RUSH: Yesterday we had the story in the New York Times about the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor, and it was a New York Times story, and it raised a number of questions, and those questions were dealt with and analyzed on this program. One of the points made was this foundation is running incredibly high deficits while bringing in millions and millions of dollars in donations. I connected the dots, and I came to the conclusion that one of the points of the story was that somebody is making out pretty well here in the middle of philanthropy.
Philanthropy, usually people don't get rich. And then, as to review, I talked about how the Clintons run around, and have been for the longest time, bragging about how wealthy they are. Which, by the way, I was always brought up and raised to never talk about things like that, and certainly not to brag about it. It was a big deal in our house growing up. Nobody, whether they were wealthy or not, you didn't talk about that. And the Clintons, for the longest time, actually since Clinton left office, every time the idea of a tax increase comes up. (Clinton impression) "Hey, that's fine with me. I'm in that upper tax bracket now. I don't need that tax cut. I don't need it. Hillary and I are doing just fine now. Thanks."
We even put together a parody, Bill Clinton hosting a game show called "I'm Richer Than You Are." And Hillary does the same thing. So, lo and behold, right on schedule, the writer of the story shows up on MSNBC last night. The author of the story shows up and says, "Well, once again, Limbaugh is factually challenged." He said the truth of the matter is that the people that work at the Clinton Foundation and the Library and Massage Parlor are profoundly underpaid. I said, "Wait a minute, now. Who was talking about the employees getting rich?" It doesn't surprise me the Clintons don't pay anybody anything.
You know this Sheryl Sandberg, the chief operating officer at Facebook, the babe who wrote the book Lean Back, Lean Forward, Round Heels, whatever it was. She wrote this book advising women. Somebody found a job posting to work with her as an intern, and it highlighted unpaid, for many months. The job description is intern. It was deep, it was detailed. Now, here's a woman who just made $90 million selling some Facebook stock, and who knows what she made with her book, and she's got a job posting for an unpaid intern.
Liberals don't pay anybody anything. And I never said it was the employees that were getting rich at the Clinton Foundation and Library and Massage Parlor. I was pretty clear that it was the Clintons getting rich off the Clinton Global Initiative. But the Times writer goes on MSNBC, "Once again, Limbaugh doesn't know what he's talking about."
RUSH: I think, folks, if the employees aren't making any money at the Clinton Foundation, Library and Massage Parlor... Look, they're raising gobs of dollars, millions and millions of dollars. The Times makes this clear. And they're running deficits. There's some perfunctory inclusion of the good works and the charitable donations that the Clinton Foundation's engaged in, but most charitable foundations are not running deficits. They keep the nut, the principal on hand so that they've always got a basis of growth or for growth.
They don't start giving away more money than they've got. It defeats the whole purpose, and it just keeps the fundraising cycle going, which is fundamentally crucial to people like the Democrats. I've always said that Democrats love to portray themselves, liberals love to portray themselves as not interested in money. They're into good works. They're good people. They're into charity and helping people, and they're not concerned with earning a lot of money. They're not concerned with becoming the evil rich. And they are. They are obsessed with it, and the Clintons are perhaps two of the greatest examples of that.
Back in the 1980s, there's Clinton making 25 grand as the governor of Arkansas. Hillary's the breadwinner at a hundred grand at the Rose Law Firm and everybody they're hanging around is uber-wealthy. Whitewater was a get rich quick scheme. Back in the 80s the allegation made against the rich was, "They didn't earn it. They're cheating people, or they're doing get rich quick schemes and they're fooling people, but none of it was legit." And the Clintons wanted to get in on that. But these people are obsessed with it. Now the Clintons are uber-wealthy and they brag about it and they let everybody know.
A lot of liberals are obsessed with money, and you know how they do it? They live off the donations of others to the nonprofits or other groups that they run. I mean, you've got a decent number of liberal Democrat entrepreneurs. It's always been a puzzlement to me, by the way, how a robustly successful, self-reliant entrepreneur is a Democrat, but I think it's tied to power and cronyism and so forth. But a lot of 'em, a lot of 'em just get rich off the donations of others to the organizations they run, from a nonprofit to a for-profit to a what have you.
If you have money like this rolling in to the tune of millions of dollars, and you can't point out all the great work you're doing, where is the money going? If you're telling me that the employees aren't making any money at the Clinton Global Initiative, where's the money going? It makes the thing even more fishy. Then we're treated to this idea that they don't care about money and they don't care about having a lot of money and they don't care about being rich, and they're obsessed with it just like everybody else is. Whitewater was all about trying to make money by foreclosing on the mortgages of seasoned citizens.
The Clintons and McDougal and the gang, they were foreclosing on people who missed one payment. It was classic. But, of course, as liberal Democrats, this is not possible. They couldn't possibly do anything like that. They love people. They give things to people. They give other people's money to people. They don't like money. They don't care about money. It's one of the greatest scams going, that liberals don't like money. My point is, I never said that the employees were getting rich, as was characterized on MSNBC last night.
RUSH: One more thing about this New York Times story yesterday on the Clinton Global Initiative. I just want to reiterate a point that I made toward the tail end of the discussion, because when something like that happens, we start saying, "Why?" You know, why would the New York Times dump on the Clintons? Well, they wouldn't. So are they dumping on the Clintons with this story, does this represent a change? And that's highly doubtful. The left is gonna circle the wagons, and no matter who the nominee, they're gonna protect every Democrat and every liberal. They're not gonna turn one of them loose. It isn't going to happen. They don't even turn their failures loose, like Jimmy Carter. They buck 'em up. They send 'em up to the head of the class. So it couldn't have been that.
I'll tell you what this was. That story on the Clinton Global Initiative was to get it out of the way so that when scandal about it erupts during Hillary's candidacy for the presidency in 2016, they can say, "Oh, that's an old story. That's been dealt with. There's nothing to see there. That happened two years ago. And here I am, I'm still on the verge of winning the nomination. There's nothing to that." That's why that story ran, and that's why that reporter is out there on damage control in the way he thinks people like me are mischaracterizing it.