All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 26, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
October 26, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, there we go.
Greetings and welcome back.
Great to have you with us, Rushland Baugh, the all-knowing, the all-caring, the all-sensing, the all-feeling, the all-concerned, the all-everything.
Maha Rushi here behind the golden EIB microphone.
Telephone number 800282-2882.
The email address, LRushbo at EIVnet.com.
All right, look, still no phone calls, Mr. Sturdley.
Now, see, this is anecdotal evidence.
We don't take nearly enough phone calls here to make any kind of projection over what audience opinion is.
Do you know, folks, let me give you a little inside baseball statistical data.
Do you know what the percentage, and this has been documented with phone company research and all it's, I will admit it's research at predates cell phones as a predominant tool.
So it's probably 10 years old rule of thumb, but I bet it hasn't changed much.
Do you know what the percentage of any talk show audience is?
I don't care what size the, unless you're, you know, an audience of 10 or you have an audience of 50, but I mean, it's a significant audience.
Do you know what percentage of that audience even tries to call in?
It's one-tenth of 1%.
Try.
Do you know how many people are trying to get into this program right now?
We know those numbers too.
Like 150,000 people are calling right now.
This is a massive audience.
One-tenth of 1% is a large number.
Do you know how many people we talk to every day here?
Maybe 10.
Max, good day, maybe 15 or 20.
It's not very many.
That's why when the drive-bys in the old days of this program, what do your callers think?
I said, it doesn't matter.
I don't talk to enough of them to know.
You can't extrapolate what people say on my program and any kind of public opinion.
What I say here is what counts.
No, no, what do your callers think?
So I make it up and tell them that they're saying exactly what I'm saying just to get the just to get the message out.
So that's why, and there's a caveat there, even though Mr. Sturdley hasn't answered a single call.
But no, we don't answer 150,000 calls.
No, no, no, no.
That's how many people are calling and you have a busy signal.
Well, that's how many busy signals there are.
We don't know how many actual people, but I doubt that people are trying on three or different phones at a time.
You never know.
Point is, just because we have an answer to call from somebody saying, you got to play the Newton Megenbites, doesn't mean that some of you out there don't want to hear it.
I'm just, everybody else has played it.
You've heard it by now.
I can tell you what I think of this without playing a single sound bite.
You ready?
If I had found myself in that interview last night and everything happened exactly as it had happened, and Newt had asked her to say the words, Bill Clinton, sexual predator, and she came back and said, well, he's not on the ballot, and we've covered that story, sir.
I would have said the woman who is on the ballot enabled her husband as a sexual predator.
And that is much more important than what Bill Clinton did at this moment in time.
Yeah, Clinton's not on the ballot.
He's going to end up back in the White House if she wins.
And therefore, the place is going to be subject to the same kind of corruption, except over on the East Wing where the vice president's office complex happens to be.
But that's not the point.
If these people in the media want to keep bringing up Trump and sexual predation, if they want to keep bringing up the fact that women are not safe because of Donald Trump, well, then neither are they if Hillary Clinton's around.
Because Hillary Clinton enabled her husband.
Hillary Clinton defended her husband.
Hillary Clinton then searched and destroyed the women who came forward to accuse her husband.
And the women who were on the verge of coming forward to accuse her husband were threatened, were intimidated with all kinds of horrible things awaiting them if they did it.
We even have on tape Stephanopoulos talking to one of them about her future, what it would be.
He was talking to her and giving her her choices.
The woman on the ballot for the Democrat side is just as guilty because when her husband was engaged in this kind of predation and disrespectful treatment of women, she enabled it.
She made it happen.
She made it possible for him to continue doing this.
That's the story here, if you ask me, because Hillary is on the ballot.
The media is not going to change the way it talks about Bill Clinton.
It just isn't going to happen.
And even if they did, it's not a game changer.
It would satisfy some of us who are sick and tired of Clinton's getting away with everything for 25 years, but it's not going to change anything.
But what could change something, since women seem to be the focus of this, I mean, Megan and all these other females in the media want to try to warn every woman out there that women in general are not safe if Trump gets to the White House.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton, because she's a woman, she can be trusted.
She cannot be trusted.
A Hillary Clinton's incompetent.
Hillary Clinton does not know what she's doing on anything.
Hillary Clinton wouldn't be where she is if her name wasn't Clinton.
She doesn't have any standalone achievements, standout achievements and accomplishments that in any way recommend her to the presidency.
The only thing she's got is first lady who was given a bunch of power in exchange for her keeping quiet about her husband's sexual predator behavior.
And she exacted pounds of flesh after pounds of flesh.
She got control of Hillary care the first thing out of the box and she botched it big time and has assured us that she's going to go back and try to change and improve Obamacare by adding the Hillary care concepts that she developed.
And they were disastrous.
They were so disastrous the American people overwhelmingly rejected her health care plan when she fronted for it back in 1992 or 93 and 94 or whenever it was.
It might have taken up the whole first four terms of the four years of the first term, but she doesn't have any qualifications.
There's major achievements.
She cares.
Children's Defense Fund.
It takes a village.
What she is known for is the Bimbo Eruptions Unit.
What she is known for, and the reason that she has been nominated is that she saved her husband and thus saved the Democrat Party by agreeing to defend her husband and go after the women and not just the women.
She went after the entire conservative movement and blamed us for what her husband was doing.
It is the vast right-wing conspiracy.
That to me is a story.
Now, it's easy to say after something's happened and everybody's watched it, you know what I would have done, but that's what I would have done if I had found myself in that circumstance.
And I have found myself in that circumstance with people when I talk to them out there or with people who've called the program.
You know, equating Donald Trump and Bill Clinton is an exercise in attempting to force the media into reporting and discussing things they don't want to report and then claiming victory if you pull that off.
But I don't know how it helps anything.
But Hillary and having a bunch of people who do not know the history of the 90s learn it and learn her role in it.
You know, it's another interesting thing, too.
I saw a story the other day that something like 99% of all money donated this campaign from Silicon Valley, 99% has gone to Hillary.
99% of the total, I'm not talking about PACs and big-time fundraisers.
I'm just talking about employees and maybe CEOs, but these are the donations that max them out, max out at like $2,700, whatever it is.
The $8 million total from employees at Silicon Valley out by Google and Apple and Microsoft, old Microsoft's, I guess they got a Silicon Valley office, but you know, the tech industry.
And then I saw the reason is the H-1B visa program.
They all have bought hook line and sinker that we need open borders and immigration for high-tech, brilliant, high-tech, accomplished engineers to be able to immigrate to the country.
So then I decided I would try to look and see what Hillary's positions on the H-1B visa are.
You know what they are?
She doesn't have one.
She hasn't said anything about the H-1B visa program that I can find.
Trump has a policy statement on it.
He's got two or three paragraphs about what he would do and deal with and change it, reform it, what Hillary, not a single word.
And these dolts in Silicon Valley are giving their money to her anyway, assuming, because she's Democrat, she must have the right answer on these things.
She hasn't said a word about it.
Those are the kinds of things that she's benefiting from.
And those are the kind of people I think could really benefit from knowing exactly who Hillary Clinton is.
Now, maybe they would look the other way.
Maybe they are these people.
Maybe a lot of Democrats are of the frame of mind that anything it takes to beat conservatives, we will support.
So if Hillary Clinton had to destroy a few women, it was worth the price.
And they may be of that mindset.
I think many of them actually are.
But I don't think enough attention has been paid to Hillary Clinton's role.
If Trump's so-called sexual predator nature is something the media wants to not let go of, then the way to deal with it is not to bring up Bill Clinton.
I mean, you can bring up Bill Clinton, but you have to bring up Hillary.
You have to let people know her role in this.
If women have become innocent victims, if women running around today are unable to protect themselves, if the picture that we're painting, if the caricature we are creating is of women that are helpless, waifs,
who are at risk of predator men throughout the busy day, then we have to somehow involve Hillary Clinton in that recipe in truthful and honest ways.
That when it came to defending and protecting women who alleged that they had been abused or even raped by her husband, those women were nothing but scum who had to be dispatched and just swept out of the way.
That's what I think should be the focus.
Russia's been trying, you know, and it just doesn't stick.
Well, the media is not going to let go of this Trump women thing.
You guys just better own up to that.
They think they're onto something big and they're not going to let go of it.
It's not.
It's not going to turn Trump supporters away from it.
This is what they don't understand.
Maybe they do.
Maybe they're trying to freeze the undecided.
Maybe they're trying to freeze people who might be inclined to vote for an outsider just because they're fed up with how the elites and the insiders have just ruined practically everything or done great damage.
So they're trying to put breaks on that kind of thinking.
I don't doubt that's the case.
That's why Hillary has to be brought into this.
Okay, let me take a brief break.
We'll come back here.
We've got some soundbites that have happened since the program began.
I've got my regular roster, but I want to get started on the phones because if I don't, I'll keep putting it off like I did yesterday.
And I need to get to you people sooner so that you're not waiting on hold as long.
Let me check the email during that obscene profit break we just had.
Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Limbaugh, what does it matter when Obama canceled Freedom of Information Act requests?
What does it matter?
Actually, I'm glad you asked.
I should have explained this when I made the observation.
Obama had to end Freedom of Information Act access to presidential communications.
If he hadn't done that, there were only two ways to keep the Obama and Clinton emails buried.
Remember now, Obama lied to the nation about a lot of things, but this particularly when he said he didn't know she was using a private server until he found out like every one of us did on the news.
But it's an out-and-out lie because he was using it.
He knew she had a private server.
He was using a pseudonym so that he wouldn't be discovered.
And it was a way around sending classified information, ostensibly.
So if they want to keep that secret, there's only two ways to have done it.
They would have had to designate every email between Obama and Hillary as classified, and that would have been a confession that not only Hillary, but Obama himself had been unlawfully transmitting classified information over a non-secure system, which everybody even now is denying happened.
So they couldn't do that.
That would have been admitting they were guilty, and Comey would have had no choice.
There would have been intent out the wazoo.
The second thing they could have done was to invoke executive privilege, and they weren't going to do that because that's what Nixon did.
That's what Nixon did in Watergate to try to bury incriminating evidence there.
And as we learned in the Supreme Court's Nixon ruling, the invocation of executive privilege cannot shield evidence relevant to a grand jury investigation or criminal trial.
That, again, is why Obama's DOJ never opened a grand jury investigation and had no intention of turning this into a criminal case because there was no way to shield the evidence.
Nixon tried and got blown up.
So he had to end Freedom of Information Act access for the first time in 30 years, and it didn't raise a red flag anywhere.
And the whole purpose of it was to not get caught.
In fact, there's a great piece here today that runs at thefederalist.com by Tim Amundsen.
And the headline, if the media investigated Hillary like they did Watergate, we wouldn't need WikiLeaks, all in due course.
Here's Alicia in Voorhees, New Jersey.
Great to have you.
You're up first today, and I'm glad you waited.
Hi.
Thank you.
I have 30 minutes on my lunch break.
I listened to you for 30 minutes a day.
I want to first, real quick, tell you, I don't watch Megan Kelly anymore.
I need a good job.
I don't have a good job.
I am literally making the same amount of money I made in 2004, and I'm capable, and there are no jobs.
So she's not giving me the information I need.
I don't want to hear about this mess anymore.
I want to work.
That's what I want.
But that's not why I called.
I wanted to tell you, I went to the Newtown Pennsylvania rally, and I want to tell you something from a Trump supporter's perspective, and something I think the Trump campaign's missing, something big.
But I was down in the rally, and I went to the, I went in line at the bathroom.
I'm talking to all women, and they're so frustrated.
And this fires us up more when we hear this stuff.
It fires us up more.
But all of them are saying the same thing.
I have two kids, and I can't afford to make my payment on my credit card.
You know, I don't have a good job.
They're all saying the same thing.
And they're all saying, I'm going to vote, but what more can I do?
What more can I do?
They're so frustrated.
I go into the rally.
I'm working the line and talking to all of them.
And then I go into the rally and they're saying the same thing.
I'm like, well, what would you do?
Would you get an absentee ballot for someone?
Yeah, I would do that.
Would you get your neighbors to the polling place?
Yeah, I would do that.
And I say, but no one's asking to do that.
They're just asking you to vote, right?
And they go, yeah.
Okay, wait, wait, wait.
Hold on a minute here.
I'm having trouble keeping up.
And time is what is the Trump campaign missing?
This is what they're missing.
And I pushed my way through the crowd in Newtown, Pennsylvania, and I spoke.
I asked for a member of the Trump campaign, and I spoke to this very handsome Italian man.
Anyway, I digress.
But this is what they're missing.
Was he a stud?
It was.
Well, my girlfriend thought he was.
His name, his last name sounded like Marinarisoff.
He was very nice, Italian, very nice.
Anyway, but that's not the point.
The point is this.
In my view, the Trump campaign had the biggest ground game in American history and American political history.
They're just not tapping into it.
They're forgetting that Trump supporters, they're workers, they're doers.
They're worried.
They'll do anything it takes to get Trump elected.
Listen, Ross.
Wait, were you telling me that...
Hang on here just a second.
Alicia, don't go away.
Okay, back to Alicia in Voorhees, New Jersey.
So just to make sure I understand, your point is that there's tens of thousands of people appearing cumulatively at these Trump rallies, and they are a ground game waiting to be mobilized.
If somebody would just tell them that, right?
That's what you're saying.
Yes, and I've been trying.
That's why I pushed my way through the crowd to speak to the Trump campaign representative because I noticed the same thing when I went to the Chester PA rally week before that.
No one asked me if I was registered or anything.
I'm a project coordinator.
You know, my question, Alicia, is how do these people not know this?
I mean, these are they don't let me.
Let me give you an example, Rush.
At the Chester PA rally, I was standing in front of an 89-year-old man who I was just talking to, and I started working the crowd, and I was talking to him, and I'm like, you got everybody voting for Trump.
You need any help?
You need to find your polling place.
And he didn't know how to get an absentee ballot for his sister that lived with him, who was, you know, so I helped him and I showed him how to do it.
That's my point.
But this is the thing.
These people are workers.
They're doers.
They'll do it.
You want a ground game?
Just ask them to be yours.
Look, I know who these people are.
I know them like the back of my head.
They are people whose lives are systematically being destroyed by policies emanating from so-called elites in Washington and New York.
They haven't had a race like you.
You haven't had a raise since 2004.
So many Americans are in that same boat, and all it takes is to listen to people prattle on about the need for more illegal immigrants to be legalized to do certain work.
I've got a story here in the stack that's an editorial writer at the New York Times advocating, one of the editorial board members advocating a compromise on amnesty that is the end of the country.
I'll get to it here in just seconds.
I know who's in these rallies.
I know what motivates them.
And I do know that on occasion, Trump has asked his supporters to volunteer to be poll watchers, for example.
And then there's a story, the True the Vote people, Catherine Engelbrecht, she was one of the groups denied tax-exempt status by Lois Lerner at the IRS.
That group has written an app for your smartphone that is designed to let you report election fraud when you see it.
Well, do you know what's happened?
Because of that app and because Trump has been asking his supporters to volunteer as poll watchers, the Obama Department of Justice, and I've had the story sitting here for a couple of days.
The Obama Department of Justice has issued a warning to people, citizens, Americans, about how you can break the law by being a poll watcher.
If you report voter fraud and substantiate it by taking photos, you can be prosecuted yourself.
The Obama Department of Justice is doing everything it can to intimidate average ordinary Americans out of, away from, paying attention to what's going on.
People from the United Nations, from Central America, South America, anyone else doing it seems to be tantamount to a hate crime.
Because Obama's got international poll watchers, and they're fine and nanny.
You bring the UNB people in here, Central America, South America election observers.
And that's fine, but if you try it, they are trying to let you know.
Have you seen the story that they was never going to happen?
They might prosecute Justin Timberlake because he took a selfie of himself voting.
Did you see that?
I have no idea who Justin Timberlake would vote for.
I have no idea that I'm surprised Justin Timberlake, well, there was no way they were going to prosecute Justin Timberlake.
But they put the story out there that he might be in trouble because the objective here was to intimidate you and people that are not just True the Vote.
There are other people writing apps.
People very, very worried about it.
Now, here's the New York Times story.
This guy's name is Eduardo Porter.
And he is at the New York Times editorial board.
And here is his idea on immigration reform.
Now, you tell me what you think this is.
Maybe the answer, writes Eduardo Porter of the New York Times, maybe the answer instead lies in another direction.
He doesn't want walls.
He thinks Trump's full of it.
Any Trump idea is wrong.
That's what he's countering here.
Maybe the answer instead lies in another direction.
Rather than building a bigger wall, my solution consists of opening a door in the wall that we already have.
The best way, he writes, the best way to stop illegal immigration may be for Mexico and the U.S. to create a legal path for low-skilled Mexicans seeking work in the U.S. Do you follow that?
Maybe the solution to illegal immigration is to stop calling it illegal.
Maybe the solution to illegal immigration is we get together with Mexico and we create a legal path for specifically low-skilled Mexicans who want to work in the U.S. And that path, think of it as a real path, think of it as a legal route or whatever.
Because he says, isn't this the objective anyway?
Isn't the reason we're arguing about this because we need this low-skilled labor to do work Americans won't do?
And we're tying ourselves up in knots.
So let's just get together with Mexico and admit that Mexico and the U.S. wants low-skilled Mexicans to be able to come to the United States and work.
So let's just say that we're going to make that legal.
It's kind of like saying that we are going to outlaw fraud by declaring it legal.
Then he says, when I hear secure the border, I think that's great, but it's not the solution.
We need laws that enable us to get the immigrant workers we need for the economy to work and do it in a legal way that doesn't require employers to resort to a black market.
That was a quote from a guy named Carlos Gutierrez, who was a commerce secretary under George W. Bush.
So Eduardo Porter is quoting Carlos Gutierrez in the second part there.
He says, this might sound like a giveaway to employers seeking to undercut American workers with cheap foreign labor.
Neither major party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton or Trump is very likely to embrace the approach in the home stretch of the presidential campaign, and yet it deserves a hearing.
In more than 50 years, it's the only strategy that has worked.
So this, if this is the stated opinion of somebody at the New York Times editorial board, I guarantee you this thinking reflects the thinking of establishment thinking and elite thinking.
We want those low-skilled workers here.
Republicans want them here because cheap labor, Democrats want them here for voter registration.
So that's what we're really talking about here.
And they're saying we've been sidetracked by all this other stuff.
It's really a specific group of people everybody's talking about, low-skilled Mexicans.
That's who we want.
We need to carve out a path that makes it legal for those people to come here and be hired.
And that is what I dare say that any other Republican nominee would have agreed to.
The Republicans are on board with amnesty as it is in certain ways.
This would be right up their alley.
So this is the simplification of a very complicated issue.
And this is called immigration reform.
But it's not.
It's not immigration reform.
It's what Daniel Patrick Moynihan defined or used as this example of defining deviancy down.
It's when you figure out you can't stop something you don't like from happening, you just legalize it and say it's normal and you give up.
So if you can't stop people robbing 7-Eleven stores, you stop making it a crime and call it progress.
Defining deviancy.
In this case, if we can't come to an agreement as Americans on what to do about illegal immigration, well, let's just pick out the people we're talking about here and make them legal.
And we'll call it reform.
And it isn't.
It's giving up.
It's caving in actually caving in or giving ups the wrong way because the people advocating this, it's exactly what they want.
So we actually have to say that this is them winning.
But my point is, this is exactly the stuff going on out there, the reason Trump has millions and millions and millions of people supporting him because the country's being given away.
It's about lawlessness.
It's about illegality.
It's about that kind of behavior being rewarded.
That's not how we were raised.
That's not how we were taught to behave.
It's not what we were taught to honor.
And when all of this has a quantifiable negative impact on people who already live here, it can't be justified in any way, shape, matter, or form.
So then we're left to the analysts trying to tell us what's behind this.
And they will tell us now that they actually think it'll work, Rush, just like the current spin on the Obamacare premiums rising.
Rush, you're wrong about the fact that they just want a single path, a single payer path.
You're wrong about this being a design failure.
These people really thought this would work.
I don't subscribe to that because I have, when we come back, some sound bites from Obama himself explaining what the whole game is all about here.
So don't go away.
Quick phone call here before the Obama sound bites.
Things are starting to back up again here, folks, as they always do now, each and every day.
Marysville, Ohio, this is Tim.
Welcome, sir.
Hi.
How are you, sir?
I'm excellent.
I'm glad you called.
Hey, just some comments concerning Mr. Trump's discussion with you yesterday.
Yes, sir.
I live here in Ohio.
We are in such dire need of Republican leadership that it isn't funny here in this state.
And Donald Trump represents to me the strength that our Republican leadership needs to have.
And it is my belief that if he wants to take Ohio, he has got to keep up the attack.
Show no sign of weakness.
He can't change his message.
He's got there on the attack, and he has got to keep pounding.
and that's the leadership that we need here in Ohio.
You mean, are you...
I hope he's not changing his tones.
Well...
No, he's not changing his tone at all.
But are you reacting to the you wish he would stop defending himself every time he's attacked for something by a woman?
No, no.
I'm reacting to, I'm reacting to him saying, go to message, or do I keep going this direction?
Keep up the attack.
Keep up the attack.
You know, that's what I'm looking at.
Yes, he's got his talking points.
Yes, they are excellent talking points.
We hear them.
But if he lets up one minute on his attack, the media will eat him alive.
And if he is questioning himself, if he's going to his aides and they're telling him, hey, maybe we want to campaign more this direction and more on topic, uh-uh.
It's got to be the attack.
I stood there in the middle of the.
Okay, so it is.
Because if you're bouncing on what happened on the program yesterday, what I asked him was, why does he keep responding to every allegation from a woman that comes forward and says that he did something to her instead of staying focused on the issues?
And he said, my advisors tell me to ignore him.
My advisors tell me, but I can't.
They're lying about it.
I'm not going to let liars cement what they're saying and have it understood because it's not true.
I'm not going to sit there and let people get away with lying about me.
I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that doesn't get established in the historical record.
I'm doing it for me.
I'm doing it for my family.
And the reason that this made news yesterday is because up till yesterday, everybody in the media thought Trump was doing this because he's a narcissist and an ego freak and is undisciplined and isn't really concerned with winning.
All he is is selfish and greedy and focused.
And when they heard him say what he said yesterday, they now have a totally different take on why Trump is doing it.
They were unable to figure it out on their own until I explained it to them after the interview.
They really thought that Trump was undisciplined and off message because he doesn't know what he's doing and he's easily baited and sidetracked.
And he made it clear that he's making a conscious decision to do these things and his advisors are telling him not to do it.
And that was important too because I have people, you got to get hold of Trump.
You got to tell him he's going to stay focused.
And I keep tell everybody that tells me that.
If you don't think he's got advisors telling him that, then you need to get up to speed because he does.
He just follows his own drummer, his instincts.
He just follows them.
And if he thinks somebody's telling a lie about him, he's going to pounce on it.
And I actually think, Tim, that he has been able to do both.
I think he's stayed pretty focused on.
He pounded Obamacare relentlessly yesterday and last night and into today.
And it's fascinating to watch the left react to it.
And I'll just tell you what, the conventional wisdom reaction to the news that Obamacare premiums are going up 25% average.
We learned in Arizona it's 116%.
You know what the left is saying?
Media people.
Well, Trump's missing the boat on this because that's not going to affect all that many people because most people get their health insurance through their employer.
Most people get their health insurance at work.
And so these premium increases don't even matter.
It's not something that a majority of American people are going to feel or care about.
And right there, everything is all wrapped up.
They don't care about the damage being done to the people it is ruining.
They don't care.
The left, the Democrats don't care.
The substance of these issues doesn't matter to them.
Only the politics of everything matters.
And they think this is a win-win for Obama.
Premium increase is a win-win because it's not going to affect that many people.
Which, of course, is BS because it's going to affect all of us because there isn't one aspect of it that's free.
Okay, my friends, the fastest three hours in media continues to just roll on.
They go by there really, really fast.
We've only got one hour left in the big program today here.
And I'm going to try to cram as much into it as I can, including more exciting phone calls from those of you patiently waiting out there behind the blinking yellow lights on our state-of-the-art phone bank.
▲
Export Selection