All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 5, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:13
December 5, 2016, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, Rush Limboy, your guiding light, doing the job that drive by media used to do, maybe, if so, a long time ago is I am America's real anchor man.
You want both sides of a story?
You get it here.
Not only you get both sides of a story, you get the proper opinion.
A learned reasoned opinion.
We never ever, I personally never talk about things that are unimportant or irrelevant, even though you might think so.
Nothing discussed on this program is ever unimportant.
But we are on the cutting edge here.
So while you may hear me discuss something that you haven't heard discussed anywhere else, guaranteed a week, two, maybe a month or two down the line, it'll become mainstream and you'll go, wow, Rush was talking about debt a month ago.
You will have experiences like that regularly here.
The IB network.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address L Rushbo at EIB net.us.
It's a new email address.
Uh one little bit of additional information on Al Gore, traipsing into the Trump Tower to meet with Ivanka.
Again, this is all third hand.
I don't know any of it to be true.
Well, I I've I've uh I do know that Al Gore went there.
Somebody said they saw him in the elevator cam.
He may get an elevator cam.
Just showing it coming out, so he's already come out.
Okay, that means he went in.
If he came out, he had to be in there, right?
So it's true that he went in there.
Now the politico is saying, according to a source close to Ivanka.
For those of you in Rio Linda, that means it's not Ivanka talking, it's a source close to Ivanka, which means it could be somebody in the household staff, it could be somebody in the clerical staff, it could be her husband, it could be a good friend, but it's not Ivanka.
Politico says a source close to Ivanka told them at Politico that Ivanka wants to make climate change one of her signature issues, and that she wants the job of climate czar in her father's administration.
And she is moving her family to Washington.
So Politico says a source close to Ivanka says she wants to be in charge of climate change within the Trump administration.
Now, Trump, by the way, you may have heard the drive-by say that Trump believes climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chicoms.
He doesn't believe it was perpetrated by the Chikoms.
That's a joke that Trump tells.
But he does apparently believe that it is a it is a hoax.
Now it's very important to be specific about that.
Again, I'm begging the indulgence of those of you who've been here for a long time.
There are new people tuning in each and every day who are not up to speed contextually, so just indulge me here while I bring them up to speed.
Uh the climate's changing all the time, and nobody denies that.
But the idea that we control it is what's absurd, and the idea that there is man-made climate change is absurd.
And you know, even it's not true.
There hasn't been any documented temperature increase.
In fact, this hoax, can I tell you one thing it's about the the one thing?
The the the pro-climate change people have done a great job of complicating this with a whole bunch of esoteric scientific lingo, making it sound like it has the official imprimatur of people that wear white lab coats.
They wear white lab coats, they have automatic credibility.
They're either scientists or doctors or what have you.
The entire concept of man-made climate change is based on one thing, and that is computer models, not data, because there isn't any data.
How many times do you hear a climate change prediction include something like, and in the next year or two temperatures are expected to rise one or two degrees centigrade.
You never hear that, do you?
You always hear in 30 years, maybe 25, certainly in 50 years.
Well, I could predict something that's going to happen 30 or 50 years from now, and sound like a brain doing it.
They predict things 30, 50 years out.
None of us are going to be alive to know whether they're right or wrong.
They're not they're not going to predict anything where the lack of data could show them to be lying about it, but they are.
We have emails from the University of East Anglia in the U.K. that demonstrate how the scientists involved here have made up data in and among themselves to thwart the actual historical record.
There is no warming, so they have lied about how warm or cool it was in the medieval period or any number of ways to convince people that it's warming.
But here's the it's all computer models.
There isn't any empirical data of warming.
It's all based on data produced by computer models, and that data is only as good as the data that's being input into the model.
If it's fraudulent, you're going to get a fraudulent result.
But the one thing, the one thing, folks, on which all of this is based is CO2.
CO2, the greenhouse gas, it is a wild guess and nothing more, that if we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, that we're going to raise temperatures on the surface of the earth in ways that make it very difficult to be living on the planet in 30 or 40 years.
They've actually got young people believing that by the time they're 65, the earth will not be habitable.
Truth is, if there was a two-degree centigrade warming of the earth, the earth would get a lot greener.
A lot of people would benefit profoundly.
It would not be destructive.
Talk about melting snow caps, ice caps, North Pole, South Pole.
The bottom line, there isn't any data.
There is no empirical data that shows we are warming or cooling based on man-made or man-caused behavior.
Just don't doubt me.
Trump is on record as saying that he doesn't believe in man-made climate change.
But his wife met with others, his daughter met with Al Gore today, she wants to be climate czar.
So this is one of these things that I'm I'm waiting with at arm's length.
Because folks, the climate change issue is all of communism wrapped up in one bundle.
Militant environmentalism actually is the new home for displaced communists after the Soviet Union imploded.
And if the leftists and the communists promoting climate change, if they were ever able to, via policy, realize their dreams, we would have a worldwide communist government.
That's among the many things that's very bad and wrong about all this.
But these are the people behind it and sponsoring it.
And that's why it's so important that it has got to be shellacked and resisted.
And we've had some success because it's not even in the top ten of most important issues to people, and yet look, you can't stop hearing about it, can you?
No matter the fact they know people don't care, no matter the fact they know it's not that important to people, they keep drumming it into you.
They want you to think it's your fault so that you will accept globally mandated behavioral controls, loss of freedom in order to save the planet.
Give your life meaning and uh and all of that.
You know this election features so many things that are the exact opposite.
For example, in the last presidential debate.
Remember how the left and the Democrats needed the vapors when Trump said that he would not that night admit and confirm that he would accept the results of the election were he to lose.
The left had a fit.
Hillary Clinton started sniffing the vapors, the left media went nuts.
My goodness, this is a threat to democracy.
This is not how democracy works.
We cannot survive as a nation.
This is so undemocratic, we cannot survive if somebody will not concede the election.
And Trump said, Why should I do that tonight?
The election's not for three weeks.
Talk to me when the election's over.
And they went nuts, claiming Trump was undemocratic, threatening the very republic that we live in, threatening everything that was good and decent.
So the election comes and goes, and Trump wins.
And guess who is not accepting the results?
And thus, I guess, therefore threatening our great republic and our democracy and is just not behaving the way things should be.
It's Hillary Clinton.
The next thing, next example, all during the campaign, the left and the Democrats and many of the never Trumpers told us Trump's not serious about this.
He doesn't expect to win.
You know what this really is about?
This is about Trump starting his own cable news network.
Trump's mad at Fox.
Trump's dear then, he's a media guy.
What he really wants to do is have his own news network.
How many times did you hear that?
Enough times to never forget it, right?
Trump didn't want to win.
He knew he wasn't wanting.
He wasn't serious about it.
He was just setting the stage and establishing the foundations for an eventual Trump news network.
Barack Obama considering post-presidential digital media career, sources say.
President Obama has been discussing a post-presidential career in digital media, and is considering launching his own media company, according to multiple sources who spoke on background because they were not authorized to speak for the president.
Obama considers media to be a central focus of his next chapter, these sources say, though exactly what form it'll take.
Show streaming on Netflix, a web series on a comedy site or something else remains unclear.
Obama on a comedy site.
You know, Obama's a lot of things, but a comedian and funny on purpose, anyway, is not one of them.
Obama has gone so far as to discuss launching his own media company, according to one source with knowledge of the matter, although he has reportedly cooled on the idea of late.
When contacted for comment, White House communication director Jen Phasaki said, while the president will remain actively engaged in inspiring young people, and he is interested in the changing ways people consume news, he has no plans to get into the media business after he leaves office.
Isn't this just too cute?
First it was Trump threatening democracy by refusing the elect re uh accept the re-election results.
And then when they come in, it's a Democrats threatening democracy and refusing to accept the results for which they castigated Trump for in advance.
And all during the campaign they told us Trump had no interest in winning, he wasn't doing this for any reason other than to set the stage for Trump news.
The election comes and goes, and now we find out that it's Obama who wants to set up the Obama news network.
It is stunning how wrong these people have been and how wrong they continue to be.
And with that, let's move on to Taiwan, shall we?
Obama takes a call from the female president of the Trump takes a did I say Obama?
That was a faux pas.
Trump takes a call from the female president of Taiwan.
And everybody in the diplomatic corps and everybody in the Washington establishment, anti-Trump Trumpists, or anti-never Trumpers and leftists and the media have a collective cow.
But but oh my God, he's so stupid.
He's so st- Oh you don't do this.
They're not official.
He just slammed China.
He just insulted China.
He doesn't even know it.
The guy is so stupid.
His ego is so bad.
Anybody can call him and congratulate him, and he'll take the call.
He didn't know that he's not supposed to talk to her.
And they began their narrative that Trump is demonstrating his naivete, his ignorance, his lack of qualifications, and demonstrating just how dangerous he's going to be.
And then somebody said, wait a minute.
What if he did this on purpose?
And they all paused.
With a note of fear.
Wait a minute.
On purpose?
You mean Trump did this on purpose?
You mean Trump did this as a strategy?
Yeah.
And then they said, well, Trump's not that.
No.
It has to be one of the advisors.
It's probably Bannon.
Probably Bannon who told him Trump's not smart enough to do it.
Trump couldn't figure this out.
Trump doesn't know enough to do this.
And then as time trickled by, it became apparent that yes, Trump did it.
Trump did it on purpose.
It was strategic and it had a reason.
It had a diplomatic reason, and the diplomatic reason was exactly what he said during the campaign.
We're being led by a bunch of dumb people right now doing a bunch of dumb things, and I'm going to stop it.
If I'm elected, we're going to start being smart.
And so he takes a call from somebody he's not supposed to take call from.
Why isn't he supposed to take the call?
Well, they say you're just not supposed to take the call.
Who is they?
The people have been screwing things up for the last 40 years.
And so now the media is once again on defense, Trump on offense, media on defense, trying to figure this out, trying to come to the conclusion Trump may have been doing this on purpose.
They're asking, why would Trump want to insult the Chinese for crying out loud?
Does he not know how dangerous this is?
To which the retort is, were you not listening during the campaign?
Did you not hear every Trump rally, every Trump rally, and probably over half of Trump TV appearances.
He criticized the Chaicoms.
He called them out by name.
He accused them of manipulating their currency to our detriment.
He accused them of dumping all kinds of inferior products on the U.S. market.
He accused them of this and that and the other thing, and he said it was going to stop.
It makes perfect sense that he would take a call from the leader of Taiwan if for no other reason to get the attention of the Chikoms.
It makes perfect sense.
If you ever took the time to listen to Trump.
But even those who did listen to Trump, there's another thing he does that has them befuddled.
And that is he apparently means what he says.
And they are not accustomed to that.
And by they, I'm talking about the establishment.
Both parties, diplomatic core, the elites, they speak in a different language.
They never telegraph what they're really thinking, what they're really going to do.
They speak in code.
They speak in diplomacy.
As such, you never tell anybody what you're going to do.
You never tell anybody what you really think.
You got to leave your options open.
Trump doesn't do anything but tell people what he thinks.
And he's now acting on what he said he was going to do, and it's just foreign to most people in Washington.
Audio sound bites, more phone calls coming up on this.
Don't go away, folks.
I'll be right back.
Okay, we'll get started with the uh audio sound bites on the it's funny, the media and the experts reacting to Trump and the Taiwan call and other things.
We'll get to all of that in the next half hour.
I'm gonna grab a call here.
Guy's been waiting a while.
Edward in Atlanta, thank you for waiting, Edward.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
How are you doing, Russ?
Just fine, sir.
Thank you.
Listen, I I I want to say, as an African American male, I I think that I I've had the ability to be able to kind of like hear you for myself over this past election to kind of like really hear your words.
And I know a lot of times I think you have been given a bad rap over the years.
Because I think that the I guess in my opinion, people are not being intellectually honest.
There are some things that people may not like about what you said you say to some degree, but is there value in it?
You know, is it legitimate?
And I think oftentimes in this election cycle, it really, in my opinion, brought out the the lack of intellectual intelligence.
And I think that you know what I what I do what I do admire, you give your whys to to what you say what you say.
And it's not about I'm gonna say it, I hope you hope you feel the same way you give your whys, and that gives you ability to, you know, use critical thinking, you know, just one plus one two or as one plus one fourteen.
And I think that in how you do it, I think you do a very good job of it.
And I think that the thing to me, and and I'll say this, and one of the I think the reason why Hillary left the night of the um the election, because she did not have a consession speech.
I bet that's why she had to wait until the next day to create one.
Because everything was just so in the bag, and I think and I've even as I talk to people, you know, over the months, you know, anybody should have a problem with how the media handle this election, whether you like Trump or not, you you you have to be the lecture honest that they weren't fair and biased with the guy.
And I think sometimes you know, to me what what what concerns is that you're gonna have many people who still will not understand some of the fundamental things that that occurred.
And one of the one of the big big big things that I like to say, well, he has no experience.
Well, Barack didn't have any.
Well, everybody, you know, they're gonna have uh a support team, don't care what president what you know or not.
Exactly right.
Look, Edward, I'm my my time is dwindling here, but I want I want to thank you.
If I understand, you said that you you uh you listened to me for the past year and you discovered that what's said about me is not true, and the thing that you learned was that when I tell you what I think, I tell you why.
And and and you think I got a bad I can't tell you how much I appreciate you saying that, because that's one of my objectives.
It is explaining why I think what I think as a means of persuasion.
Uh, because that's what this is all about.
It's nobody's purpose is served by lying to them, at least mine purposes and not advanced.
But look, I have to take a break.
Can you hang on here for the bottom of the hour break?
It won't be much longer.
Sure.
Okay, good.
Is Edward in Atlanta and we'll be right back.
Don't go anywhere.
Okay, we're back to Edward in Atlanta, who uh is interesting.
Edward uh is African American, and he said that he'd been misled about who I am.
He finally listened to the program during the campaign and uh uh came to a completely different conclusion about me and thinks that I don't get a fair shake uh shake in the uh drive-by media.
You're right.
I appreciate your observation about that.
And I also appreciate your observation that when I tell you what I think and what's going on, I give you the why, which gives people you call it critical thinking, and I appreciate that.
As to your reason that Hillary did not concede that night is because she didn't have a concession speech, you may be right, because I I've talked to people who I trust who say that inside Hillary's hotel suite and camp that there was total chaos, that they were blindsided.
They thought Edward as late as nine or nine thirty, they were still gonna win.
And and she was just out of control, uh, angry and and throwing things.
I don't know about that, but I can believe the chaos and not having a concession speech ready to go.
I I can totally believe that.
And that's just part of the arrogance uh and and uh condescending attitude that that those people have for everybody.
I think you're right about it.
But Rush.
You know, Russia, I would I would also say this, and I and I think that I remember like when she ran against Barack, how her and Bill handled him, but then now that it's next to everybody's butt and butter, is it's all still politics.
And I think that even with Trump is here's the same situation, they're not giving him a fair shake.
And one of the one of the examples that I use sometimes, because it's it's kind of challenging to have uh this an honest you know conversation about politics, and I say when you look at economics one on one, the more of anything lessen the value of it, right?
So I remember like when um when when Obama created the 780 billion dollars out of thin air.
So my question is, what does that do to the value of money that's already out there now?
It lessens the value.
You can't argue that.
But then you got someone who like Trump, he's gonna come to let me let's let's lower the tax structure.
Now you still you still see the need for the money to be into the system, but now this is money that's already in existence.
You are so Edward, Edward, you are so shrewd.
You have a base you talk about econ 101, you've got it.
You are so close to the truth, particularly on the stimulus, that you are going to give me the inspiration to re-explain that to me because you are so right about that.
Look, I have to go, but I need to ask you.
I want to give you a brand new iPhone 7 or iPhone 7 plus if you'd like one.
All you have to do is tell me what size you want or what carrier you have.
Seven plus the shiny black one in ATT.
There you go.
All right.
So let me tell you what's gonna happen.
I'm not sure what I got Back there, so you're gonna get one of two.
You're gonna get a shiny black plus that is either exclusive to ATT or you're going to get one with no SIM card that'll work on any carrier.
In fact, I'll send you that just to be sure.
It'll work on it'll work on ATT, it'll work in Verizon, it's unlocked.
What kind of phone do you have now?
Um, I got the note the note it.
The note is four.
Oh, okay.
So you'll have to take this to the ATT store.
That's fine.
This is that's okay.
This is very important.
Uh I'm gonna try to make that easier.
I'm gonna try to find an ATT exclusive phone back there.
I don't think I got one.
I think I'm gonna have to send you uh it's from Apple, it's sim-free, no SIM card, it's unlocked.
You tell them at ATT it's a gift that it's sim-free from Apple and will work on ATT, and they'll set you right up, okay?
Got it.
You got it.
Don't and don't hang up.
No, no, you're welcome.
And Mr. Snurdley will get your address so we can get it out to you today.
You know, his point about stimulus is so right on that I need to mention this again.
Barack Obama, and this is this is it it's instructive and it's relevant to what Trump is doing now, as he also astutely compared.
The Obama stimulus in night in 2009 was not a stimulus.
That was just rhetoric, and it was designed to fool people, low information voters and others into thinking that 780, let's use the term a trillion, because that's what it actually ended up being.
Obama created the notion, and the media helped, that a trillion dollars from somewhere was going to be plugged into the private sector economy, and that that trillion dollars was going to provide such a stimulus.
New jobs, economic growth, it was gonna be great.
It was gonna be an automatic recovery mechanism from the Great Depression or recession of 2008.
But there wasn't a trillion dollars sitting somewhere unused.
We are, at the time, we were about 11 or 12 trillion dollars in debt.
So where does Obama get that trillion dollars to put into the private sector?
He doesn't have it.
We are in debt.
He had one of two options.
He could order the money printed, or he could get it from the private sector.
In either case, that's where it came from.
The government does not produce anything.
So Obama's stimulating the U.S. economy with a trillion dollars is no stimulus at all because before Obama can get it.
Well, more correctly said, before Obama can insert it into the economy, he has to take it from the economy.
So he gets a trillion dollars from the economy and then puts it back.
There's no stimulus.
There's no growth, there's no additional money floating around unless they printed it.
And that's his point.
If they printed the trillion dollars, then they vastly increased the supply of dollars, which reduced the value of dollars.
But there wasn't there wasn't a trillion dollars lying around someplace unused that we could put into the economy and have that trillion dollars added because it had to come out, even if you're printing it or borrowing it, it's still coming from the private sector and being put right back there.
It's a nothing it's nothing more, it was a it was a scam.
But it was a bigger scam than that, because of where Obama stimulated.
He stimulated unions.
75% of that trillion dollars went to unions and union jobs to keep them employed during this recession.
Why?
Because union workers pay dues.
They don't pay dues when they're unemployed.
When they're employed, they're paying dues.
The dues go to the union.
What does the union do with the dues?
A lot of that money is donated back to the Democrat Party, which is used for campaign commercials, Campaign elections and so forth, it's used to elect Democrats.
In one sense, it was a circuitous money laundering scheme.
Go get a trillion dollars from the Treasury, stimulate unions by giving it to public employee unions and teacher unions, and you go state by state, and you'll find out where the money went.
In Wisconsin, most of it went to teachers' unions in California, a mixture of teachers and public works unions.
And a portion of that is going to be donated right back to the Democrat Party.
So Obama can't go to the Treasury and withdraw a trillion dollars for the Democrat Party, but this was the next best thing.
But the bottom line is nothing was stimulated.
There wasn't an additional trillion dollars added to the economy.
And even with what was stimulated, there was, I mean, you're stimulating teachers' jobs and so forth.
There was no economic growth and none happened.
So people are saying, well, Trump's got his own infrastructure deal, and Trump's going to be spending a trillion dollars in roads and bridges and airports.
Yeah, and both philosophically and theoretically, you could make the same argument that Trump is pulling the same scam as Obama, except for one thing.
You know what this actually reminds me of if this happens?
Three initials.
FDR.
Let's just play a little game here.
Let's pretend that Trump actually does follow through on his plan to rebuild airports and schools and roads and bridges.
This is exactly what happened in the 1930s.
We built, ready for this?
In a span of five to seven years, we built the Golden Gate Bridge.
We built the Bay Bridge connecting Oakland to San Francisco and the Hoover Dam in the Depression.
That money actually produced things.
There were actual results from it, which created tax paying jobs, which created tax uh creating uh incentives, expanded the tax base, and increased productivity by enabling people in California to get to and from a massive number of new jobs much sooner and easier with those bridges.
If Trump is going to modernize airports with this money, and if Trump is going to modernize whatever he's going to modernize, if in other words, the Obama stimulus was never a stimulus.
It was a payoff to unions.
There wasn't one bridge rebuilt.
There wasn't one road rebuilt.
There wasn't one school rebuilt, like Obama kept promising.
In fact, all during the eight years of Obama, we kept hearing about the need for infrastructure spending.
It worked so well the first time they kept going back to it to convince people we needed to spend even more money.
But all during this time, not one new school was built.
Not with Obama money.
There might have been existing bond issues.
There were road repairs part of original, you know, prior budgets, but new schools, new bridges, new repairs, none of it happened with Obama.
There hasn't been any upgrading.
There hasn't been any modernizing whatsoever, because that's not where Obama put the money.
Now, if Trump actually follows through on this trillion dollars to modernize airports, you're going to have conservative arguments against it, claiming this is not how it works.
This is still federal spending, it's still budget busting, it's still massively expanding the government.
However, there will be tangible results that will result in improved and modernized airports, which will make them more economically booming, which they will be able to attract more traffic, more landings and takeoffs, which include fees, more cargo being moved back and forth through them.
So it's it's going to be an interesting uh philosophical argument.
The idea of conservatism and smaller government, less government.
But on the other hand, the projects we're talking about, who builds them?
I mean, the federal government built the interstate highway system.
It was a federal government expense.
Same thing with those two bridges.
They did it in connection with the states.
I mean, there was a lot of cooperation on all of these efforts, Hoover Dam and Nevada and so forth, and there were other things.
And don't forget, even prior to that, we did the Panama Canal, uh, even prior to the to the 1930s.
The point is, in the past, with a much smaller economy and a much lower standard of living, we have been far more productive.
We have built many more projects at a much faster rate before all the environmental impact studies were necessary and all this.
And if Trump does this, and if there are witnessable, demonstrable results of modernization at airports, you're going to be hard pressed to get people to find a problem with it.
What are you frowning at me for?
If well, it could of course it could backfire, but on the other hand, I forget my three initials FDR.
FDR doing all this stuff gave the Democrat Party a 50-year.
Guaranteed majority.
Well, that was his dream.
It didn't actually work out to 50 years, but he made the Democrat Party a majority party.
Remember, Trump's not a conservative.
So small government, less government, that's that's not how he sees things.
And I've tried to tell people this from the beginning of the campaign.
He does things and says things that sound conservative, and he's going to do things that sound conservative.
He's going to also do things that are not going to look conservative, because he's not an ideologue.
He's a results guy and get things done.
And he'll look at that trillion dollars as an investment, and he'll fab you'll tabulate a way of having of showing that it paid off.
Even though the philosophical theoretical discussion will argue against it.
I'll tell you the way he's behaving with the State Department's Taiwan business is just classic.
The State Department, the Obama State Department, is convinced that we are now a nation at great risk because this dunderhead Trump doesn't have the slightest idea what he's doing.
I mean, he's taking calls from the leader of Taiwan, he's sidling up to Putin, he's uh he's ripping into Castro, he's doing all these things the U.S. government just doesn't do.
He's doing all these undiplomatic things.
So the Obama State Department is offering its assistance.
And Trump is telling them to pound sand.
He really is.
He's telling thanks, but I got it.
I don't need your help.
And that's ticking them off even more.
And it's going to happen a lot.
They're going to be think tanks offer assistance.
Mr. Trump, you may not on this trillion dollar stream, you may not have a I don't care what you think, I'm going to do it.
So, folks, just buckle up because we're headed places that we haven't been politically in quite a while.
It's going to be exciting.
It's going to be maddening to some people, exhilarating to others.
Uh, but I think on balance, it's going to be enjoyable in one sense because the media and the Democrats are not going to know what hit them day after day after day, and they're going to continue to be on defense not knowing how to stop the guy.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Donald Trump threatens payback for U.S. companies that move abroad.
Donald Trump threatening to impose heavy taxes, i.e., tariffs, on U.S. companies who move jobs overseas and still try to sell their products to Americans.
He said he was going to do this during the campaign.
Nobody ought to be surprised.
You know, I think a lot of people watching this.
I'm not talking about you, Trump supporters.
I'm talking about the critics of Trump, opponents of Trump.
I I I think they didn't attach any seriousness to him during the campaign.
They just thought he was doing things the way they do.
Just say what you have to say.
To set yourself apart, to be different, to get people's attention, lie to them if you have to.
But he does a meanest stuff.
And now, here he is president-elect, and he's beginning to implement everything he said he was going to do, and they're just stunned.
You mean he really?
This is this is crony capitalist.
He can't do this.
Do you know how did the federal government um collect money?
What not the right?
How did the U.S. raise money before the 13th Amendment and the establishment of not the 13th?
It was in 1913.
Before the establishment of the income tax, what was the primary funding mechanism for the United States government?
Does anybody know?
Tariffs.
Tariffs on imported goods.
Tariffs on domestic goods that were export tariffs was the primary funding source before the income tax.
Are you saying they're justified?
No!
Did I say that?
I'm just telling you.
Tariffs is how the U.S. funded itself before the income tax came along.
Trump is merely beginning to implement everything he said he was going to do, and people are having a cow about it for a host of reasons.
Anyway, we've still got to get to the Taiwan call and the funny drive-by media and establishment reaction to it.
Coming up, don't go away.
Well, we have a little bit of update here on Al Gore.
Al Gore says, we've got the audio coming up, that the bulk of his time was not spent with Ivanka.
The bulk of his time was spent with the Donald.
And he found it to be an extremely interesting conversation to be continued.
▲
Export Selection