the thing, and it just gives all these different departments discretion.
	There's a lot of discretion built into the law, but knowing the nature and purpose of the Democratic Party, it was understandable at that time that, of course, once they got Obamacare through, guess what?
	They were going to extend it to illegals.
	And now on Hillary's official website, as I said, expanded access to affordable health care to all families, regardless of immigration status, i.e., I'm president Hillary, and I'm going to make sure illegals can buy into Obamacare.
	Does anybody care that they lied?
	I mean, does it matter to anybody that this was?
	I leave that to all of you.
	Let's take Rich in Missouri.
	What's up, Rich?
	Hey, Buck.
	How are you doing?
	Good, sir.
	Good.
	I just wanted to make a comment.
	I had watched for the past couple of days watching Fox, MSLSD, CNN, and all these guys.
	And a lot of these commentators are on there laughing at Trump about how he couldn't do, he couldn't go to Mexico.
	It takes months and months of preparation.
	And I've worked for the government for like 34 years, so I know the fat-bloated bureaucracy and what it is.
	And this guy did it in a couple of days, which Corey Lou and Dowsie finally brought it up last night on the CNN, and they were all stunned and couldn't answer to it.
	But this guy did what the bureaucrats wouldn't do.
	And I said, I think it shows that he can get things done if he needs to do it.
	And these people just hem-hawed around and didn't want to talk about it.
	And nobody wants to face up to the fact that this guy was able to blow the fat bureaucrats out of power.
	So, I mean, he pulled this together very quickly, and I think it was a big success for him.
	And government never likes anybody to realize that it is, in fact, a slothful and self-serving entity most of the time.
	You know, when I was in D.C., I was always very annoyed at the motorcades that were going across the city all the time.
	Like, can't they just get into like a couple of a black SUV or two and just drive like normal people?
	I'm sorry.
	I don't like this imperial presidency thing that we've got going on.
	It's been going on for a while.
	That's right.
	I want a president who's like, I want to drive the SUV myself.
	I'm just going across town in D.C. I'm sick.
	I'm sick of all this stuff.
	Absolutely.
	I want a president who's like way more chilled out of it.
	I live in D.C. The motorcades were insane.
	They were insane.
	Thank you for calling in, Rich.
	We're having a little back and forth here in the EIB headquarters.
	Yeah, of course.
	They would have, like the vice president would be going from the observatory to the White House, and it was like, all traffic has to stop and 50 cars.
	Who cares?
	Get a couple of SUVs.
	You got some Secret Service guys in them.
	Rock and roll.
	Get in there.
	It's ridiculous.
	All right.
	It's crazy.
	Mr. Snurdy's looking at me like I'm crazy.
	Well, I mean, maybe the president should be driving himself.
	That's a little excessive.
	And I mean, Hillary hasn't driven a car in 30 years, so we all know that's not going to happen.
	But I do think that they're a little excessive with all the presidential preparation, especially like inside of our nation's capital.
	You know, I'm not saying like hop a bus.
	He's the commander-in-chief, but, you know, or she would be the commander-in-chief.
	Yeah, it's just not that big a deal.
	It's just not that big a deal.
	You go to other countries where, quite honestly, there are way more security concerns than there are here.
	You know, the president's like a bunch of dudes with sunglasses on, maybe some short-sleeved t-shirts.
	They got, you know, they got some AKs and they're just rolling in SUVs.
	You don't hear, oh, gosh, we're going from like 15th Street Northwest to 20th Street.
	We need to shut down the entire city.
	It's absolute nonsense.
	That's my thought on that.
	We got more coming.
	Stay with me.
	Buck in for rush today.
	Leo is calling in from Northern Virginia.
	What's up, Leo?
	Hey, Buck.
	Thanks for having me on.
	Thank you.
	I wanted to say something about the whole Trump thing.
	You know, he's talking about putting this wall up.
	As soon as he said that almost a couple of years ago, I started a plan, action plan on how to do this and employ a lot of Americans.
	But furthermore, to go on to my point is paying for it.
	One of your callers said it, and you kind of disagreed with him, but he needed to clarify it.
	What needs to happen is anybody that is sending money through Western Union or one of those mechanisms offshore needs to be taxed.
	There's billions of dollars of under-the-counter money that these illegals are getting and sending back.
	I think it's $15 to $20 billion for Mexico alone from the U.S. is what the remittances estimate is.
	That's what they are.
	This guesstimate, yeah, that's a lot of money.
	So you throw on a tax on that in a couple of years.
	The wall's paid for.
	Just Mexico.
	Everybody sending money out of this country needs to be hit with it.
	It doesn't need to be, you know, 10 or 15% because then they'll quit sending it.
	Just a couple percent.
	Let them pay for it, and we're done.
	Game over.
	You know, Americans, taxpayers, we're done.
	We're tired of paying for everything and everybody.
	So why continue to make us pay for it?
	I think I'll be, look, I think actually building the wall is a much more important point, and that has much, much more, should have much more salience, I would think, than who pays for it.
	If it's $5 billion, it's $10 billion.
	Look, I mean, the government's spending so much money on so many things that it shouldn't be anyway that, you know, we just want to get it done, right?
	I think we're getting a little hung up.
	And I understand why, because it sort of is, there's a sense of justice because America has been floating the, well, America has been providing this economic boon, really, this huge benefit to Mexico for many, many years now.
	And the remittances alone are a means of propping up the Mexican economy.
	I mean, the remittances really do help a lot of families back in Mexico.
	And so people want to see this happen because they think it's right.
	But I mean, the money is not, I mean, $5 billion in terms of what the U.S. spends every year is not really that big a deal.
	No, and it isn't.
	Yeah, so I mean, whoever pays for it, I mean, let's just build, let's just build the, wasn't it John McCain build the dang wall?
	Wasn't that his ad?
	Remember?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	And John McCain's like a nice, centristy Republican, according to the New York Times.
	He's like one of the good ones, they said for a day before they tried to trash him, too.
	Right.
	So, yeah, yeah.
	No, we hear you, my man.
	Thanks for calling in, Leo.
	Appreciate it.
	Shouldn't we?
	Yeah.
	Well, we have a special guest calling in now.
	We're joined by my friend Amber Smith.
	She is an author.
	You also often see her on Fox News.
	Her book is out now, Danger Close, My Epic Journey as a Combat Helicopter Pilot in Iraq and Afghanistan.
	Amber, great to have you calling in.
	Thank you.
	It's great to be with you, Buck.
	So the book just came out.
	Tell us a bit about Danger Close.
	So my book, Danger Close, it's basically the untold story of how essential the Kiowa Warrior helicopter was in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan and how our contributions led to battlefield success in two theaters of operation on a daily basis.
	So it's my memoir.
	So it's my journey through, you know, why I decided to go in the military and serve my country, how I got interested in aviation, all of the training that goes along with it, and then going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
	And tell us a bit about that personal journey.
	I mean, I'm sure people initially, when you would talk to them about this, everyone was excited that you wanted to serve your country.
	But were people immediately supportive when you made it clear you wanted to be a combat aviator?
	I mean, you wanted to be out there in the fight?
	Well, so my story starts a long time ago.
	I come from a long lineage of military pilots and other aspects of aviation.
	My great-grandfather was in the Battle of Verdun, World War I, grandfather, World War II, and my dad was in the 82nd Airborne.
	Both of my sisters are military pilots.
	So I took the route.
	I went to Standard College at University of Washington, became a husky cheerleader, cheered in the Rose Bowl.
	And then 9-11 happened.
	And that basically woke me up to the realities that our nation faced after we were attacked by a terrorist organization.
	It sort of reignited my love of aviation and my interest in serving in the military and being a part of something greater and giving back to the nation that had provided me and my family with so many opportunities that we were so grateful to have.
	And so I knew at that moment that I wanted to serve in the best way that I think I could.
	And because of that background in aviation, that was the path that I chose to go down.
	And I think that it was by the grace of God that I was selected for the Kiowa Warrior because I just absolutely fell in love with the mission.
	It's so different than any other in Army aviation.
	Can you tell everybody listening?
	I mean, there's a lot of current and former military listening, but the Kiowa platform, what is it?
	What are the advantages of it?
	And what makes a great Kiowa aviator?
	So the Kiowa, it's a mini-gun ship.
	We carry a 50-cal machine gun.
	We carry seven high-explosive rockets.
	We have the weapons configuration of carrying hellfire missiles if we need to.
	And so it's just a light attack reconnaissance two-seater helicopter.
	We only carry the pilot and the co-pilot.
	And we fly extremely low level.
	So we fly in direct eyesight of the enemy, direct eyesight of the ground forces we're protecting.
	And we fly very low level, 50 to 150 feet at certain times.
	But our mission differs on a daily basis.
	So one day we might be searching for enemies in the mountains of Afghanistan.
	Another day we're hunting for IEDs, improvised explosive devices in Iraq, looking for the enemy and protecting those ground units that we're supporting to make sure that they're okay down on the ground.
	So in Danger Close, do you go into some detail about actual missions that you were flying?
	Absolutely.
	In Danger Close, I go super in-depth into what it is like to basically, you're going to feel like you are in the seat in the cockpit inside the Kiowa Warrior.
	And when you read this book, you're going to understand exactly what it's like to go to combat.
	And, you know, I'm so proud of my book, Danger Close, because it's basically the untold story of what it is like to go to war as a Kiowa pilot.
	Most of the times we hear stories of, you know, guys on the ground, infantry soldiers, Navy SEALs, but there hasn't really been very many books written about what it's like from that aerial perspective from a very low level, day in and day out.
	And it's definitely a different war, but we are there in the thick of the fight day in and day out with those infantry guys.
	Amber Smith is the author.
	The book is Danger Close: My Epic Journey as a Combat Helicopter Pilot in Iraq and Afghanistan.
	Amber, thank you for your call and thank you for your services.
	Great to talk to you today.
	Thanks so much, Buck.
	800-282-2882.
	Buck Sexton, in for Rush.
	We will be right back.
	Buck Sexton here in for Rush.
	And this is one of these stories where you kind of think, how is this exactly going to, how is this going to work?
	So you get these universities, some of them, some of the more fancy and elite ones as well.
	You get these schools that want to try and atone for their ties, their historical ties to slavery.
	Brown, Harvard, UVA, University of Virginia, all have taken some sort of steps in this direction in the past.
	Usually, though, it's we had a commission, and we just want to say that it's really bad, and we wanted to come to grips with what was done in some, you know, 100, 200 years ago, or sorry, 150, 200 years ago.
	And they, yeah, they usually just do that.
	It's some kind of a report that comes out that talks about the, usually it's a couple centuries old, but the school's connections to slavery, right?
	So that's what the schools generally have done, and not a lot comes of it beyond that.
	Then there was sort of the additional level of, well, maybe we should start renaming some, renaming some buildings that are specifically named for people with ties to slavery.
	And, you know, Yale went through this recently.
	And then it was pointed out that actually, I think it was Elihu Yale, although I might be, I didn't go to Yale, so I don't know.
	I did go to a school where we had to change the mascot, Amherst College, because he allegedly gave blankets that had smallpox to the Native Americans.
	But I mean, this is never proven and no one really knows.
	That's the rumor.
	So they had to get rid of it.
	We had this old British dude with the breeches and the old school colonial British hat.
	They had to get rid of that.
	And now we're probably going to have the Amherst moths or something.
	It's not going to be anything particularly exciting.
	The Amherst, I think it's actually maybe the moose is going to be the new mascot, which is whatever.
	I don't really care.
	I mean, it's a little sad they got rid of the weird British dude who used to dance around in a costume, but fine.
	But schools do this kind of stuff.
	And Yale, though, is not going to change its name, trust me, because all these places really offer you, I'm going to let you all in a little secret that pretty much all of you already know, I'm sure.
	They offer the brand name.
	You pay all this money so that you went to the place because depending on what you study there, there's not a single one of these fancy pants schools where you can't just sort of coast if you want to.
	So really, it's about the name recognition.
	And so they're not going to change the name of the school, as like at Yale, but maybe they'll change the name of a dorm or two here or there.
	Okay, Georgetown.
	I've had family, I had family go to Georgetown.
	It's a great university.
	I actually lived at one point just a stone's throw away from the university when I was a young CIA analyst making fantastic lattes for myself.
	And Georgetown is now saying that to come to grips with their ties to slavery.
	And now this is back in 1838, there was a sale of slaves that had that Georgetown University profited from.
	This is from New York Times.
	Nearly two centuries after Georgetown University profited from the sale of 272 slaves, it will embark on a series of steps to atone for the past, including awarding preferential status in the admissions process to the descendants of the enslaved.
	So how, okay, on a few levels, I have questions about this.
	First of all, I guess they're going to, how will they, how are they going to prove, how are they going to know?
	How do they check this out?
	Does anyone do you're going to do they're going to right?
	I mean, they're really going to use, no, they're going to go to that lake.
	I just wonder how they're going to verify this one way or the other, what the process for that would be.
	And also, I mean, how preferential already you have affirmative action in college admissions.
	Supreme Court just upheld it, I think unconstitutionally so, but they did recently.
	So you can use ethnicity in admissions already.
	So that's there.
	So now Georgetown is saying it's going to go even further.
	And specifically, if you were a descendant of one of these slaves that were sold in 1838, they'll give you preferential treatment in admissions.
	I don't know where all this is supposed to end and what they really think.
	This to me is just virtue signaling.
	First of all, how many people are we really talking about?
	I have absolutely, I asked that question, but I have no idea what the number is that they're going to, and how many of them want to go to Georgetown and how many of them are going to apply and even know about this special program that the university is setting up in admissions.
	But this sort of level of I don't even know.
	Again, it's sort of virtue signaling.
	It seems to be an effort to make the university appear particularly progressive and willing to come to grips with its past.
	But what about other people who have, you know, there have been bad things done to lots of people from all over the world.
	There have been tragedies of all kinds.
	In this case, it's specifically because the university financially benefited some 170-some odd years, 170-plus years ago.
	They're going to now say that they have sort of a financial and moral obligation specifically to the descendants of.
	So that's what they're saying.
	This is where all this stuff goes now.
	I don't know what schools are going to follow suit here.
	I mean, in a sense, I feel like this is kind of a sort of PR for Georgetown, which it doesn't.
	Georgetown's a very well-regarded, very well-known university.
	So I don't think they need to do this.
	And it's also not one of these schools that occasionally will do something really crazy and everybody's like, I mean, who cares, right?
	Because who's trying to trample over other people to get in there anyway?
	And Georgetown's a competitive place.
	So I don't understand what they really think this is going to accomplish.
	But this is just part of a broader theme you have across the country, that there will always be ways of trying to use the past to influence our present politics along racial lines.
	And if Georgetown's going to choose to do this, I guess they're going to go forward with it.
	You can expect that other schools are going to see this and probably think, well, what can we do now to show we're even more willing to come to grips with our past and our history than all of this?
	But like I said, Yale's not going to change its name.
	It doesn't matter that the school is named for a guy that sold some slaves.
	And what do we do about, you know, we've got like the Jefferson Memorial, and, you know, you got the Washington Monument.
	And, you know, you got a lot.
	All of a sudden, this starts to get real tricky.
	You're going to run up into a lot of problems here.
	George Washington University, what happens there?
	What do they call themselves the second best school in D.C.?
	Oh, what's up?
	Second best D.C. university?
	Take that, G.W. I just don't know what happens here.
	Where does it stop?
	It seems like a form of liberal nonsense to me, but this is what they're going to be doing.
	So there you have it.
	You can choose to send your kids there or not based on the progressive policies of Georgetown and all these other places.
	Oh, if you want to take, if we want to talk about anything else, by the way, lines, if you're on the lines now, we can still talk Trump, immigration, Hillary's terrible, you name it.
	That's wide open.
	Buck's exit in for Rush.
	We'll be right back.
	Buck in for Rush today on the EIB.
	I was right, by the way.
	Elihu Yale was a British merchant and philanthropist.
	You can just check this out on the Wikipedia.
	And he is known for being quite fond of or quite supportive of the slave trade.
	I'm trying to find, where was the quote about there?
	It should be a slave.
	The records of this period maintained a flourishing slave trade in Madras, a trade in which Yale participated.
	He enforced a law that at least 10 slaves should be carried on every ship bound for Europe.
	So, I mean, Yale, if you're going to come to grips with it, you better change your name.
	You'll notice that when it really is going to hurt these schools, when it's not just a bunch of administrators standing up and patting themselves on the back and allowing for a bunch of student activists to get together and have a teach-in or a sit-in or a something-in, whatever it may be, when all of a sudden it's going to hurt these billion dollars, yeah, that's right, billions with B's.
	These schools have tons of money.
	I mean, Harvard is basically like a hedge fund with a university attached to it now.
	And they have all this money, all this cash.
	When that's going to be a problem, though, you know, if you tell Harvard or Yale, they don't get to be Harvard or Yale anymore, they're going to call them something else.
	If you tell Princeton that it has to go back to being called the College of New Jersey, ooh, dang.
	It's rough.
	It's rough, Princeton.
	All of a sudden, people change their tunes on this stuff real fast.
	That's right.
	The College of New Jersey.
	It's the original name.
	Yeah, you know, it's just, you know, off interstate, whatever.
	All of a sudden, the Princeton Tigers don't want to hear this stuff.
	But yeah, so that's what's going on here.
	You've got more of this.
	And I do wonder when this will turn into other stuff.
	Anyway, hour three coming up.

▲