RUSH: Chris in Pleasanton, California. Hello, sir.
CALLER: Yeah, hi, Rush. I think this lockstep reaction of the media to that question of Trump accepting results is a huge mistake by them and an opportunity for Trump. Here’s why. When he speaks about things being rigged there’s really two parts to it. One involves possible fraudulent voting, but the other part of that rigged equation is the media being so incredibly dishonest and almost fraudulent. And so with them making an issue of him not accepting results, it almost throws, like you said earlier, it throws a focus onto this undercover tape where fraud, the first part of the rigged, is actually, you know, it’s a smoking gun evidence of it.
RUSH: That’s true. In fact, I saw O’Keefe the other day, he was expressing shock that the media wasn’t covering his video.
RUSH: I said, “Really, you’re shocked by this? There’s no way, James, they’re gonna cover this. There’s no way under the sun they’re gonna cover this.
CALLER: That’s the defense against WikiLeaks and whistleblowers and the truth coming out, is to ignore it. And by making an issue of how Trump responded to that question they’re almost forcing a spotlight onto that video and the fact that they don’t cover it. They’re gonna have to now cover it more and even better, have to defend themselves for not covering it previously.
RUSH: Well, maybe. I mean, they may be forcing attention on the video. Trump did call attention to the video, but he didn’t call it Project Veritas. He called it “the clips.” He said, “You’ve seen the clips.” And the low-information people think the clips are things you jump off of when you’re gonna commit suicide. They don’t know what he meant, “Clips, what clips?” So if you knew about Project Veritas then you knew what Trump was talking about, but he did not identify it. He just said the clips. People said, “What clips? What clips?” It might make ’em curious to find it. I think what it does, however — and I’m not gonna say this is the result of a brilliantly conceived, flawlessly executed plan, but by focusing on Trump refusing to go along with this, they’re actually playing into Trump’s strengths. This is why Trump won the nomination. Things like this refusing to bow down, grab the ankles and take whatever the establishment demands or throws at you, but instead fighting back against it and refusing to abide by their rules and their conventional wisdom, which is rigged against it, it is focusing attention on him.
I’m telling you that even people who are, we’re told, predisposed to hate the guy, look, he’s dominating the news cycle again. And they think that if they can portray him as lunatic, bad, whatever, that dominating the news cycle is actually good for Hillary. But I think things like this are actually the kind of things that backfire, or have the potential to backfire. There were some flash polls after the debate last night, and they were supposedly from scientific outfits, not websites where you could punch in your vote numerous times. Supposedly scientific sites.
Every one of these things Clinton was said to be the winner of the debate. Now, I’m gonna tell you something. I don’t presume — you know, my ego is not such that I believe everybody sees it the way I do when I watch anything, debate or anything, any event. I thought Trump once again just missed a whole bunch of opportunities to bury her last night, and he missed them because he’s not a politician, and he’s not instinctively oriented toward the ideological explanations that undergird Hillary’s policies.
Her economic plan is the biggest sitting duck to be blown to smithereens, you could do it in two sentences. But he didn’t go there. I don’t know why. So I was cringing a lot that, oh, another opportunity missed, another opportunity missed. It was one of those evenings where I was saying, “Damn, I wish I was there. Man, if I was there…” but everybody does that. And when you are there, it’s not the same as when you are watching, thinking you’re gonna be there.
But here’s the second thing. I thought she looked not good last night. When she started speaking, I looked at Kathryn, I said, “There’s something wrong here.” And it’s not her eyes. Her eyes were dancing a little bit, if you know to look for that. Her voice seemed to be really weak. She didn’t seem to be projecting well. She didn’t seem imbued with a lot of confidence. I caught her glancing down at her podium frequently. She looked unsure. She looked pasty. Somebody at the Fox Business Network claims that some technicians in the control room were monkeying with the color and contrast on Trump’s face to make him look pale and pasty instead of orange.
I know the smile. The smile was a Nurse Ratched smile. Everybody saw the smile. I’m talking about other things. I actually thought watching this might be the night where she doesn’t make it all the way through. It wasn’t one thing. It was a series of things. She didn’t look energetic. She didn’t look loaded for bear. I didn’t detect it as a strategy to lay back and let Trump own this and step in it and kill himself. I didn’t look at it as she’s in a prevent defense. I saw her pasty — I thought wearing white — you ought to see the Drive-Bys talking about that, by the way.
But then they gave her a pass because she looked so good and so pure in it. But they were worried that she was violating a fashion tenet. I actually thought this might be the debate where she doesn’t make it standing up all the way through. And I think it was close. I really think it was close last night based on way she looked.
RUSH: Now, here’s Trump. This really set ’em off. This was in the debate, Chris Wallace, “Why is your immigration and border security plan, Mr. Trump, why is it better than your opponent’s?”
TRUMP: We have some bad, bad people in this country that have to go out. We’re gonna get them out. We’re going to secure the border. And once the border is secured at a later date, we’ll make a determination as to the rest. But we have some bad hombres here and we’re gonna get ’em out.
RUSH: They’re having a cow. “We got some bad hombres here,” and supposedly, you know, social media has now apparently accrued this status of unimpeachability. If something happens on social media, I guess it’s gospel and it is the new conventional wisdom. If on social media there is rampant offense over Trump saying “We got some bad hombres out there,” then Trump becomes a reprobate again, a sexist, a bigot, a misogynist, all of these things, ’cause we got some bad hombres out there.
This is the kind of talk that endears him to average, ordinary people who talk this way, and, furthermore, understand it. Now, there was a part of the debate last night that I was privately, “Yeah, right on,” celebrating it because it’s a point that I have been making for many, many, many moons here on this program. It’s the second time he’s used it in these debates, and last night was the most effective. It was a segment about their economic plan. After Clinton says that she plans to make it easier for businesses to use American-made products, Trump said this.
TRUMP: I ask a simple question. She’s been doing this for 30 years. Why the hell didn’t you do it over the last 15, 20 years? And you do have experience. I say the one thing you have over me is experience, but it’s bad experience, because what you’ve done has turned out badly. For 30 years you’ve been a position to help, and if you say that I use steel or I use something else, make it impossible for me to do that. I wouldn’t mind. The problem is you talk but you don’t get anything done, Hillary.
RUSH: He got pretty close. The point is that here she is running on all these ideas. She’s gonna do this and she gonna do that. She’s gonna fix this. She’s got a plan for the kids. She’s got a plan to get rid of kids in the ninth month of pregnancy. She’s got a plan here. She’s got a massive new economic plan that’s not gonna add a penny to the national debt, while Trump’s will add 20 trillion to the national debt. She once again runs down trickle-down. “We’ve tried it, tax cuts for the rich.” All he would have had to say last night, “Could you tell me why you’re worth $20 million for two years of speeches to banks?”
So his point is, “You have been promising for 30 years to do all this stuff, and here we are 30 years since you started and you’re still complaining that the same things need fixing. Why haven’t you been effective?” And what she does, she always pivots and goes back to the Children’s Defense Fund. (imitating Hillary) “Well, I started working in the 1970s for women and children, Children’s Defense Fund.” That’s magic and you’re not supposed to question nothing further after that. Mrs. Clinton cares about women. Mrs. Clinton cares about children. Yeah.
And then he nailed her on this partial-birth abortion. Do you realize there is no Republican candidate that’s had the balls to go after any Democrat on that issue face-to-face like he did with her last night? Never. It has never happened. Even though the Republicans may be loyally pro-life, they pull back, but he just took it to her about abortion.
And she doesn’t deny it. All she can say is, “I have seen these women. I have met these women, and I’m telling you it is one of the hardest things, I’m telling you it is one of the most difficult things.” She’s therefore on record as supporting partial-birth abortion last night. I will guarantee you that’s the last thing anybody on the Democrat Party side ever factored would happen. That’s why she wasn’t prepared for it.
And it was, I don’t know, as I say, either brilliant or instinctive or a combination of the two, but to take that question on abortion, which has traditionally been a nail in the coffin for a Republican candidate, turn that around to a winning issue for him, a losing issue for her, and you’ll note that nobody in the Drive-Bys is talking about that exchange. They don’t want to go anywhere near it.
And then she lied about Planned Parenthood and all these mammograms they do and all these precancer checks. They don’t do a single mammogram, folks. They do not do them. They don’t do checks for cancer. Their solution to everything at Planned Parenthood is an abortion. She lied through her teeth. I don’t know if Trump knows that or not. Most people who, “Oh, great work, mammograms, care for women.” They don’t do anything of the sort. They harvest baby parts and sell them! We now know that.
But the partial-birth abortion thing, he turned it around on her. She didn’t have a denial and the Drive-Bys aren’t talking about it, and it’s things like that in a debate you’ll never hear any public reaction, no polling on it, but could have a huge impact. We’ll never know. We won’t know until the elections.
Here one more — nah, I gotta go to break.
RUSH: Let me ask you a question. Why do we have early voting? Seriously, why do we have it? We already have absentee voting. If you’re not gonna be around on Election Day, you vote absentee. Why do we have early voting? Whose idea was that? And what’s its purpose? (interruption) What do you mean, to help the elderly?
We’ve already got absentee booklets. Why do you need early voting? It’s just as inconvenient to vote early as it is absentee. We already have absentee ballots. If you can’t show up that day or if Roland Martin’s standing in line and you can’t get around him, then there’s all kinds of other things you can do. You can do absentee voting. Why early voting? What the hell is that? Where’s early voting mentioned the Constitution?
And, by the way, where’s it written the Constitution the loser has to automatically concede for the sake of Constitution? Where does it say that? It doesn’t say that in the Constitution? Really? Is that right?
HILLARY: That’s part of my commitment to raise taxes on the wealthy. My Social Security, payroll contribution will go up as will Donald’s, assuming he can’t figure out how to get out of it, but what we want to do is to replenish the Social —
TRUMP: Such a nasty woman.
HILLARY: — Security trust fund.
RUSH: Such a nasty woman. She is a nasty woman. You know, are we not allowed to say that just because she’s a woman? You’re not allowed to criticize Obama because of his race. And I thought feminism made us all the same, we’re all equal. Everybody’s a tough guy now, so why can’t we criticize women? She is a nasty woman.
And, by the way, this is another area here on this. When this entitlements question came up, to me, this was one of the biggest hanging curveballs that Trump missed, and I don’t even think he swung at it. Is not the current situation, condition of Social Security and Medicare, is that not a classic example of how the establishment, our betters, the elites, have totally, totally screwed something up?
And how many campaigns of your life have you heard candidates of both parties promise a fix for the Social Security system? And everybody’s got a plan. Every damned candidate has had a plan, and yet it remains unfunded, biggest part of the budget, no end in sight, no solution has ever worked. If there’s anything that justifies the candidacy of an outsider to fix one of the biggest messes in this nation’s budget, it’s these two entitlement programs. And she is Exhibit A for being disqualified, if you ask me.
RUSH: One more bit of commentary on the debate and then back to your phones. This is early on in the debate, the question on the Supreme Court and nominees. And it was classic. Now, Trump’s answer was great. Trump’s answer was related to and focused on the Constitution and the original intent of the founders, and he retreated to a safety zone, which is the Second Amendment, which was good, because she really doesn’t have much say on it.
Toddlers have nothing to do with the Heller decision, DC, not about children, not about toddlers, toddlers, the word’s not mentioned, Trump didn’t know. Could have nuked it. But before that, when Hillary described, in answer to the pregunta from the debate hombre, el Christo Wallace, about the kind of judges she looks for, she didn’t define judge. She listed the qualifications for a community organizer. She listed the qualifications for a social agitator, a social justice warrior.
This was one of those occasions where even though Trump, this was one of his best answers, he could have blown her out of the water and been educational at the same time. Here is what Mrs. Clinton said. Crooked Hillary said, “You know, when we talk about the Supreme Court” — fake smile — “it really raises the central issue in this election, namely what kind of country are we going to be.” Well, she’s right about that, actually, but not in the way she means. “What kind of opportunities will we provide our citizens.” The Supreme Court’s not about that. Supreme Court is the law, and their cases are not about opportunities being provided for our citizens.
“What kind of rights will Americans have?” We already have them. I mean, they are enumerated. Then there are rights that Mrs. Clinton doesn’t like. American people have too many rights. There’s too much freedom. Government doesn’t have enough rights, in her mind. Government’s too limited. The Constitution limits the government way, way, way too much. “And I feel strongly that” — fake smile — “the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people.” Not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy.
Now, sadly, this characterization of the purpose of the court has been bought by way too many ignorant low-information American citizens. ‘Cause it sounds good. Class warfare always sounds good. Taking action against the rich and the powerful and making ’em pay for what they do, it always sounds good. But that’s not the job of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court standing on the side of the American people? The Supreme Court adjudicates the law. The Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of things and other things. The Supreme Court’s gotten way out of focus, in my opinion. That’s for another day.
My friends, it is not an exaggeration, and it’s not an attempt to go overboard to get your attention. It’s not an attempt to be outrageous. They do not like free speech. They do not like criticism. Citizens United, the reason she hates it is because central to it was a movie that was funded by donations from certain people that was critical of her. She doesn’t think the movie should have been made, and you shouldn’t have seen it. And she thinks the government ought to have the power to eliminate — they go after Trump saying he wants to expand libel laws. Mrs. Clinton and the Democrat Party want to limit what you can say.
Now, they can’t because of the free speech clause in the First Amendment, which is very clear, “The government shall make no law abridging freedom of speech,” and it literally is about political speech. You can say anything you want about politics, a candidate, and the government cannot stop you. And they hate that. Since they can’t go after speech, they go after proxies for speech, and the number one proxy for speech is money. Money equals speech. People get together and they donate to organizations so that a pile of money can be used to create a message that can be broadcast en masse as part of the a political campaign.
It’s entirely legal. The Supreme Court said so in Citizens United. Money equals speech. The Democrats, since they can’t eliminate speech, they couldn’t succeed at that, even the low-information voter crowd would stand up and oppose that. But going after proxies, going after substitutes for speech, money, particularly when you’re going after the rich and the powerful, while she’s in bed with them, making speeches to them, they’re paying her 250 to $350,000 for 20 minute speeches, she nevertheless goes public and condemns them and criticizes them when she doesn’t really mean it.
They are the lifeblood of her campaign, the banks and all these big time rich people from Hollywood and Silicon Valley, you name it, are the mother’s milk of her campaign. They are the money. She just doesn’t want Trump to have it or any other Republican to have it or any average citizen to be able to bundle his money with other people’s money and create an ad or a campaign. So instead of going after speech they go after proxies for speech, and money is the number one proxy.
The third thing they did to eliminate free speech is use the IRS to deny Tea Party groups tax-exempt status to raise money to spend on message-driven campaigns. And that’s how they attack free speech. But when you look at this in total, “We need a court that stands up for gays, for women, for transgenders.” That’s not the purpose. The Supreme Court is not about social justice. The Supreme Court’s not about social warfare. The Supreme Court’s not about the implementation of the Democrat Party agenda.
The Supreme Court is about the Constitution. It is about constitutionality. It is about the law. At its bear simplest, it’s about the law. It is not about the Democrat Party agenda. Because that’s what it’s become. The whole judiciary has become that because that’s the kind of people they have put on various courts as judges, and every liberal justice on the Supreme Court is a social justice warrior first and a judge of the law second. And if they get one more, then they will have effectively corrupted the Supreme Court.
If they get another Elena Kagan, who has no business being there, if they get another Senorita Sotomayor, if they get another Breyer, who may be one of the absolute worst, Ruth “Buzzi” Ginsburg, if they get another one of these, then we don’t have a Supreme Court, folks. You know as well as I do, people already think the court is there to become the final word on controversial political questions. So everybody looks to the Supreme Court as the final word on abortion or immigration or what have you. It’s not what it’s for. It’s never intended to be such. It’s just another institution that has been corrupted and it’s facing total corruption depending on the outcome of this election.
RUSH: Here is Mary in Hamden, Connecticut. I’m really glad you waited. I appreciate your patience. Hi.
CALLER: Oh, no problem, Rush. Thank you so much for having me on.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: I wanted to talk about something I think you mentioned briefly, but not many people are talking about the fact that Hillary divulged national top secret information by giving our nuclear response time on live television during the debate.
CALLER: You know, I know a couple of articles have been written about it where people are speculating, basically, and, you know, doing an analysis, trying to figure out about how long it would take, but to my knowledge it has never been actually known what that time frame was. And Hillary is not a reporter. She’s not somebody who did some research and is hypothesizing. She was secretary of state and one of the few people that would have that information.
RUSH: She killed bin Laden, she killed bin Laden while Trump was out there building buildings with Chinese steel.
CALLER: Oh, yeah, I know, she was carrying the gun, too.
RUSH: Right, exactly.
CALLER: I’m pretty sure she did that single-handedly.
RUSH: Obama was on the golf course, she killed bin Laden.
CALLER: Oh, my God. All the more reason that her saying that means a lot more than some obscure written article by some newspaper hack that not many people see. Millions of people heard the secretary of state give our response time.
RUSH: Well, it turns out this has been fact-checked, Mary, by Snopes.com. And, by the way, all the fact-checkers have been proven corrupt. The fact-checkers are part of the Democrat Party, the media coalition with the Democrat Party. Snopes.com says that this is not true. And they find some radical peacenik who founded something called Plowshares who tweeted that it’s widely known that it takes four pins to spin a nuke response up.
This is not a secret. We’ve known this for a long time, so Snopes says, fact-checkers, Hillary didn’t divulge anything that we haven’t known for a long time. It takes four minutes from the time the order is given to spin something up, be able to launch from a silo or submarine, what have you. I’ve never heard it. And whether it’s known or not, it’s kind of haphazard to have it just cavalierly announced like this, especially within the context that Trump is unqualified to make the call on something like this.