Rush Transcripts...Oct. 29th

[mystery-ak]

Transcripts  https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/


The Coming Snowball of Good News

Oct 29, 2019



RUSH: I don’t want to get ahead of the game here, folks, but I’m hoping that some recent events, some good news things presage a snowball effect of good news. For example, we’ve got the new book by Lee Smith that’s out this week which exposes everything Devin Nunes found about this corrupt so-called investigation into Trump. The American people en masse get a load of this, and it’s entirely possible it’s gonna change things dramatically.

The Barr investigation is ongoing. Kim Strassel’s new book is out about this as well. Andy McCarthy, Ball of Collusion. We have flooded the market with books about the truth of this investigation. We’re nearing a crisis point here where I think in this race that we are in with the left and the Democrats we can have a snowball effect of good news for our side. And I think one of the signs that this is on the way to happening, Pelosi has all of a sudden called for a vote for impeachment, everybody says in the House.

Now, what is this, really? What this is is a forced emasculation of Schiff, because I’m telling you they never intended to do this. Pelosi said two weeks ago there was not gonna be a vote. Pelosi said three weeks ago there wasn’t gonna be a vote. All of a sudden now there’s gonna be a vote. Why is there going to be a vote?

And we’ve got unhinged left wing furor over Baghdadi. We’ve got the Democrat Party reduced to sympathizing with Baghdadi! The Democrat Party is sympathizing with a terrorist! We’ve got Max Boot, a former Republican, now a Never Trumper who has had to withdraw a bunch of tweets from his Washington Post column. He said Baghdadi was no coward. Trump is the coward. Baghdadi was brave and courageous. There was an overreaction — well, not overreaction. There was an amazing reaction to that even on Twitter which, you know, Twitter runs everything. And he had to withdraw that, retract some of that.

The point is that, see, I have this theory that the Democrats are on defense in this whole thing, not us. Now, I know that’s a countervailing opinion. Most people think that we’re on defense because the Democrats are leading this impeachment effort, but let me give you my reasoning here.

The Democrats have the appearance of being on offense, but if you ask me, they are actually playing defense. When it’s all said and done — let me take you through a list of things and ask you what is gonna make the biggest impact on the 2020 elections? Here’s my guess, based on what we know. Here are the biggest impacts on the 2020 elections: the economy. It’s excellent.

If it maintains — we’ve got stock market records, 401(k)s are through the roof. That is the stock market benefiting the American public en masse because everybody who has a 401(k) is invested in the stock market. Whether they know it or not, they are. And as they see their 401(k)s ballooning and wages are up and so forth, the economy is a plus factor.

Now, weighing against that what do we have? The Democrats are promising to wipe out private health insurance. All you have to do is listen to them, listen to them in their debates and they are happy to tell you they are gonna wipe out private health insurance. They acknowledge that Medicare for All is gonna require mind-boggling tax increases.

Now, there are caveats to these two things. There’s increasing data, polling data that shows American Millennials are trending more and more in favor of socialism and communism, and it is a direct result of what they are being taught, my friends. It’s a direct result of Marxism, socialism, capitalism, being taught favorably and being promoted in economics and history classes both in high school and college. So that’s something that we’re gonna have to deal with.

I’m gonna take these polls at face value. Now, when I was a kid growing up, we had the sixties. We had a bunch of young people that believed in communism and Marxism then. We had a lot of people that were caught up in the magic of socialism. The lure of socialism is timeless. It boggles the mind, but it is.

My point is that young people throughout modern American history have always, a certain segment of them, have always found something idyllic, something romantic about the notion of socialism, because it’s fair and it’s equal and there’s no competition so that means there’s no losers and there’s no winners. And everybody’s the same, and nobody gets laughed at, and nobody’s better than anybody else.

It’s this kind of adolescent stuff that appeals to adolescents that they’re holding onto now as they grow holder. Because it’s taught, because it’s in the movies they watch, it’s in the music that they listen to. So it’s something we have to deal with. I don’t want to give you the wrong impression here that I don’t think we’ve got problems. As you know, I believe we do. They’re ongoing and constant, require constant vigilance. But I’m saying in the upcoming election here, I really think it’s the Democrats that are playing defense.

So the economy is a big impact in the 2020 elections, and against that you’ve got the Democrats promising to wipe out private health insurance. That’s 159 million people that like their private health insurance, that don’t want to get rid of it. The Democrats are acknowledging that Medicare for All will require massive tax increases.

This also appeals to certain elements of the Democrat base because punishing anybody that has any more than they do is a valid political objective the Democrats have fostered. The Democrats are promising free health care to illegals paid for by tax increases on the middle class.

Then we’ve got — glaring for everybody — the failure of the Mueller report. When the rubber meets the road, Trump publishing the transcript of his phone conversation with the Ukrainian president is gonna redound to his benefit. We have the killing of al-Bakr al-Sahib Skyhook Baghdadi — who now the Democrats are sympathizing with, who the Democrats have been forced to sympathize with him on their opposition to Trump. We have books written by Andy McCarthy, Kim Strassel, and Lee Smith that I just mentioned a moment ago.

It’s not just one book, it’s three — and they are all excellent, and they all take a little different path to get to the same conclusion that is obvious. These books are going to be talked about, they’re going to be read, they are going to be effective. We have the Horowitz report and the Durham investigations. And then, of course — at the bottom of the list — we have me, bringing it all to light and keeping it all in perspective and making sure that all of you are aware of all of this. Everything the Democrats are doing is in response to all of this that I just mentioned to you.

The Democrats are reacting to the economy, and they’re not doing it well. The Democrats are reacting to getting a terrorist. One way to look at this: How does Trump use intel? How does Trump use the intelligence agencies? He goes out, he finds the location of bad guys — terrorists — who’ve been wantonly murdering Americans, and he wipes them out. How did Obama use intel? To spy on Trump. How did Obama use the intelligence agencies? To try to overturn the election results of 2016, which they are still doing.

Obama ended up corrupting the intelligence agencies, and they are still at it with this endless parade of witnesses before Pelosi’s sham impeachment committee. (Schiff’s as well.) More on that coming up here in just a second.  But I’m telling you, the Democrats have the appearance of being on offense, and they may even think that they are.  But I believe, in reality, they are playing defense.

[mystery-ak]

Pelosi Emasculates Schiff

Oct 29, 2019



RUSH: Now, Pelosi and her de facto emasculation of Schiff.

I’m sure many of you ask, “Wuh wuh wuh wuh, what do you mean?  When did Pelosi emasculate Schiff?  I thought Schiff already was emasculated.”

Well, I get your point.  But Nancy Pelosi has decided that the best way to distract from Trump killing Baghdadi — and, by the way, we got his successor the next day.  Al-Baghdadi’s successor is also now room temperature.  Actually, Baghdadi never made room temperature.  He was vaporized at about 3,000 degrees with his own explosive suicide vest.  But we got his successor.  So Pelosi has gotta distract from that.  She can’t have her party sympathizing too long with al-Baghdadi.

So she has announced the House is finally going to vote on Thursday whether to hold an impeachment inquiry or not.  Now, hang on, because this still is not the vote everybody thinks it is.  Now, let’s remember.  Less than two weeks ago, Pelosi brushed off all the calls from Republicans to hold a vote to formally authorize the impeachment probe.  She said, “No way.  We don’t need to do that.  It isn’t necessary.” She didn’t want to call a vote, didn’t want to endanger these 40 Democrats that won in 2016 from Trump districts.

Republicans were demanding that she do it.  She has accused Republicans of focusing on the process in an effort to distract from the allegations against Trump, but now she’s gonna hold a vote.  Now, it wasn’t that long ago that Pelosi was claiming Trump was trying to trick the House Democrats into impeaching him.  Do you remember that?  That was barely a month ago.  Pelosi and the Democrat leaders were saying, “We’re not gonna fall for this!  Trump is goading us.  Trump is trying to get us to impeach him.”

Now, why would Trump be doing that?

Well, the popular conventional wisdom is that it would benefit Trump if the Democrats do this.  History says that impeached presidents end up having their polling numbers rise because of sympathy and a number of other factors.  But it’s undeniable that, whatever the reasons, Pelosi was claiming she wasn’t gonna have a vote because Trump was trying to goad her. She wasn’t gonna have a vote because the Republicans were simply making a mockery of the process and trying to distract from the real work that Adam Schiff was doing behind closed doors that nobody could see.

Now, both sides in the media now are claiming that this vote means their side has called the other’s bluff.  For example, The Atlantic says, “Democrats Call Trump’s Bluff.”  The New York Post says, “Calling Pelosi and Schiff’s Bluff.”  Anyway, this vote on Thursday is a clear admission of one thing, and that is that the Schiff-headed inquiry so far has not been legitimate.  Now, Pelosi and her buddies can use cover from the media to try to hide that, and they can try to say, “This is just the next step.

“This is the next legitimate phase in the legitimate impeachment of President Trump.”  But it’s not.  If what Schiff was doing behind closed doors was working, nothing would change.  If what Schiff was doing was really collecting evidence of impeachable offenses, then Pelosi would keep it going and they wouldn’t fall for the pressure to call for a vote. But the killing of Baghdadi has changed the equation.  The press will never admit this — the Democrats will never admit it — which is why I am telling you.

So now are the Democrats gonna have to throw out all the testimony and documents they got when they were conducting their inquiry illegitimately for more than a month?  You know, the vote is to formalize it.  The vote is to make it official.  By calling for a vote, Pelosi is admitting that what’s happened to date with Schiff has not been legitimate. (pause) No, I’m joking.  The Democrats are not gonna throw anything out.  I’m making a point here.  The Democrats are gonna use all that testimony, all those documents that they collected from their secret, behind-closed-door meetings in their final report on impeachment.

But now they’ll claim their investigation was completely transparent because they’ve now decided to open up the hearings to the public (maybe) and maybe the Republicans’ actual questioning of the witnesses will happen.  But, of course, not the witnesses who’ve already testified.  We’re not gonna bring them back in.  This whole thing is a sham, folks. And then “Pelosi said Monday that the House vote on a resolution to formalize the next steps of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump will not be an ‘impeachment resolution.'”

What?

“Pelosi was asked by NBC News about the resolution, which she announced earlier in the day, and responded by saying ‘it’s not an impeachment resolution.'”  Why not?  “Pelosi previously said she would not hold a full vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry…”  Trump has continued to “call for” this. “Pelosi has said she believes Trump is ‘goading’ Democrats to impeach him because he thinks it will help him fire up his base.”  His base is already fired up.

His base is fired and will remain so, and is going to get even more fired up as all of this continues.  That’s what I mean about the snowball effect.  Pelosi is responding to something by calling for this vote then telling NBC it’s not an impeachment resolution.  For some reason, she doesn’t want to make this official.  They want to continue to try to get away with illusion that they are impeaching Trump. I know the conventional wisdom is that they’re gonna do it, and I know the conventional wisdom is it’s not stoppable.

I know the conventional wisdom is that it’s a fait accompli — and I remain unconvinced.

I think this is all part of the 2020 reelection strategy for the Democrats, but we’ll see.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Do you remember when the Republicans stormed the SCIF? Republicans went in there and demanded to be part of the process, and the media called it a “stunt,” and the media derided the Republicans. The Democrats made fun of ’em and laughed at ’em. “You guys have no business being in here! You guys can’t bring your phones in there,” which they didn’t do.  I maintain that it was not a stunt. The stunt is Schiff!  Schiff and the Democrats are the stunt.

They are the charade.

They are manufacturing an illusion.

More on these witnesses that you are seeing reported on breathlessly in the media. (Just hang on.  We’ll get to that in the next half hour.)  But I think it worked.  I think a number of things are forcing Pelosi’s hands here.  The Republicans did something they’re not used to doing and the Democrats are not prepared for them to do.  The Republicans stormed in there like Code Pink, in effect, and so here is Pelosi yesterday on Capitol Hill. A reporter asked her about the upcoming vote.

ABC NEWS REPORTER:  Madam Speaker, can we have you talk about the impeachment resolution?

PELOSI: It’s not an impeachment resolution.

RUSH:  What?  “It’s not an impeachment resolution”?  Why is everybody saying they’re gonna have a vote on an impeachment resolution on Thursday?  Why is everybody saying that?  If it’s not a vote on impeachment resolution, then what are they voting on Thursday?  And if you want to know, here’s Rosa DeLauro.  She is a Democrat from Connecticut on the Fox News Channel this morning.

DELAURO:  This is about laying out how we are going to try to move forward in terms of collecting data and the continued process. It’s nothing to do as to whether or not there is a, uh… an inquiry.

RUSH:  I don’t… Could you hear that?  No plans to vote for a formal inquiry.  This is a rules-and-process vote.  It’s “about laying out how we are going to try to move forward in terms of collecting data and the continued process. It’s nothing to do as to whether or not there is … an inquiry.”  There isn’t still gonna be a vote on impeachment, folks.

[mystery-ak]

Which Impeachment Polls Should We Believe?

Oct 29, 2019



RUSH: Grab audio sound bite number 19, Mister Broadcast Engineer. I have a story here from the Washington Examiner: “Why Republicans oppose impeachment: Trump is even more popular with his base than Obama was.” Now, this is something that we’ve been told, the polling data has demonstrated. This is not a surprise. We’ve been told two things. We’ve been told that Trump is at the same overall approval rate of 41, 42% that Obama was at the same point in his first term.

That stuns a lot of people, by the way. A lot of people have forgotten. Everybody assumed, because of blanket, pro-lovey-dovey media coverage, that Obama was in the fifties and sixties approval. He never was. Did you know that? Never was. Obama at 42, Trump at 42. Trump’s even a point higher in many polls. But in his base, Trump’s got upwards of 85 to 92% approval from Republicans. Obama never had that on the Democrat side.

And yet I’m sure a lot of you are asking, how can it be? How can it be that Trump is more popular with his base than Obama was with his? And again, the reason why you might not believe it is media coverage. The media made Obama look loved and adored by virtually everybody, except Republicans, of course. And they were cast aside as irrelevant.

The coverage of Obama was smotheringly, sycophantically, saccharin sweet. I mean, every day you had to watch out for your insulin level skyrocketing if you paid attention to it. So you would conclude that Obama was massively loved, massively adored. And then you would see polls on Michelle (My Belle) Obama, and her love was even higher and the percentage of Americans that admired her was even higher than The One. But Trump is actually more popular with his base than Obama was.

Philip Klein, Washington Examiner: “Any effort to remove President Trump from office through the impeachment process is going to come up against a brick wall in the Senate, where 20 Republicans would have to defect to oust him.”

Well, I have to tell you that I can turn around right here, and I look at the Drudge Report, and the lead headline: “Republicans Fear 2020 Wipeout.” That’s an Axios story, a Millennial version of the Washington Post. Axios is the bunch that they do the first paragraph, then they tell the readers what it means. Then they do the next paragraph and say, why is this important? Then they do the next paragraph, what you should think about it, blah, blah, blah.

So this story, Republicans think 2020 is gonna be a wipeout. All these Republicans are retiring in the House. Then there’s another story” Republicans scared to death to defend Trump. Republicans wary of defending Trump. Republicans paralyzed, don’t know how to defend Trump.

Okay, so you see that, then you go to Philip Klein here in the Washington Examiner: “Why Republicans Oppose Impeachment.” And Trump’s approval number with his base is sky-high. So what’s what here? Who do you believe? And it leads to another question. Here’s a full quote from the Klein piece.

“Though the most recent Gallup poll finds Trump’s approval rating down at just 39% among the adult population –” By the way, that’s not voters. It’s not likely voters. It’s not registered voters, but that’s not even the point. The point is, what do you believe? What do they believe? What do the Republicans believe? What do the Democrats believe? Do they believe their own polling? I think it’s kind of important.

Among Republicans, Trump’s “approval rating is 87%. At the comparable point in his presidency, Obama’s performance won the approval of 77% of Democrats.” Trump is 10 percentage points higher in approval in his base than was Obama. In addition, “Obama was less unpopular among independents and the opposition party than Trump.”

So this is all good news for the Republicans. Do they believe it? “Any effort to remove President Trump from office through the impeachment process is going to come up against a brick wall in the Senate.” Well, not according to Drudge. Axios and some of these other stories, apparently in the Senate, Republicans are quaking in fear. Apparently in the Senate they’re paralyzed. They don’t even want to have to defend Trump. Oh, my God. They’re scared to death. They might even be forced to vote against Trump if the impeachment ever got there. Which it won’t, mark my words.

Back to Philip Klein. “That is likely to remain the case no matter what revelations come out of the Democrats’ investigation.” Meaning, Trump’s 87% is gonna stay there. There’s nothing the Democrats can do to dislodge that, and that’s absolutely true. I think — and I’m getting head of myself here — I think the Democrats are still so blowing this in the areas Trump won the presidency. They’re making the same mistakes they made in 2016. They’re mocking the same voters. They’re ignoring the same voters. They’re making no effort to win over Trump voters. They’re angering them. They’re doing their best to try to separate Trump voters from Trump.

But they’re not trying to win them. It’s another reason why I think they’re on defense. So if Trump is even more popular with his base than Obama was, then how in the world can anybody think there is going to be an impeachment? How can anybody think that a trial in the Senate would lead to a conviction? So do the Republicans believe this polling? Do Republicans believe the 87% approval in Trump’s base?

On the other hand, the Democrats are running around saying they’ve got polling data that an increasing number of Americans want Trump gone, increasing number of Americans favor the impeachment. Do the Democrats believe their polling? It has bitten them in the butt constantly. They believed the presidential polls of 2016 where Hillary was gonna win in a landslide. Every poll that is anti or negative Trump, they believe it, and it comes back to bite ’em. So do they believe their polls, or are they proceeding despite them?

Now, Andy McCarthy, audio sound bite number 19, was on Fox this morning. Question: “With Nixon, it was a resounding call in the House for the impeachment process to begin. Bill Clinton’s were not quite as strong, but they were similar. In other words, they were both very partisan efforts, the impeachments. Do you think there will be that kind of vote this week? These are not articles of impeachment, but do you think this week’s vote would be the same kind of sentiment of emotion expressed by the House as was expressed against Nixon and was as expressed against Clinton?”

MCCARTHY: This is a very different impeachment in that in the Clinton and Nixon cases, they derived or deduced this finding that the president was unfit for office by the impeachable acts, whereas here what we’ve had is the Democrats really never accepted Trump as president, decided he was unfit from the moment he entered office and have been looking for something they could hang their hat on for purposes of actuating that conclusion.

RUSH: Let me translate that for you. What Andy is saying here is the Clinton and Nixon impeachment started with crimes, actual crimes. Clinton committed perjury. He lied before a grand jury in the Paula Jones case. Clinton was not impeached over a blue stained dress or a cigar, despite what many people think. He lied under oath to Ken Starr’s special counsel investigators and suborned perjury of associates. That’s why he was impeached. Real crimes.

Nixon, Watergate, that was a real crime. The plumbers broke in there, the Democrat National Committee headquarters in the Watergate office complex, left evidence that they had been there by putting tape over the locks so that the doors would not lock when they left so that they could get back in without having to break in. But here, with Trump there is no crime. They haven’t found a crime. They’ve been looking for a crime. They’ve been trying to manufacture a crime. They’ve been lying to the American people for two and a half years that Trump committed crimes, colluded with Russia.

Now with Ukraine there isn’t a crime. They’re looking for a crime. They’re desperately hoping to find a crime. That’s what all of these witnesses being paraded before Schiff this week and last is really all about. And so that’s why there aren’t gonna be articles of impeachment yet, folks. There isn’t any crime yet. They don’t have a crime. All they’ve got is, we don’t like the guy. All they’ve got is, we think he’s an ogre. All they’ve got is, this guy’s not fit. All they’ve got is, Hillary should have won. All they’ve got is, this guy is an embarrassment. All they’ve got is, this guy’s making us defend terrorists. All they’ve got is, we hate this guy. He outsmarted us.

But they don’t have a crime. Now, it has been said — and you know who said it? Gerald Ford. They asked him one day in 1970, they asked Gerald Ford, “What is an impeachable offense?” He said, “Anything the House of Representatives says it is.” What is a high crime and misdemeanor? “Whatever the House of Representatives says it is.” Bribery is definitely a crime, but Trump hasn’t committed bribery. All they’ve got is high crimes and misdemeanors.

So they can say whatever, but they don’t have one yet! And that’s why there isn’t gonna be a vote on any articles of impeachment because they don’t have a crime. In fact, that is in a nutshell, what the last two and a half years have been about, the attempt to create the illusion in the minds of a majority of Americans that crimes were committed. They don’t have one yet. All they’ve got is the ongoing effort to create the illusion that Trump’s dirty.

Clinton committed crimes, lied under oath, lost his law license for a year. That’s when he found Jeffrey Epstein to pal around with, suborn perjury on the part of the others. Nixon, Watergate. But they don’t have a crime. So what this is, this impeachment has been in the works since election night of 2016.

It has taken many forms. It’s taken the Russia collusion, Russia meddling form. And then the insidious, the absolutely horrid Mueller investigation, which was not an investigation because even there, there was no crime. No crime has been found. They’re desperately searching for anything that they can convince the American people Trump has done that is criminal.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Here’s a story in Breitbart: “GOP Polling Memo Shows Public Turning Against Democrat Efforts to [Impeach] Trump.” “The internal polling data showing impeachment failing comes towards the end of the broader page-and-a-half memo, which explains why the public polling is so different from what the RNC is finding.” “A memo by the RNC that contains internal GOP polling data shows the American public, even Democrat voters, are turning against the Democrat Party’s ‘impeachment inquiry’…”

Matt Schlapp on Fox today said it’s 10 points underwater.  Now, do the Republicans believe this?  Do you think it’s in their best interests to believe this?  Is it in their best interests to know the truth regardless of results?  Isn’t it better to know the truth so you can act accordingly?  In other words, do they hunt for good news even though it may not be true to find it and latch on to it and are the Democrats doing the same thing?

Would we be better off believing this polling, “public turning against Democrat efforts,” or would we be better off believing the Democrat polling, which is showing Trump is losing?  Which would keep us more on edge?  Which would keep people more focused?  Because the point is, the polling is all over the place.  The Democrats have polling data saying that they’re marching ahead because the American people want it.  RNC internal polling says the exact opposite.

[mystery-ak]

The Lure of Socialism to Millennials

Oct 29, 2019



RUSH: Here’s Elizabeth in Columbus, Ohio, as we start on the phones.  Glad you called.  It’s great to have you with us.  Hello.

CALLER:  Hey, thanks, Rush.  I actually wanted to comment on your statistic about the Millennials supporting socialism and offer the opinion that I believe it’s because the bulk of them were in college or graduating at the market crash of 2007 and ’08 and they incorrectly conflated capitalism with the feeling they had of paying into the system through going to college, and then their reward of the high-paying job wasn’t there.  And really the problem was not capitalism but the abuses of the capitalist system. But the knee-jerk reaction by Millennials was to turn to the opposite extreme of socialism — which is funny, because if you want a system where you pay your dues and don’t get anything in return, socialism is that, in a nutshell.

RUSH:  I don’t think the socialism allure is as much economic as it is social with Millennials.  I think you have a point.  I think college age people at the time of the so-called financial crisis in 2008 might have been affected by that.  But they still had to be told by somebody, “This is happening capitalism’s unfair, because capitalism sucks, because capitalism,” blah, blah.  You cannot eliminate the role education is playing.  You cannot eliminate the role that economics professors are playing in this.

CALLER: Well —

RUSH: There has to be a foundation built for stuff like this for — when the economic crisis of 2008 happens — it to be plugged into the foundation and have it take.

CALLER:  Well, and I… You know, as far as the economics being taught in college, I would agree that it is oversimplified and not based in our current world economic system.  But then when all the news about the crash came around, things we heard over and over were, “Bank bailouts” and “government bailouts,” and, you know, we kept hearing, “Where’s the bailout for Main Street?”

RUSH:  Well, and you know what?  They had a point!  That right there, what you just described was the Washington establishment — the New York-Washington-Boston corridor — looking out for itself.  It’s the same people trying to railroad Donald Trump, the same exact people.  I’m glad you called, Elizabeth.  I appreciate that.  I must go because I literally have no more time.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You know, one of the things about Millennials and socialism and communism and so forth, is there’s all kinds of reasons for it. But do not discount the idea that it is (sniveling), “More fair, and there are no losers and there’s no hurt feelings and nobody laughs at anybody.” I’m not making this up. And if you talk to certain Millennials, they’ll get empathetic with it. They’ll say, “Well, there’s no better system for caring for the poor.” Now… (chuckles) The problem is that everybody ends up poor! Most everybody has very little in socialism. But whatever they have, it’s spread equally around.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We have a lot of people that want to continue the discussion, people on hold here who want to talk about Millennials embracing socialism and communism, which is great. I think it’s long overdue that this be addressed.

I’m gonna get myself in a lot of trouble here, but as I was saying during my conversation with my brother, communism never had a chance in our house. Socialism never had a chance. Our family, our parents would not dare let it take hold.

[mystery-ak]

Blowing the Whistle on the Witnesses Against Trump

Oct 29, 2019



RUSH:  The media is claiming that House Republicans are trying to “out” the whistleblower.  Trying to out the whistleblower? “That would be so horrible trying to out the whistleblower!” The whistleblower is a liar, ladies and gentlemen.  But that’s not what’s happening.  Here’s Jim Jordan talking to CNN congressional correspondent Manu Raju.  “Democrats are saying that you’re trying to — Republicans are trying to — out the whistleblower in there!”  Is that what you’re doing, you skunk?

JORDAN:  No. We’re trying to get information.  Adam Schiff won’t let the witness answer questions, even though his attorney is right there; his attorney can object. The idea that we want to know who this individual may have communicated with, that’s important information.  And the idea that during our hour, our counsel is asking questions and Adam Schiff tells the witness not to answer our questions, is completely ridiculous — and it’s why this should be in public.

RUSH:  Right.  Schiff is telling witnesses to ignore Republican questions.  What they want to know is, “Who did the whistleblower interact with?” The answer is Schiff!  The whistleblower first contacted Schiff, folks!  They’re not trying to out anybody.  They’re trying to expose this fraud.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Okay. So you know this guy Bill Taylor, Ambassador Bill Taylor, the hero, the guy who was so upset, he was so terribly upset by what he heard from Trump on the phone call to Ukraine, oh, it was so bad — remember Victor Davis Hanson’s piece, we’re dealing with a bunch of people who have not achieved what they’ve achieved on the basis of merit. It’s labels, titles, connections.

They’re not the best and brightest. They are presented as the best and brightest. They’re presented as the pinnacle of achievement, the best in their class, the best at what they do. They’re not. Now, what have you heard about Bill Taylor? Bill Taylor was the guy they put all their eggs in his basket. Bill Taylor was the guy. Until Taylor came along all the other witnesses and the Mueller report, everything had kind of been a dud. But Bill Taylor…

First we had the whistleblower. He blew up when Trump revealed and released transcripts. Here comes Bill Taylor, William, I’m sorry, William Taylor, who provided no new information. Don’t doubt me. I don’t care if this sounds like it’s at variance with what you’ve heard, Bill Taylor had no new information. Bill Taylor’s testimony has been contradicted by everybody involved. John Ratcliffe made mincemeat of Bill Taylor in cross-examination, but Schiff will not release those transcripts.

Now there is further evidence that Taylor’s motives might be suspect. Really? That somebody trying to rat out Trump might have impure motives? Why, who would think that? Well, it turns out that the estimable and the esteemed Bill Taylor — by the way, I don’t enjoy doing this, folks. I wish this rotgut wasn’t true. I wish we really did have great people in charge of our government. I wish we really did have patriots and not globalists. I wish we really did have people that accomplish things with merit rather than are there because of connections, pedigree, breeding, labels, whatever. I really don’t enjoy this. But I know this stuff is all true. I just know it’s true. Let’s leave it at that.

It turns out that the estimable Bill Taylor led an election observer delegation in Ukraine back in April for a George Soros funded organization that had Hunter Biden on its council. Now, that kind of changes things, doesn’t it? Here’s Bill Taylor, he’s been presented to you as an American patriot. He’s not a partisan, he doesn’t care one way or the other, but he heard Trump on that phone call, and he was distressed.

He was very, very alarmed. He was very upset that a president would be asking for a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent. It seems so unseemly and he could no longer stay quiet. He had to do his duty. And he had to come forward, and he had to release and tell only the Democrats what he knew.

Well, it turns out that he’s not the way he’s been presented. He may be a fine guy. He may be a guy that you want to go to a deep state baseball game and have a couple beers with and catch some foul balls, who knows. But he is not the guy you have been told he is. He is a partisan. He worked for George Soros! He led an election observer delegation in Ukraine back in April for a George Soros funded organization that employed Hunter Biden.

So this kind of changes things. Trump’s getting close to finding out what Hunter Biden and Joe Biden did, and so the Biden protectors need to pop up. The Biden protectors need to show up, but they need to be presented as deep patriots, people totally alarmed at what this incompetent, total, total disarray of humanity known as Donald Trump is up to!

This news comes on top of the story that we had last week that was that Bill Taylor had met with a staffer from Adam Schiff’s committee — actually a Schiff staffer, a personal Schiff staffer in August, right around the time the so-called whistleblower was filing his complaint. I’m telling you, Bill Taylor has been in the witness pipeline!

Schiff arranges the whistleblower. The whistleblower comes forward after having been guided by Schiff. The whistleblower then goes to the IG to keep Schiff out of the equation. And Trump releases the transcript and blows everything sky-high. So Taylor is next up to counter all of that as an impeccable man of deep honor and integrity who can no longer stay quiet after watching the abomination of Donald Trump on a daily basis.

And it turns out the guy has accepted payment, done work for George Soros, has met with Adam Schiff’s staffers in August. At the same time, the whistleblower was filing his complaint. And that the two of them, the whistleblower and Bill Taylor, both worked with the Atlantic Council! You’re saying, “What’s that?” The Atlantic Council is a think tank, a leftist think tank funded by Burisma, the energy firm that employs Hunter Biden.

So Bill Taylor is thick as thieves with the whistleblower, with Adam Schiff, with a Soros organization and with Hunter Biden and two different outfits that Hunter Biden is on. Okay. That’s Bill Taylor.

From the Washington Examiner: “Lawyer for CIA officer accusing Trump on Ukraine worked with Biden on 2007 whistleblower complaint.” Now, what are the odds of this? It turns out, my friends, that the lead attorney representing the so-called CIA whistleblowers, a man named Andrew Bakaj, he once assisted a whistleblower who worked with Biden’s staff to accuse George W. Bush of failing to provide armored vehicles to the troops in Iraq!

As this story notes: “Whistleblower Franz Gayl, a Marine Corps civilian ground combat advocate,” what? A Marine Corps civilian ground combat advocate? That’s the whistleblower in this Bush didn’t give the troops enough tanks business?

The whistleblower “went public in 2007 with a now-disputed claim that the military had ignored” requests for mine resistant vehicles that would have saved Iraqi civilians, which the Democrats back in 2007 were blaming on George W. Bush. In fact, then-Senator Biden tried to use these charges to force Bush to end the war and lose reelection.

Meanwhile, all of those allegations have since been refuted.  But of course, the news media have never bothered to report any of that.  They’ve got a new credible American integrity hero, Andrew Bakaj! It turns out he’s the lead attorney representing the whistleblower.  It’s the lead attorney that Schiff today would not allow the Republicans to question.  It was the attorney that Schiff today was telling not to answer Republican questions — and then: “Army Officer Who Heard Trump’s Ukraine Call Reported Concerns.”

This is the name of the day: Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman.  He’s appearing before Schiff’s committee — and, as always, we’ve been told for several days, “He’s going to be the witness who’s gonna put the final nail in Trump’s impeachment coffin!” Well, what happened to Bill Taylor?  I thought that’s what Bill Taylor was.  Something must have gone wrong.  Now we’ve got Alexander Vindman, lieutenant colonel, Army officer. The same thing.  He can’t sit by any longer and watch Trump abuse the powers of the presidency.

He just can’t do it, ladies and gentlemen! He must come forward.  He can no longer stay silent in the face of this outrage.  Vindman’s testimony is focused on Trump’s phone call to Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, which Vindman said “could undermine U.S. national security.”  So we’re now back to another guy claiming to have heard the Trump phone call that we’ve now seen the transcript for, which says that that phone call could have undermined U.S. national security.  In fact, the New York Times even says that this guy Vindman could be the person who approached the first whistleblower in panic with his fears about the call!

But we have the transcript of the call.  It’s clear there was nothing untoward about it.  So this testimony is gonna provide nothing.  It’s just more of the same illusion.  This guy Vindman, he came before Taylor. (panicking) “Oh, my God! I can’t — I can’t — I can’t hear this any longer.  I can’t abide what I’m hearing!” So he might be a person who approached the first whistleblower.  Remember, he might be the whistleblower who then told the whistleblower who went and blew whistle.  Now, the New York Times says… Oh, someone got “a draft of his opening statement.”

Can you imagine?  The New York Times got “a draft of [Vindman’s] opening statement.”  Is that not intrepid journalism for you?  And guess what?  The New York Times says that Vindman “twice registered internal objections about how Mr. Trump and his inner circle were treating Ukraine, out of what he called a ‘sense of duty…'” His “sense of duty” would not permit him to sit idly by and listen to how Trump was treating Ukraine.  “He will testify that he watched with alarm as ‘outside influencers’ began pushing a ‘false narrative’ about Ukraine that was counter to the consensus view of American national security…”

So the establishment had a view of Ukraine, this guy heard Trump taking a tack he didn’t like, and said, “This is not how you do it!”  The president determines how we do it, not you!  Not the establishment!  The president determines how we deal with Ukraine!  Not you, Vindman!  Not you, Taylor!  Not you, Schiff!  The president determines foreign policy, as Phil Mudd said on CNN — and he hasn’t been back since! (interruption) Yes, I sound mad because I am.  This is an endless parade of drivel and bilge!

Even if it was true that this guy was so alarmed over Trump violating U.S. national interests and security — “Oh, my God.  I can’t sit idly by” — it’s not an impeachable offense!  They still don’t have an impeachable offense.  The president is the source decider on American foreign policy, not a Ukrainian-born immigrant who might have a skewed vision of Ukraine as a priority.  Not a George Soros-funded establishment member!  Not somebody who works with Hunter Biden!  These people don’t get to determine foreign policy!  But see, they think they do.

They think all of this is the special province of their establishment no matter who’s president — and since Trump is the president now, this is an outrage that this guy deigns to actually act as president,” and they gonna stop it.  They’re gonna make sure he can’t do it.  Folks, we are being bamboozled and strung along here, and we’re in the middle of one of these gigantic illusions where only Trump is a reprobate, only Trump is a scalawag, only Trump is inhuman, and all the rest of these people are impeccable.  They are the artifice of integrity.  They are the definition of honor.  They are all participants in a coup.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  So I just got an email.  “But, Rush! But, Rush! The media is saying that the witness testifying today is confirming that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo on a phone call (sputtering) wih wih wih wih wih wih wih with the Ukrainian president! He said, ‘I don’t think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen.'”  Trump didn’t demand anything!  Trump says, “Was this guy even on the call?  Did he hear it?  Read the transcript!”  But here’s the thing!

Bernie Sanders on U.S. aid to Israel:  “If you want military aid, you’re gonna have to fundamentally change your relationship to the people of Gaza.”  Does that sound like a quid pro quo?  Bernie Sanders is warning Israel that if he’s elected president, they’re gonna have to change their policy on Gaza or he’s gonna withdraw U.S. aid.  It’s a quid pro quo!  Guess what? That’s U.S. foreign policy.  As president, he can do that if he gets elected!  That’s what they’re trying to nail Trump on here. Elizabeth Warren has done the same thing!  They’re both threatening Israel if Israel doesn’t shape up on Gaza.  It’s the same damn thing, folks!  Except they get away with it!  Quid pro quo is what American foreign policy is all about.

[mystery-ak]

An Absolutely Wonderful Column by Victor Davis Hanson

Oct 29, 2019



RUSH: An absolutely wonderful column today from Victor Davis Hanson. It runs at the American Greatness website. And the headline of this column is “Our Bankrupt Nomenklatura.”

Here’s the subhead: “Take all the signature brand names that the Baby Boomers inherited from prior generations — Harvard, Yale, the New York Times, NPR, CNN, the Oscars, the NFL, the NBA, the FBI, the CIA, the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, and a host of others. And then ask whether they enhanced or diminished such inheritances?”

He has an overall point here. That the left’s self-appointed and self-anointed best and brightest are actually an endless parade of incompetence. Now, let me share with you some pull quotes. And this is going to set up the brief biographical sketches of these so-called wonderful, patriotic, committed American citizens from the military and from the intelligence community who are so upset over Donald Trump’s phone call to the president of Ukraine.

Why aren’t they upset about Trump-Russia collusion? Oh! That’s right. There wasn’t any. Where were all of these brilliant patriots with all of the evidence that Trump was a rotten guy during all that? This is so obviously a setup. But let me give you some pull quotes from Victor Davis Hanson’s piece today.

We are being led by credentialed mediocrities at every level of government. As I’ve said, we’re being government by a minority, folks, a numerical minority that thinks that it is intellectually superior to everybody. Think of it this way. Imagine the lazy, unmotivated, pampered, not-very-bright kids of those Hollywood stars who wanted to get into Harvard, Yale, Stanford, USC, imagine them graduating and becoming judges, becoming congressmen, senators, high-level government department heads.

Well, that’s exactly what we’ve got. A bunch of people who didn’t earn anything, a bunch of people who had life made for them by virtue of establishment connections. Here’s another great pull quote. And, folks, this is really so right on. It’s one of those things I wish I would have written. If I were a dishonest person, I would steal it and say that it’s my thought. But I’m not a dishonest person. Are you ready?

“The amount of elite energy spent replaying the embarrassing progressive 2016 loss and trying to abort the Trump presidency before the 2020 election, remember, was the product of our best and brightest, the top echelon of our law enforcement and intelligence communities, and our most esteemed political and media elite.”

And they have all failed, and they know they have failed, and it’s eating them alive that they can’t get rid of Donald Trump. They’re so much better, they’re so much smarter, they’re so much more qualified, they are so much more capable, they are so much more entitled, they are so perfect. And yet the best and brightest of them, including in the media, cannot outsmart Donald Trump, who they think is the biggest glittering jewel of ignorance they’ve ever seen.

“These people should not be considered by any stretch of the imagination our ‘establishment’ at least if there any positive sense left in the world. Yet they are typical, not aberrant of a habit of equating appearances, credentials, and demeanor of not necessarily talented people as proof of excellence and deserved authority.”

We call them the establishment, meaning they’re the best and brightest, they are the elites, they are the privileged few, but they are typical of equating appearances and labels and manner of behavior as qualifications for their superiority, not what they know, not what their experiences is, not their talent, not their capabilities.

Instead, they are typical of the quality of people who equate the way they look, their credentials, the labels and titles that they have and their polite manner, their sophisticated behavior. This is such a classically correct description of who these people are. And the reason it’s so right on the money is because that’s the primary reason these people claim to hate Trump.

He embarrasses them with his lack of sophistication. He embarrasses them with the way he speaks. He embarrasses them with the way he walks. He embarrasses them with his stuttering and his praise of himself.

(impression) “He’s just so uncouth! He’s so unlike us! He doesn’t have the proper sophistication, doesn’t have the proper breeding. He doesn’t have the proper connections or mannerisms.”  He can outrun them all in a contest of qualifications, of competence, get it done.  He gets done things they have been saying they want to get done for generations and have not gotten done.  They’re getting worse.  America’s getting worse under the leadership of these people.  Trump comes in and in 2-1/2 years, straightened out things they said couldn’t be fixed.

The economy is the greatest example. Obama and all these other elites said, “There’s a new day, America. Our best days are behind us.  Your kids may not do better than you for the first time in history.  But that’s okay, because we really were not entitled to those greatness days in the past. We had cheated, we had lied, we had stolen.  So there’s a new era.  America is now in a period of decline.  It’s unavoidable, and we are the ones to manage it for you.” That was the Obama mantra.  That was the administration.

Economic growth? “It’ll be 1% max. Don’t even expect anything more.”  Trump comes along and says, “This is crazy.  We can have economic growth of 5% or 6% again.”  They howled!  They laughed.  They thought he was the biggest walking idiot on earth.  These people aspire to one thing: Maintaining their current position.  They don’t do it by doing good jobs.  They do it by sucking up.  They do it by maintaining credentials and labels and titles.  They do it by providing connections for others.  “Where you live, what school branded you…”

Was it Harvard?  Was it Yale?  Was it Harvard Law?  Was it Yale Law?

“[W]hat title, past and present, you can parlay, whom you know, and whom you married somehow have ended up far more important than what you actually have done. They remind one of played out ‘senators’ from the last generations of the Roman Empire. … The strange thing about James Comey was not his serial leaking to the press, his deception of a FISA court, his effort to subvert the Trump candidacy by peddling a false dossier and using informants, or even warping the Clinton email investigation.

“Rather, the rub was that Comey was not aberrant, but rather the apt expression of the Washington, D.C. culture of the FBI, at least as epitomized by his conniving and often deceitful associates such as James Baker, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, and Peter Strzok, who did not worry much about ruining the lives of other” people.  Let me share something with you: I remember all the way back to early 2000 when James Comey was the assistant AG to John Ashcroft, and I remember hearing James Comey was the epitome of morality.

James Comey was straight law and order.  You couldn’t corrupt him.  James Comey was the model for an American lawman.  That was his reputation.  That was his image.  It was not backed up by any accomplishment.  It was not backed up by any achievement.  Then the Comey that we all see isn’t the best and brightest of anything.  He’s corrupt!  He’s violating Justice Department rules by not charging Hillary Clinton when it’s not his job to do that.  It’s not his job to exonerate her, either, but he did that.

We all know why.

And then there’s this:  “We are learning that sports and film” movies, Hollywood “are industries of outspoken, moralistic scolds who as opportunists rail at supposed unwoke Americans as they do the bidding of fascistic Chinese authoritarians.” Can you say LeBron James?  Can you say the NBA?  Can you say that whole organization of Nike and Adidas? “Harvey Weinstein thrived in Hollywood for so long because he did on the sexual level what the Chinese did on a financial one — bet that almost every star, producer, and director would abdicate moral responsibility in return for power or money or” acceptance.

“Adam Schiff is a Harvard Law School graduate and, as he reminds us, for a time a federal attorney. But once he powered his way onto the national stage, it is hard to find any statement of his that has proved to be true. Were he not in Congress, but again a regional federal attorney he long ago would have been fired for unprofessionalism and perhaps illegal behavior as well. …  Graduating from today’s Yale or Harvard law school is not necessarily a sign of achievement, much less legal expertise.”

It’s a sign of connections.  It’s a sign of the road having been paved for you.  Anyway, it’s a great piece, and it adequately describes all these people we call the establishment, these people who think they are our superiors and betters. And yet they have so much power and they are so talented and they are so smart, and they can’t find a way in now almost three years to outsmart the biggest idiot who’s ever lived in Washington, Donald Trump, in their view.