RUSH: The New York Times continues to unload on the Clintons. It is as though I am editing the New York Times. Maureen Dowd just unloaded on Hillary yesterday. Today we have news that Vice President Bite Me is putting together his 2016 presidential campaign and that his team is revved up and ready to go and they feel good about their prospects.
Now, we had that one story from the New York Times that ripped into the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor and the foundation, and I commented on that on this program. The observation I made, because I thought the New York Times had made the same point, was that here you have this charity that is receiving millions of dollars and they're running deficits. They owe money. I drew the connection that the Clintons are getting rich off of philanthropy, which is usually not how it happens. You don't get rich from philanthropy because philanthropy is not Werewolfism. For those of you in Rio Linda, that's lycanthropy. This is philanthropy, and it's giving money away. And it's impossible to get rich giving money away. You do that after you have become rich.
The Clintons are getting rich in the process of giving money away, but now this story on Hillary actually takes quite a huge number of shots at both Hillary and Bill for the way they're making money making speeches. Clinton collected 700 grand for making a speech in Lagos, Nigeria. And Hillary gets $200,000 a speech, and one of the points -- I think this is in the Modo column, Maureen Dowd. One of the points she makes is this is unseemly. And she talks about Harry Truman who refused to earn a penny trading on the office, refused to accept a penny in his postpresidential life dealing with things like making speeches and so forth. It's a good point and it's all about the decline of the office and the Clintons' quest for money, which has been no secret, and the fact that they have become rich is no secret because they constantly tell everybody.
Anyway, just another couple of stories that just dump all over Hillary, including a column by Maureen Dowd. Anyway, the story I was talking about, the first story on the foundation, I made the connection I thought the author was making, that the Clintons are getting rich giving money away, and this guy goes on TV (paraphrasing), "Well, as usual, when Limbaugh talks about it it's factually incorrect." I wasn't talking about the secretaries and the clerical people, they're not getting rich. Nobody is surprised the Clintons don't pay anybody. Liberals don't pay people. They take all the money for themselves.
Look, Sheryl Sandberg -- name ring a bill? She's the chief operating officer of Facebook. She's got this book out about women and how they should do things, feminist type book. And she's got a job posting for an unpaid intern. When you look at the requirements of the job, it's obviously a job that requires a lot of hours and should pay a lot of money, and she's asking for an intern, you know, no pay. It's just incredible. I think she just cashed in stock and earned money off the book totaling $90 million. There's so much hypocrisy with these people on the left. Hell, let me find it. Caroline Kennedy is up for an ambassadorship to somewhere. I think it may be Japan, yeah. Doesn't matter where. You remember she was toying with running for the Senate at one time, and you remember how she blew it?
She went with Sharpton up to the soul food place in Harlem, Sylvia's, and she made every gaffe that you can make. The cameras are there, and she's eating. As a politician, you never eat on camera. You just don't do it. There's no way it can look dignified, and if you spill something, if you speak while chewing, I mean, there's nothing in it to eat, and there she was chowing down while Sharpton was doing it right. It was obviously a pander tour that just didn't work out. I think it was one of these Senate-appointed jobs, somebody had moved up or passed away, whatever, and they were gonna appoint her. She pulled out. And the reason why she refused to go to the Senate was because she refused to release financial information. Yeah, it was Hillary's seat. She was gonna take over Hillary's seat, that's what it was. Anyway, five years after all of that, "Newly filed documents reveal a personal fortune for Caroline Kennedy that could be as high as $500 million."
Now, you know me, folks. I'm a born-and-bred capitalist, and I begrudge nobody success. But I do zero in on hypocrites, people who have theirs and then support policies that essentially put roadblocks in other people's pathway to success and prosperity. And that's the Democrat Party. New York Post story: "Very private Kennedy declined to release the data in 2008," the financial data. "She subsequently withdrew her request for then-Gov. David Paterson to appoint her to Clinton’s seat."
She was also unable to speak English, and she made that mistake up at Sylvia's soul food eating in public. It was a huge gaffe. "But now, Kennedy has had to file documents with the US Office of Government Ethics for her nominated role as Ambassador to Japan.
Estimates in 2008 were that Kennedy could be worth anywhere between $100 million and $250 million. But, according to paperwork filed by Kennedy last month, that number could be even higher. 'She’s very rich, probably worth between $250 million and $500 million,' said one legal eagle who reviewed the publicly available documents. 'From the figures, it looks like she earns between $12 million and $30 million a year from her trust and from her investments.'
"The documents reflect that beyond her holdings in family trusts, she has positions through Phil Falcone’s Harbinger Capital, Apollo, Goldman Sachs, Vornado Realty Trust, JP Morgan, Blackstone and the Arctic Royalty Limited Partnership, which reportedly relates to two family-owned oil companies." Did you know that? Did you know the Kennedy family owns oil companies? They do. Evil oil, the Kennedy family's deep into oil. This what I mean about left-wing hypocrisy. They're deep into oil. It's possible because they get a pass on it, because they're liberals and they say the right things on social policy, social justice and taxes and all this. They get away with the hypocrisy.
Robert Jr., by virtue of being a Kennedy, is involved in the oil business. Look, don't all the Kennedys participate in these family trusts? Isn't that one of the reasons some of the young Kennedys are in trouble? They have had to go to work, because the family trust, there's so many Kennedys attached to it yanking money out of it, that some of them have had to go to work, and that hasn't worked out well. There's really only been two or three Kennedys that really worked. The old man being one of them.
Anyway, "She also reports almost $1 million annually from speaking engagements and royalties from books." I just love these rich liberals and how they make their money. And when they make their money their way, they're the evil rich. Investments? Wall Street? Profit? All of these things that they criticize, and not just criticize. They impugn. They demean. They criticize. And there they are, nevertheless, right in the middle capitalizing on it as much as possible. And of course, as we discussed last week, so many of them foster this image of not caring about money, that they're solely into charity. All they care about is others, but they're not interested in personal gain. It's all such a crock.
So, anyway, she's up for ambassadorship to Japan, had to disclose the financial information, and she's worth $500 million. Again, it is what it is. I don't know that she's done real work, either. But the family trust is what it was. It's just these people are treated different. They're given a pass on all this. They're allowed to criticize. They are allowed to come up with policy that actually attempts to do damage to the very way they exist. And they get to exempt themselves from their own policies, like Obamacare.
RUSH: Caroline Kennedy is gonna have to learn how to say "y'know" in Japanese. Well, you've forgotten. Everybody's laughing at that, but people forget. I mean, I don't. My memory is almost unparalleled, and this woman, when she was up for the Hillary Senate seat... I mean, folks, it was everything everybody could do to not just laugh. It was embarrassing. I mean, here you have the aura and image of the Kennedys, and that is one of utter refinement and sophistication, almost erudite elitism, and then Caroline was out there behaving in ways that just surprised people. I mean, she said, "y'know" more than your average high school kid. It was, "Y'know, I was, like, over there, you know."
We put a montage of this together back then. We've got that. Listen to this...
KENNEDY: Y'know, I, uh, and, y'know, uh, y'know, and, um, y'know, in my own case, I mean, y'know, it's in our family, y'know, you always think about, y'know, going into politics, y'know, y'know, after 9/11 I thought about, y'know, and I think, y'know, y'know, everyday New Yorkers. And so, um, y'know, I keep, um, as well as myself, y'know, y'know, all over, y'know, again. And so I thought, y'know, y'know, what can I do, y'know, I ought give it some thought, y'know, in the future, y'know? Y'know. Y'know. And, y'know, while I was thinking about it just sort of, y'know --
RUSH: Stop the tape. There's four minutes of this left, folks. Unrepeated. Every one of these things happened individually. We put this montage together over the course of the period of time that Caroline was considered to replace Hillary in the Senate. That's why I say she's gonna have to learn how to say "y'know" in Japanese. Let's listen just to get a little bit more flavor of this...
KENNEDY: Y'know, "Why you be Senator? Y'know, you'd be great!" Y'know, "Go for it! We're rooting for you, y'know?" Y'know, coming up to me, y'know, thought this was real. So, y'know, so I thought, well, y'know, because, y'know, but I think, y'know, I -- y'know, public service is really, uh, y'know, and, um, y'know, I come at this as, y'know, a mother. Y'know, people, y'know, what made America beautiful. Y'know, I don't think, y'know, we talk, y'know --
RUSH: Okay. All right. Any more and people are gonna accuse us of being mean and making fun of her. That, of course, is not the point here. I mean, she's the one that did it, not us. See, but you're not supposed to say this. See, liberals are good people. They care. They have compassion, the biggest hearts. They have such good intentions, you're not supposed to point out these kinds of... I don't know, y'know, shortcomings or, like, anything, uhhhh, that would, y'know, detract from, like, the image. Y'know? You're not supposed to do that, and so they would accuse me of being mean. That's not what we're trying to do. I'm just trying to refresh your memory and explain why I said she gonna have to learn how to pronounce "y'know" in Japanese.
RUSH: Here's Sue in Toledo, as we head back to the phones. Sue, welcome to the program. Great to have you here.
CALLER: Thanks. I'm so excited to talk to you, and, unlike the Drive-By Media, I just wanted to tell you that I listen to you every day. But the reason why I'm calling is because I was talking with my father-in-law over the weekend, and I asked him about Hillary Clinton being the potential next president, and he says, "Oh, no." He thought it was going to be Mrs. Obama as the next president. And then, after that, after she has her two terms, then he mentioned that he thought Obama would be back in line. What are your thoughts on that?
RUSH: You know, I hear rumors all the time about --
CALLER: That made me sick. It made me sick to my stomach when I heard that. I didn't even give it a thought.
RUSH: That's just fear, I think, that is inspiring that theory. I don't think that Mrs. Obama wants the job. I don't think that's in the cards. I could be wrong.
CALLER: Are you kidding me? A narcissistic family like that?
RUSH: I think that they both look at it as beneath them. They want the world. You know, when Barack finishes this, it's on to the United Nations or whatever new organization they can come up with. But, you know, your father, your grandfather could be right. I mean, certainly she would be immune to any criticism, the first black female president. Look, anything can happen. I haven't heard that being speculated about in any serious way.
And even if she wants it, she might have to wait her turn. I think the pattern is first black president, then first woman president, then first Hispanic president, and then first black woman president. I mean, if the Democrats have a blueprint, that's what it is. And I think it's one of the worst things that coulda happened to her, but right now the fix appears in for Hillary. You know, we're right back where we were in 2005 and 2006, 2007, everybody assuming Hillary is gonna be the Democrat nominee. History is starting to repeat itself.
Everybody on my side thinks Hillary's gonna be the nominee. The news media on the Democrat side, everybody pumping Hillary out, fait accompli, foregone conclusion, finally it's her turn. It's exactly what happened in 2006 and 2007 and look at what happened. Something came along and totally upset the applecart. So let's, in looking at history, let's go back to the 2012 Democrat convention. Was there anybody who spoke at the 2012 Democrat convention about whom it was said, "That guy's gonna be president someday," or that woman? Because that's what launched Obama. In 2004, his speech, the Democrat convention, and Michelle's introduction of him, that's what launched all the talk of Obama becoming president.
He didn't seek it in 2004. He waited until 2008. And then something happened, and he announced and just moved right to the head of the list, just leapfrogged over Hillary, and the same kind of thing could possibly happen here. Is there some Hispanic Democrat lurking in the wings who could leapfrog over Hillary? I actually think that, at least on our side, the belief that Hillary is gonna be the Democrat nominee is total fear. It's based in nothing but fear and a little conventional wisdom. You live inside the Beltway there's certain things that you think and accept as reality, and one of them is the inevitability of Hillary Clinton as president. I don't see it and I didn't see it in 2008. I wasn't surprised. And now you got the New York Times dumping all over the Clintons, not just one story, we're up to three now.
RUSH: New York Times, August the 18th, yesterday, the Sunday paper. "Questions on the Dual Role of a Clinton Aide Persist." This is an all-out -- well, I don't want call it an assault. This is just short of a hit piece on Huma Weiner. "When news surfaced in May that the State Department had approved an arrangement that allowed Huma Abedin, a top adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, to take on work for private clients, officials at the department described it as nothing unusual. But three months later, questions about the arrangement persist, and the department has declined to provide some basic information about Ms. Abedin’s situation and those of other State Department employees who may have been given similar status."
Now, I have to ask, is the New York Times on some sort of a jihad against the Clintons? Just like the rest of the Drive-By Media, they had ignored Huma's sweetheart three way deal. You know, this is something that nobody talked about. Huma had it every which day. She had a deal with the State Department. She had a deal with Hillary. She had a deal with the Clinton Foundation and Library and Massage Parlor, and Teneo. Teneo is a financial consultant outfit that was founded by a Clinton lackey and which is getting rich via the Clinton Foundation.
So Huma has had a relationship with State Department via Hillary, a relationship with the Clinton library massage parlor and foundation, now this Teneo group, which is, again, a financial consultant outfit founded by a Clinton lackey, and it's getting rich via the Clinton Foundation. And Teneo, in turn, is paying Bill and Huma and other loyal Clinton cronies huge salaries for what seems like no real work. Like the kind of job Michelle had at the Chicago hospital. She earned over $300,000, essentially, for what was a no-show community relations job. And these are no-show jobs that are being discussed here, that are being exposed by the New York Times.
Fox News reported back in July that Huma got $355,000 from Teneo. Now, to people like me who pay attention to all this every day, this is old news. The fact that Huma was triple dipping was old news and not a lot was made of it because she's working for Hillary, she's protected, insulated. But now the New York Times is going back in time and bringing it all up again. And in the case of the New York Times, bringing it up for the first time.
Meanwhile, on their Caucus blog, the New York Times presents Bill Clinton's defense of his charity, but it doesn't amount to much of a defense. Basically Clinton says that the foundation's tax forms are misleading. Of course they are. They're too convoluted for the average person to understand. They don't show how much good work the Clinton Foundation has done over its 12 years. That's why they're misleading. Why wouldn't they?
I don't know about you, but my tax return lists every charitable dollar that I donate. What would be so hard about the Clinton Foundation's tax return not being an indicator of what kind of work it's doing? Well, one of the examples that Clinton gives in his own defense here is that his foundation provided five million people with access to low-cost AIDS medications and helped more than 21,000 farmers in Malawi obtain seeds and fertilizer. Well, I mean, forgive me here, but how much could low-cost AIDS medicine cost? How much could seeds and fertilizer for 21,000 African farmers cost? What I mean is, none of this is particularly convincing, if you ask me. It's misleading. We do all this work, and we're spending all this money, and we got all this money coming in, and this is why we're running deficits, because we're buying all this medicine, we're buying all this feed and so forth.
Here's the point of this, though. The Times doesn't even try to help the Clintons out on this. They're simply exposing all this. They're exposing the dual role of a Clinton aide. The headline: Questions persist. So Huma is getting treatment that she's not used to. The Clintons are getting treatment from their own media that they're not used to getting.
Then there's Maureen Dowd and her column on Sunday: "Money, money, money, money, MONEY! Clinton nostalgia being replaced by Clinton neuralgia. Why is it that America’s roil family always seems better in abstract than in concrete? The closer it gets to running the world once more, the more you are reminded of all the things that bugged you the last time around." I wasn't aware that the Clintons bugged Maureen Dowd. I thought the Bushes bugged her.
Anyway, "The Clintons’ neediness, their sense of what they are owed in material terms for their public service, their assumption that they’re entitled to everyone’s money. Are we about to put the 'For Rent' sign back on the Lincoln Bedroom?" Folks, for Maureen Dowd, New York Times, that sentence is absolutely devastating. "The Clintons’ neediness, their sense of what they are owed in material terms," meaning money, "for their public service." She's accusing them of demanding to be paid for their good works, and their assumption that they are entitled to everybody's money. You don't see this about the Clintons in the Drive-By Media.
So people are scratching their heads and trying to figure out what is going on. When that first story came out, that was just to get it behind them so that two years from now Hillary could say, "Oh, that's old news." But now we're up to three, counting Dowd's column. Now we're up to three stories. Is it all still just a ruse to get the bad news out now so that they can say down the road, "Ah, it's old news, it's been reported, been covered." I don't know. Something that I can't quite explain is happening.
RUSH: Yeah. Maureen Dowd points out that Clinton got $700,000 for a speech in Lagos, $17 million in speaking fees, and she compares it to other presidents who've not traded on the presidency at all. It's not a pretty picture of the golden couple.
RUSH: Look, folks, I know I'm the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-everything Maha Rushie, but I do not know why the New York Times is dumping on the Clintons. I know what the possibilities are, but I do not know why they're doing it. And they are doing it. There is no question that there is, I don't know, an agenda or a storyline on this. But I mean, Bill Clinton is just raked over the coals here for being a reprobate, for being money hungry, for demanding to be paid for all of their good works. For demanding to be the focus of everybody's attention.
I mean, it is not pretty. This is not something you walk back from. This is not a hit piece that you say, "Oh, okay, maybe I was a bit too whatever," and apologize for it or walk it back. Nor are these stories that are being done on the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor and Foundation, nor are the stories on Huma. I mean, there's nothing the Clintons can do or say to cause there to be retractions on these stories.
The Maureen Dowd piece is an actual character attack, as much as it is anything else. I mean, when you start criticizing people for being money hungry, liberals, money hungry, demanding to be paid for every good work they do, making $17 million giving speeches, and contrasting that with Harry Truman, who didn't earn a penny trading on the office when he left it, and talking about how much Hillary makes per speech... I mean, she's created a picture here of people who are in it for the money, and that is an injurious hit to a liberal, who wants to be thought of as above all of that. A liberal is a liberal because of a good big heart and a compassionate mind and all that. They're not interested in money. It's one of the big myths that survives out there, and it's being blown up here where the Clintons are concerned.
Maureen Dowd also wrote, "The Clintons want to do big worthy things, but they also want to squeeze money from rich people wherever they live on planet Earth, insatiably gobbling up cash for politics and charity and themselves from the same incestuous swirl."
Now, I think that can be said of all of them. That is true of every leftist cause. Isn't that what they do for AIDS, ending poverty, climate change? Don't the left always find a way to get rich while the problems never get fixed?
Look at Algore. Algore has become a three-figure multimillionaire perpetuating a hoax. The hoax of manmade global warming. And all of these liberals get rich while advocating and promoting their causes, and there's always a component that requires everybody else giving up money. You have to change the car you're driving. You have to change your lifestyle. You have to get poorer. They get richer. That's what the first New York Times story was about, essentially, was here you have the Clinton Global Initiative, which is a foundation engaged in philanthropy, and it chronicled all the people getting rich from it. I mean, this is a huge veil being lifted from practically every leftist cause out there.
Let's look at Maureen Dowd here again. "The Clintons want to do big worthy things, but they also want to squeeze money from rich people wherever they live on planet Earth," that's donations to the charity or speech fees or what have you, insatiably gobbling up money for politics, money for policy, selling the Lincoln Bedroom or the White House coffees. All of this was going on, and while it was happening there was laughing about it, there was some reporting that was a little bit critical, but mostly they put a veil over it in order to protect the Clinton image, as people totally focused on good works and not themselves.
And that's why this is remarkable to me, and that's why I said this is gonna be very difficult, I wouldn't say it's impossible, but this is gonna be very difficult to walk back. Now, maybe the Times could get it out of their system and then ignore it and go back to covering the Clintons the way they did, but it's still out there. And I guess it's still possible that what all this is is simply get the junk out of the way now, clear the decks for a Hillary run so that when other people bring these things up, they can say it's been done, reported on. "Oh, yeah, Maureen Dowd wrote about that two years ago, and here I am still on the precipice of becoming the nominee," what have you.
But I think this is every liberal cause. I don't care whether it's AIDS, ending poverty, global warming, stopping malaria, you name it, every liberal involved is getting rich promulgating these charities, while everybody else gets poorer. Here's more from Maureen Dowd.
"Clintonworld is a galaxy where personal enrichment and political advancement blend seamlessly, and where a cast of jarringly familiar characters pad their pockets every which way to Sunday." All right, how is that any different from any other Democrat and his or her cause, like Algore? Personal enrichment. This has long been a point that I've tried to make in my own inimitable style on this program. A lot of liberals get rich running these charities living off of the donations they solicit. They don't actually have real world jobs.
They don't actually start businesses or work at businesses and take a share of what is produced or created. They set themselves up in these profitable or not-for-profit foundations or organizations. They live off the donations. But they do get rich in the process, the Kennedys, and while they get rich, their public image soars as great, compassionate, philanthropic people. Remember, there's another aspect to this. People ask me and have asked me frequently over the course of this program about all these wealthy Democrats and why they're Democrats. People most often mention Buffett and Bill Gates because those two appear to be uber-capitalists. People ask me, "Why are these guys Democrats?" I say, "There's a very simple answer. These really hyperrich people insulate themselves and their wealth by appearing to be opposed to it."
Sort of a modified Limbaugh Theorem. Become rich, get really rich, and then become a person that supports liberal Democrat causes oriented toward helping the poor or what have you. Meanwhile, you don't give any of your money to it, but you just say you're for it, and in the process you create the impression that you're not a greedy capitalist, and therefore nobody wants to go after your money. But they do want to go after AIG's money, and they do want to go after certain Wall Street funds, certain individuals. In one way, it is a gutless way, but smart, of making sure the peasants with pitchforks don't try to cross the moat and get to their house and get their money, because the peasants with pitchforks end up thinking that all these super uber-rich people are looking out for 'em, trying to help them. It's a pretty smart trick.
But I think with what's being exposed with the Clintons here by, in this case, Maureen Dowd, but the New York Times in general, is an open book on every liberal Democrat cause and how these people actually do get rich and then attain this status of super compassionate, big-hearted, only cares about others characterization. Even the Wall Street Journal -- and I say "even" because, aside from the editorial page, the Wall Street Journal also bends a little leftward out there. And they have a piece today entitled, "Hillary's Racial Politics." I won't bore you with the whole piece, but what it focuses on is why Hillary is making such a big deal about voting rights acts and voting laws and why she's out there speaking to the American Bar Association and the NAALCP about the right to vote and black people and how it's being taken away from them and all of this gobbledygook that isn't true.
And here's a pull quote. "The disconnect between these facts and Mrs. Clinton's assertions suggests that she is the one playing racial politics. The current narrow Democratic majority is largely a coalition based on gender and racial identity. It requires big turnout among single women and non-whites. As the Obama era winds down, the fear among Democrats is that these voters won't have the same enthusiasm."
Take the first African-American president off the ballot, not as much enthusiasm. You know, get rid of the front-running feminazi female, not as much enthusiasm. In other words, they need to cheat. They need to avenues to voter fraud. This is why they're so opposed to photo ID. What this story in the Wall Street Journal is pointing out is essentially Hillary knows she doesn't have a prayer without voting laws stacked in her favor. That is, maintaining the standard that there will be no photo ID required. I mean, there's only one reason for that. You can have voter fraud. It's pure and simple, and everybody knows it.
I actually think, given the Democrats' incessant focus on voting rights, the idea here that there's still some effort out there to deny minorities the right to vote, if anything, there's an effort to count their votes more than once. If anything, there's an effort to get people not even qualified the vote to vote. The idea that there's an effort to squash minority voting is absurd. It's just the exact opposite. Everybody's pandering to them, and the way the Democrats operate, they're trying to see to it that minorities can vote multiple times. Early voting, absentee voting, same-day voter registration is voting. All of this is aimed at on overwhelming an electoral system that can't keep up with the fraud.
In one sense you could probably say that it is a wonder Republicans win anything. And then you would say it's gotta be a testament to the power of conservative ideas. But every time I see a Democrat on television wailing and moaning and complaining and crying about Voting Rights Act here, as though there's still this effort from the 1800s to deny the right to vote to minorities. What an insult to intelligence that is. As I said, the effort is to get those people voting multiple times.
The whole idea that a photo idea is the equivalent of a poll tax or some such thing, all this age-old language that incites old ideas of racism and Jim Crow slavery and this kind, it's absurd. Well, anyway, the Wall Street Journal is calling her on it in this piece. It's all happened before she's even announced, which we also must point out.