All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 3, 2017 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:42
January 3, 2017, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 podcast.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh today on the EIB.
Thank you so much for joining.
Great to have you with me.
It's kind of cool.
I got to do the last I think I did the last live show of 2016.
I'm getting to the first one of 2017.
You all know the number 800 28282.
Kick off the year.
I figure we would start about or start on uh on an issue that is everywhere in the headlines.
You really can't escape it.
And that's I think intentional.
There's an effort underway, widespread effort.
It's also born of ideology.
It's not just like this is some scheme, individuals coordinating, sitting around behind closed doors in the media figuring out ways to uh kneecap the Trump administration before it even comes into office.
But you are no doubt familiar with the Red Scare, right, which is generally referred to as a as a period in American history when there were uh all sorts of accusations and allegations flying all over the place about communist penetration of the United States, government of the United States overall, also referred to some by many as McCarthyism, despite the fact that McCarthy was actually right on a whole bunch of stuff.
If you uh don't believe me, just Google the Venoda Project, and you'll see that, oh yeah, there were actually a whole lot of communist penetrations of the United States government and communist agents working inside the United States government.
You can read Whitaker Chambers witness for a particularly moving account from somebody who was working on behalf of the Soviet Union.
But we had the red scare, and now what I see coming together, I think we could call the Trump scare.
That's where we are.
We are supposed to be terrified of Trump, petrified, absolutely shaking in our boots.
There's no there was no honeymoon, obviously, with the media after Trump's victory over Hillary Clinton.
There was no period of, well, let's just sort of all take five.
Right away, it turned into, well, the election was illegitimate.
It turned into fake news made Trump win, or Russian hacking made Trump win, or even the FBI director himself, James Comey, he made Trump win.
And since those narratives have been in some cases debunked, in others just merely not enough to sort of turn the tide of public opinion.
They've now sort of switched gears.
They've decided that they're going to get into a place where what they have to do is make everybody as fearful as possible about Trump policies that have not even been enacted such that there'll be no breathing room, no opportunity to get anything going, despite the Republicans having control in the House, the Senate, and yes, the White House, many state houses across the country talk a bit about this.
But you know, there's the hysteria that the media foists on the American people, and then there's also the hysteria that the media themselves seem to have fallen for.
Excellent example of this came up uh on Friday over the weekend, and it's sort of been in a constant state of uh evolution, if you will, this story.
It's been it's been evolving.
We were first told I want to make sure I give you the breathless headlines.
So just to step back for a moment.
The Trump scare is not just something that they're inflicting on the American people that the media and the Democrat establishment is pushing forward.
It's also something that seems to have infected the media themselves.
Some of them would seem to be terrified of us because they're making elementary errors.
They're making blunders, mistakes that seasoned journalists shouldn't make.
Now, there's a difference, right, between a malicious mistake and born of oh sloppiness.
But I think what we need to keep in mind is that when we're talking about Trump reporting, if it's negative, they're gonna tend to believe it.
If it falls into a broader narrative, they're going to give it more than the benefit of the doubt.
They're probably gonna run with it.
And if they have to later issue a correction or just hope the story dies down and nobody pays attention anymore to the fact that they were wrong, that's what they'll do.
Not just Trump policies, of course, but Trump's very legitimacy as president is being attacked constantly by the media.
And the most poignant or the most, I think, forceful example of this for them is the Russian hacking story, which we talked a bit about last time I was here sitting in for Russia on the EIB, but there's really an addendum to it now because part of creating the perception that there was a bigger involvement in the election is continuing to sort of push out stories on this on cyber,
on Russian cyber hacking, on the constant cyber cold war in which we find ourselves suddenly.
Not an issue so much for the administration, Democrats media, not an issue so much when Crimea is annexed, seized, invaded, all of the above by Russia.
Not so much an issue when Eastern Ukraine is in a state of war because of Russian, you could say irredentism, Russian belief that they still really should control and in all but name have parts of Ukraine.
That didn't get them so fired up in outrage.
What does, of course, is Hillary Clinton is no longer going to be able to be the standard bearer for the Democrat Party because she lost.
Oh, she lost.
It's so sad.
Troubles me.
Brings big crocodile tears to my face.
But they've got to get the story out there, and then they've got to keep it alive.
How do you keep it alive?
Well, you look for every opportunity you can.
You want people to think Trump is illegitimate, you want people to think Trump's in the pocket of Russia, and you want people to think that this specter of the Russian bear is just getting larger and more menacing every passing day.
Its claws get longer, its teeth get sharper.
Roar.
So scary.
So so scary Russia has now become.
That's what they want you to think.
And that's how you end up with a boo-boo of a reportage, a little mistake here that the Washington Post came up with, where initially, initially they say, I'm just gonna make sure I get the headline right here, that the headline was Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont.
And then the lead sentence was that a code associated with the Russian hacking operation dubbed Grizzly Step by the Obama administration has been detected within the system of a Vermont utility.
And then, quote, while the Russians did not actively use the code to disrupt disrupt operations of the utility, uh the penetration of the nation's grid is significant because it represents a potential potentially serious vulnerability.
I. Oh my gosh, Russia is going to be in a position to shut down the power grid because they hacked this power station in Vermont.
Washington Post running this story.
DC's favorite paper runs this news story.
And now, huh?
Slightly different news story that's getting run here.
This is from uh from yesterday, last night, Washington Post.
Russian government hackers do not appear to have targeted Vermont utility, say people close to the investigation.
Now, how do you make a mistake like this?
How do you go from Russia hacks a utility that gives it that's gives it access to the power grid, potentially in a position to maybe disrupt or even shut down parts of the grid to plunge the American homeland into darkness, at least partially.
Who knows how devious the schemes of these Russian cyber warriors really are.
Who knows?
That's what you were supposed to take from the piece, the initial piece, breathless headlines.
And now we find out that the computer upon which this malware was found wasn't even connected to the internet.
So unless some guy in a trench coat and a particularly spy like fedora, isn't that what spies wear?
Uh and a sort of a mustache attached to his glasses, decided to break into a Vermont utility or Vermont power station and upload some malware onto a computer.
This was not an active Russian hacking of any Vermont utility.
It just didn't happen.
It was a non story.
Now I know that the initial reaction to this is going to be from some.
Oh, well, mistakes happen.
But when you look at the way this particular mistake happened, it's really only possible because we are in an environment of the Trump scare, right?
Because we've been there there's been so much hyperventilating, so much hysteria about Russian interference in the election.
Not to say that it didn't happen at all, that they didn't try, but we're hearing about this day in, day out, every day.
And then also just the threat from Russia.
You're seeing lots of news stories about how concerned Baltic states, NATO allies in the Baltics are about actual Russian military interven uh intervention, not intervention, I should say, action against them.
It's just meant to sort of keep all of this going, keep us all in this constant state of fear, like I said, the Trump scare.
And Trump is tied to Russia, and they pushed his election, and it's all, and this was just too juicy a story to wait and get some details on.
The Post had waited a little bit, they would have been able to verify that there wasn't even a connection between this Vermont utility and the internet, and so this suspicion that they initially had, or rather this reporting that they ran with was essentially nonsense.
Here's how the Post uh talks about its correction brother.
The Post initially reported incorrectly that the country's electric grid had been penetrated through a Vermont utility after Burlington Electric released its statement saying that the potentially compromised laptop had not been connected to the grid, the post immediately corrected its article and later added an editor's note explaining the change, having to walk that one back quite a bit.
There's only so far you can walk back before you fall down, before you trip.
And I think the Post has uh hit its head pretty hard on this one.
But again, I I know maybe some some people might say this is sort of a reach.
This this is a mistake that can happen to anyone.
No, this is a completely uh reversed story.
Or this is a this is a non-story story that was getting huge national attention initially.
Russian hackers using a Vermont utility to penetrate the U.S. electric grid.
That's the headline they run with.
Because you see, you have to be scared of Russia.
We're all supposed to be really scared of Russia right now.
And oh, by the way, you have to be scared of Trump's ties to Russia, and you have to be reminded that Trump won because of Russia.
This is how you see all the connective tissue here, you see how the story all sort of ties together.
And that's the narrative meant for the mass of the American people, but even for journalists themselves, I think the hysteria has caught on with them or has been there from the beginning, I should say, probably.
They really believe some of this stuff.
They really think that a Trump presidency is an existential threat to they even use words like liberty now.
I'm even seeing journalists who write for places like the Washington Post or better example would be Slade or the Nation or some of the lefty blog websites out there, whatever they are.
Talking about the constitution and constitutional restraints on executive authority and government power and all the rest of it.
They're excited about this stuff now.
Now they want to go back to the vision of the founders, you see, because anything to reign in Trump, because Trump they want you to believe is going to destroy the country.
Trump is really the end of America.
And the reporting that you are seeing from now until who knows when is just going to reflect the fact that right now we are in fact, if you believe what they're telling you.
And if you don't believe it, because you're surrounded by people who do believe it, we are in the midst of not the Red Scare, but the Trump scare.
We'll be uh right back.
Buck Sexton and for Rush, give me a few.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh today on the EIB 800-282882.
Uh, please do give a call.
I would love to chat with you about whatever.
Got a lot to talk about.
2017, here we are.
I'm probably gonna say we're in the wrong year at some point.
It takes me about two months before I start writing it down properly.
I'm gonna be writing 16 until about March.
But here we are in 2017, and as I said, we are in the midst of the Trump scare, Maybe doing everything they can on the policy level, the national security level, the ethics level.
Oh, we'll get to that.
Put a pin in that one.
Get people terrified of the Trump administration before it even comes into office.
To make it socially unacceptable, you see.
That's if if they can't win the argument on the merits, if they can't actually convince people their policies are better, and you'd think that if Democrats were able to do that, they might be doing a little better right now in terms of the offices that they hold, elected offices.
You'd think that they would be able to count on more than just a few major deep blue states to make them competitive at the national level and for elections.
But no.
If they can't convince people their policies are better, all they have to do is convince enough people who don't really pay close attention that supporting Trump is racist, xenophobic, evil, that you really just want to destroy America.
Now all of a sudden dissent is the only form of patriotism.
After eight years of Obama when dissent was often called racist, if I recall.
Right from the get go, right?
Dissent was born of racism.
Now dissent is the most patriotic thing you can do because Trump is going to destroy all of us.
There's some uh celebrity group, I don't even then the name doesn't really matter all that much, but I'll try to I'll try to get it for you in a second.
Uh they want Congress to stand up.
And I love this game, you hear this from a lot of people, that they're not saying that everything Trump uh is going to do is going to be xenophobic, racist.
They just want to talk about how racist and xenophobic they think it's gonna be.
But they don't know yet, because he's not even president yet.
But when I'm wondering about the future of this country, and when I have concerns about where all this is going, the first thing I always jump to is what are really second and third tier actors telling me about politics right now.
What is the Hollywood set have to say about the future of this country?
I mean, when I want people who are in tune with the average American really know what's going on, I'm like, give me somebody who's paid a whole bunch of money to pretend to be somebody else sometimes on camera, because that is where the is where the real wisdom is.
Uh this is their plea to Congress to stand up against Trump.
Play it.
Dear members of Congress.
Dear members of Congress.
Dear members of Congress, dear members of Congress.
I'm mad.
Flabbergasted.
Furious.
Concerned for my children.
I'm worried for everyone.
The majority of Americans, regardless of who they voted for.
Did not vote for racism, for sexism, or for xenophobia.
And yet Donald Trump won.
And since he won, hate crimes are rising.
Women have been attacked in his name.
People of color attacked in his name.
You represent us in Congress.
You are our last line of defense.
So here's what we ask of our elected officials.
No, here's what we demand.
To the extent that Trump pursues racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, anti-worker, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, anti-environmental policies.
We demand that you vigorously oppose him.
We demand that you block nominees who threaten the rights of women.
The LGBT community, people of color, immigrants, and the poor.
And we want you to know that we are with you.
Yeah.
A whole bunch of stuff there they were talking about.
First of all, I don't think anyone needs to be told that a majority of Americans didn't vote for racism, xenophobia, or whatever.
But you you have to ask, what's the or who is the audience for this kind of a video?
I mean, Nancy Pelosi's already on board, right?
Oh, the Democrats are they're gonna do everything they can, and then some to oppose Trump.
They're gonna pull every trick in the book.
There's no sort of sense of fair play.
Hey, this is how Republicans did it this way when Obama was in office, so we'll at least respect that.
No, no, no.
Everything.
Up to and including this talk, and granted it's not gonna happen, but this talk that they were gonna try to slip in Merrick Garland as Supreme Court nominee for like a five minute re for the five minute recess in between sessions.
I mean, crazy stuff.
But people on the left with reach and audience and a platform, they're pushing this stuff.
The anything to throw Trump off, anything to destroy the administration, they seem to have calmed down a little bit about some of the cabinet picks, but don't worry, that's gonna just wait until those hearings happen.
That's gonna be a circus.
They're gonna make sure it's a circus.
A couple of them I I think they're gonna have a tough time with.
I don't think the Democrats in the Senate are so uh so foolish.
They are so disrespectful, uh, but they're not so foolish as to say uh to try and impugn the character and integrity of uh General Mattis, for example, but a whole bunch of other nominees for the different posts or choices, the picks that the president elect has made.
Uh they're gonna get the rough stuff from the Democrats in the Senate for sure.
That much we can all count on.
You got these celebrities saying that they expect or they demand that Congress first of all, I love this that they demand.
Do I get to demand?
I there's a lot of demands I want to make.
I want I I demand lower taxes, right?
I I demand through regulations.
Uh I demand a secure border.
I demand national security policies that actually make some sense.
Buck sex in it for rush, I'll be right back.
Buck in for rush today, 800 282-2882.
We will get to some calls here in just a couple of minutes.
Uh first I wanted to update you if you've been watching this closely, and if you haven't, we'll get down into uh into the the weeds of this a little bit.
The House Republicans had thought that they were going to be voting on this plan to change to tweak the way that this independent ethics panel inside the House operated, right?
The Office of Congressional Ethics, which uh was started in 2008.
It was uh the Abramov stuff came up, and uh now you need the Office of Congressional Ethics, right?
And it has been considered more aggressive than the House Ethics Committee.
So you got the Office of Congressional Ethics, but you've also got the House Ethics Committee, which is more land l more uh longstanding body, and they look into alleged wrongdoing by members of Congress.
Now, the way that this is speaking of scaring everybody and they stere, although I will say Republicans caved on this one too, and I've got a theory as to why, which I will share with you.
Uh prominent Republicans, uh President elect himself said that this was the wrong move, and I can understand why he would say that, but we're just give me one second and I'll get there.
Kind of doing this a bit a bit in reverse, right?
Bouncing all over the place here.
It's how we roll.
It's how that's how Buck rolls.
So uh they they were gonna do this changing around the way it was reported, and you gotta love this.
Now there are some words that the media, if they can if they can deploy them, they will.
And to gut an ethics office, right?
That's how it's being oh, they're pulling this plan to gut the ethics office, uh the Congressional Ethics Office.
Oh no, what are we going to do?
Right.
First thing this new Republican majority does is come in and they're gonna get rid of ethics.
Well, you'll also note, by the way, that one of the other lines of attack against the administration that has not even started yet.
It's not even here.
There is no administration yet, right?
There's still the Obama administration doing a great job last couple of weeks with uh uh, you know, kicking dirt in the face of our Israeli allies and oh deciding to ratchet up tensions with Russia right uh right as they're leaving, and all sort of on the way out.
They're they're walking out the door of the bar and they're just dropping a couple of matches behind them to see what happens.
I mean, it's just you can't make this stuff up.
But now here we are.
You got the new session of Congress coming together.
Looks like they're not they're not gonna do the old Merrick Garland paradrop maneuver where he uh sort of comes in through the ceiling of the Supreme Court with a parachute and he's like, ah, here he is.
We had five minutes, we snuck him in.
Uh but the House, they this is the the CNN.com writes it this way House Republicans poll plan to gut independent ethics panel after Trump tweets.
So I I've got to give credit where it's due here, maybe not credit, but I've got to point out that this is the Republicans too, and Paul Ryan also was a little little uh weak on this one.
Decided that he was oh no, we can't do that.
If you actually look at what they were talking about, it had to do with due process procedures.
You'll notice, and this is the key, right?
This is sort of uh the magic, the obvious the obfuscation that the media engages in.
You know, if they could use a term like scrap, eliminate uh they would.
But it wasn't that they were eliminating this office, which was an office that didn't even exist, by the way, until 2008.
I don't know how Americans even fed themselves before this.
How was it even possible for us to live only with a House Ethics Committee and not an office of congressional ethics?
And people say they don't want duplicative government programs, right?
But nonetheless, here we are.
So they wanted to change some of the due process protections that members of the House have.
The way this thing was set up, it is perfect to have little clandestine witch hunts.
And we know Democrats love those because just look at, for example, not just the actions of the IRS with Lois Lerner.
Oh, yeah, that whole thing happened, right?
But also those crazed districts attorney uh district attorneys up in Wisconsin with the John Doe investigation, secret investigations with no real due process rights whatsoever.
Democrats love that stuff.
And the House Ethics Committee, I'm sorry, the Office of Congressional Ethics, the O C E O to the C to the E. That was a place where they could go after and left-wing groups could come in and they could band together and they could make allegations and have investigations ongoing and very limited due process rights for whichever Congressman happened to be caught in the crosshairs here.
Whom do you think?
Which side?
And this is where you get into all both sides have yeah, both sides have corruption, but it's not equal.
Look at the look at the big corruption cases in recent years.
I mean, where people have gone away for a long time.
And and I mean, not like a not local dog catcher, but uh, you know, a senator, uh prominent member of Congress, a would-be presidential candidate, uh, a or would-be president.
Look at the really big corruption, and you'll see that it is not there is not parody here.
It's not even on both sides.
But perhaps I'd digress for a moment there.
This this plan, which they said gutted, it wasn't a gutting, it was a reordering of something that look, Congress is already in charge of looking over different members of Congress and their behavior.
You by the way, you still have the FBI and various law enforcement agencies that could be involved in investigations depending on the specific impropriety of any individual congressman or congresswoman.
FBI can still bring a corruption case, right?
That could still happen.
Federal prosecutor could still decide to bring corruption charges against any member of Congress.
And you have the House Ethics Committee still doing what it does.
So this is sort of a a an appendage of an appendage of the House.
And it didn't even exist before 2008, and they say, oh, they're gonna gut it.
They're really just going to change around some of the rules, they're going to make sure there's more due process procedures, uh, and that essentially it would be harder to engage in an unsubstantiated witch hunt against a member of Congress.
But here's the problem.
We're living in the time of the Trump scare, right?
Everything that's gonna happen, and the Trump scare, by the way, applies to all Republican policies all the time, everywhere and anywhere.
And in that environment, this just looks bad.
That the media can even write headlines that say, you know, ethics, uh, Republicans, and gut.
That's all that has to happen.
And it just creates a headache for Trump, this annoying uh back and forth on what's what's the truth here or not.
So he says, he tweets out that you know he doesn't think this is a good move.
Paul Ryan already doesn't like it, but it's because of, as they say in DC, the optics, much more so than the reality.
It's because of how this looks.
It's because the media's reporting on it as, oh, they're they're eliminating this essential body, you know, this this guarantor of the Republic and the Constitution that was created in 2008.
This is like when people say, Oh, how could we ever live without the Department of Homeland Security or something like that?
And you're like, well, you know, we didn't have one for a while, and we we did have a country.
I mean, we didn't even really have an income tax for quite a while, but that's a whole separate discussion.
Uh here we are, Republicans backing down on this one.
They've pulled the plan.
Maybe they will sort of come back with something else.
Maybe they need to refit and regroup and explain that this is not the destruction of America as we know this is this does not turn us into as Paul Krugman has written recently, a stan.
You know, I wonder if he even knows Stan Farsi for land of.
Hence you have Turkmenistan and Afghanistan and all the rest of it.
Paul Krogan says we're becoming a stan because the Stan countries are full of sort of meretricious autocrats, right?
The sorts of uh individuals, the sorts of dictators and strongmen who have big statues of themselves commissioned and like to look at you know oil paintings in you know in their own image and all the rest of it.
Krugman says we're becoming that now.
That's what we are as a country.
It's fascinating.
You know, the the Obama worship that the media engaged in for really all eight years, but in the beginning it was just it was just m mind numbing, mind bending.
Uh they didn't seem to think that that was a problem at all.
Now here we are, though.
Everything that is done by the Republicans falls under that broad rubric of the of the Trump scare, and it's all an effort to prevent proper oversight of the Trump administration.
It's all I mean, you you see the opposition here.
Not a lot of think pieces in the major opinion journals in this country about what would it mean if we actually did some of the things that Trump says he's gonna do.
Not a lot of that.
Much more, oh the the tyranny that we're facing is is horrific and terrible.
How are we going to stop it all?
Hysteria has become fashionable in this country.
Yeah.
It's uh disconcerting state of affairs, my friends.
Buck sex and in for rush back after this break.
It is Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh today, loving it in the EIB.
And uh thanks to Mr. Rush himself for uh throwing me the keys to the Ferrari today.
Always fun.
Always fun.
800-282-2882, Paula in California.
You're on the Rush Limbaugh program, you're speaking to Buck.
Yes.
Um I was listening to the commercial from Hollywood, and I was just saying to him, I don't understand why they don't maybe do a commercial about the inner cities and the plight that we have there, and also the people that um are keeping their jobs and wanting their jobs here in America.
Why don't they do a commercial on that?
Well, you know, uh Paula, it's actually brand enhancing for these celebrities to do this stuff, as you know.
It is it is a an act of uh self-aggrandizement disguised as an act of uh public concern, right?
So they do this sort of thing because it's a benefit for each and every actor there.
All of their Hollywood producer friends and actor and actress friends, and or do we not say actor and actress is it just actor now?
Has it become sort of neutral?
I don't know.
I I'm I'm gonna the social justice warriors are gonna come after me.
But Paula, th it's it's all about them, right?
It has nothing that this stuff about all we're so concerned and also these people who are always invoking their fear for the children, right?
This is it's sort of like the way that you don't want people to start invoking Hitler in an argument because you know that someone's already lost if everything is Hitler.
The moment that you have people say, Well, it's I'm really just concerned for the children when you're we're talking about like tax policy.
I mean, which does have implications for children, but I'm just saying, I mean, you can't always be, oh, my children.
Uh Democrats have been doing this.
They've even been talking about letters that they've had to write.
I think it was uh the guy who can't remember his name, who wrote their West Wing.
Um who's the guy who wrote the West Wing?
Whatever his name is.
Aaron Sorkin, yeah.
Didn't he do like the letter to his five-year-old daughter about how disappointing the Trump was like she's five, dude.
I don't think she cares.
But Paul, they don't get the the point you're making is from the perspective of an American who just cares about what's going on in America in a real sense.
They don't this isn't about them caring about anything beyond themselves.
And this is unfortunately the virtue signaling, we've got a fun term for it now, virtue signaling, is really common among Democrats, and it's rewarded.
It is it is like I said, career enhancing.
Even if this even if this message doesn't go viral or no one knows about it, they'll probably get better movie parts or you know, a better whatever, a better contract next time up because they are doing their part for the left, and that's what matters.
You know what I'm saying?
Well, and It's real easy to be a liberal whenever you have money.
You know, to have those kind of thoughts.
Oh, yeah.
In the way that you want things.
I mean, if you have money.
But if you're a person that is about to lose their job or you know, making fifty thousand dollars a year.
It's not easy to be a liberal.
No.
No.
It's uh it's well, it's certainly not easy to to adhere to some of these liberal policies that they're pushing.
Uh, but a lot of liberals want the policies for everybody else and not themselves.
And as Thatcher said the problem of socialism is you always run out of other people's money.
Democrats are learning that too.
Um eventually you run out of other people's money.
Paula, thank you for calling in from California.
Becky in Washington, DC.
You're speaking of Buck.
I'm in for Rush.
What is up?
Yes, I wanted to comment on the Russia on the so-called Russia hacking.
They've known about this for a long time, but it did not become an issue until Hillary lost.
And let's look at the Democrats cheating.
How many illegals have they brought in?
And they bust them to the polls, they tell them how to vote, they do the same thing with the people in the inner cities, and then they give the felons the right to vote.
And then um let's say and Hillary cheated.
She stacked the deck against Bernie Sanders.
Why wasn't she um why wasn't she thrown out?
And then um threatening the electors, and as an aside, is the justice or FBI investigating the threatening of the electors?
If not, why not?
And then um and then the voting machines in Michigan, they had them stuffed uh the Jill Stein um recount, it uncovered that in Detroit there was some voting irregularities.
Is it fair to say, Becky, that your point here is to sort of encapsulate all the points you're making, that there are shenanigans and irregularities and foul play in national elections in a whole bunch of different ways, but the only one the Democrats care about is the Russia hack.
That's the only one that's exactly by the way, Becky, you'll see people go on TV, people who are paid to know things on TV, which unfortunately doesn't mean they actually know anything in a vast majority of cases.
Trust me, I know.
Um, and I know that can be used taken a bunch of ways, but it's true.
Uh, that they'll say, well, voter fraud isn't even real.
And then you'll say, well, what about these people that have been convicted for voter fraud in the last election?
And they'll say, okay, well, it's not that big a deal.
You say, well, why do they walk around saying there is no voter fraud when there obviously is?
There's voter fraud in in every major election in one way or another.
I don't I who who knows what the numbers are.
We have no way of knowing, by way, what the real voter fraud numbers are because we don't try to track down uh people for criminal prosecutions.
I mean, you have to be really uh a bumbling buffoon to get caught, you know, sort of doing the ballot stuffings uh or or you know, voting multiple times, the sorts of things that people have gone to prison for in in recent years or at least been prosecuted for.
But Becky, thank you for calling in.
I appreciate it.
It's good to talk to you.
Oh.
800, 282-2882, Buck in for Rush.
I'll be right back.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush.
Uh for more on me, you can go to the Blaze.com slash Buck Dash Sexton.
And uh by the way, some breaking news I'm just seeing here.
Uh this is courtesy of the New York Times.
So take that as you wish.
But the headline is Meghan Kelly said to be leaving Fox News for NBC.
Um obviously Megan has one of the uh one of the the big prime time shows over at Fox.
Uh show I've done a number of times as a guest.
Um wondering what all of you uh might have to say about this.
Think about this.
I wonder who they uh assuming this is true.
Very interesting in what it opens up, perhaps over at Fox.
There's been some shifts over there.
Tucker show's been great.
I've been watching Tucker's show recently, really uh enjoyed that.
And think that's going as well as it uh as well as it could, given it's only been on the air for a couple weeks.
It's really good stuff.
But yeah, Megan might be leaving Fox, it sounds like that's what they're saying.
Um wow.
I was I was actually not expecting that uh not expecting that to be the case.
So we'll have to see how that shakes out.
Do you have any thoughts on that?
If uh it's something that you care to share thoughts on, you can certainly call in 800 282-2882.
Looks like there may be some uh pretty big movement over at Fox News.
Uh also your thoughts on the Trump scare, which I'm sure someone we should get like uh sort of a Halloween, like ah, dun dun dun, you know, some organ music or something for the Trump scare, because we're all supposed to be so terrified of all the horrible things that that will happen.
Um it's it's amazing to me that uh Barack Obama, who never ran anything and had no management experience of any kind whatsoever, becomes president after not even what, not even completing one term as a U.S. Senator, and we have to all be told about how it's the sort of the greatest thing in history.
▲
Export Selection