RUSH: The Bill Clinton foundation. You know, Media Matters for America -- which is not even left wing. This bunch is just indescribable. They exist for one reason, and that is to lie, misrepresent, and take out of context what happens in conservative media and then report it that way, and what Media Matters does is they provide the information, say, on this program for mainstream media reporters who don't listen to it.
So a mainstream media reporter will find out what happened on this program by going to Media Matters, or on any other conservative program, or on Fox News. Rather than watch or listen, they'll get it from Media Matters. Media Matters is livid at the New York Times. They are just beside themselves over the attack on Hillary. You know, David Brock is the emeritus president, forever, longtime chairman for life, whatever he calls himself where he lives in their basement down there.
He used to work for the American Spectator, or write for them, and one of the most popular pieces ever in the American Spectator was an anti-Hillary piece back in the early nineties. It was so successful that it discombobulated Brock, and he ended up doing a 180 and is now a total Clinton acolyte for whatever reason, and he is the personal defender of Hillary Clinton, and he is just outraged at the ongoing assault on Hillary Clinton by the New York Times. He wrote an open letter to 'em.
And I, of course, your host, am mentioned in the first paragraph. I don't have it in front of me here, but what he basically says to the Times in an attempt to humiliate them. "Even Rush Limbaugh is citing your injurious reports!" That is supposed to embarrass the New York Times into stopping what they're doing. He's just outraged by this terrible, terrible unfairness that the New York Times is aiming at the Clintons.
Of course it all started with an expose on the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor and the Global Initiative. They've made this big point they've got all this money coming in -- I mean, literally tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions over the course of many years. In donations, they get hundreds of millions of dollars, and they're running a deficit. Yet the Clintons are getting rich while all this is happening.
So the Times is raising some questions -- legitimate, as it turns out. Well, here's an update. This is from the New York Post: "Bill Clinton's foundation has spent more than $50 million on travel expenses since 2003, an analysis of the non-profit's tax forms reveal." The spending "includes travel costs for the William J. Clinton Foundation (to which Hillary and Chelsea are now attached) of $4.2 million on travel in 2011, the most recent year where figures are available.
"The Clinton Global Health Initiative spent another $730,000 on travel, while the Clinton Health Action Initiative (CHAI) spent $7.2 million on travel." They have all these foundations and they're all running deficits: $50 million on travel expenses! Businessman and Republican New York City mayoral candidate "John Catsimatitis (sic) has lent aircraft to Clinton and to the foundation multiple times for travel, including Clinton's recent trip to Africa along with daughter, Chelsea.
"Clinton sometimes uses Catsimatitis' Boeing 727, opting on other flights to use a smaller Gulfstream jet." There's all kinds of people's jets that Clinton uses, and they've all got women on 'em, and they've all got a bar on 'em. But, anyway, the expose of the Clintons continues. How much flying and what kinds of hotel bills do you need to amass or rack up $50 million in bills?
By the way, when you fly on somebody else's jet you get a discounted rate. It's the way it works in political campaigns. Now, this has been the case in the past; I assume it still is. Let's say you're running for some office, you're a candidate, and a donor offers you his jet. You cannot accept a trip on his jet el freebo. Let's say his jet costs $5,000 to an hour fly. You don't pay that $5,000 an hour.
All you have to do is pay the equivalent of first class airfare, and you're legal, and that's what is meant hear in the Post by the discount rate. "Sometimes Clinton uses the plane at a discount rate for the foundation, and sometimes Catsimatitis donates the flight time to the charitable foundation, which has a variety of programs," blah, blah. They're not spending retail on these expenditures, and still they're racking up $50 million!
You know, you can amass income in a lot of ways, and this expose on the Clintons continues.
RUSH: I think it's hilarious that Media Matters thinks that the New York Times has an anti-Clinton bias. I mean, how out of touch with reality would you really have to be to think that? David Brock, in his letter to the New York Times, open letter to the New York Times, they got hold of it at The Politico. They think they had a scoop. So The Politico printed the open letter from Brock to the New York Times. And it begins this way.
"I am writing to express my concern about a recent string of reports and columns from your publication that have done nothing but use false pretenses to cast a shadow on Bill and Hillary Clinton. It says a lot that Rush Limbaugh applauded your 'injurious' work on the former first family yesterday afternoon on his radio program."
It just bugs 'em, folks. It's some of the most fun I have, swatting these people around, toying with them, playing games, it is just fun. Now, speaking of the Clintons, one of the causes that they're really big into at the Clinton Global Initiative, one of the pet causes is global warming. Now, how do you square being all worried and concerned with global warming and then run around and spend $50 million discounted, discounted, not retail, takes a lot of flying on discount rates, got $50 million worth of jet travel on Boeing 727s. That adds up to a lot of carbon emissions.
But, you see, folks, the way it works, they're good people. They're permitted to use all of the carbon they want. They can emit all the carbon they want because they're good people. They're warning everybody else. They're sounding the clarion call. They're the great carers [sic] and concerned people. They're good people, so they're exempt from their own requirements because they are doing the good works, and they are alerting everybody else, and they're making sure that you don't behave in this selfish, incorrect way.