Obama Actually Did What Trump Is Accused of Doing

Leave a comment

H/T Rush

Bathhouse Barry will get a pass because the DemocRats and the lamestream media want to preserve the pathetic legacy of the first black president.

The first black president is a disgrace and has shafted the black community.

RUSH: We don’t know the context of the Comey letter. It’s being presented as Trump trying to interfere in an investigation, something Barack Obama actually did with the acquiescence of James Comey to clear Hillary Clinton! Obama actually did what Trump is being alleged to have done. You know this phrase, “I hope you can see your way to letting this go…”? Do you know who often uses a phrase like that? Psychiatrists, to people, patients who are obsessive-compulsives. “I hope you can let this go.” I hope you’re gonna be able to… ‘Cause whatever…

I mean, they’re trying to say that Trump was trying to shut down the investigation. How did that work? I think every investigation under the sun is still going on, isn’t it? With no evidence! Trump’s really horrible. If his idea was to shut down investigation of Flynn or of the Russia collusion, they’re both still ongoing, and there’s nothing that has stopped them. And even the FBI’s second in command says that no effort has been made to stop the investigation. That’s the whole premise that the media is relying on with the Comey memo. Yeah.

Well, Comey, apparently, is a big believer in self-protection, and every time he had a meeting with a principal, he would go back and memorialize the meeting in a form of a memo to himself. “Dear Self: The president today told me he hopes I can let go of the investigation into Michael Flynn,” and he did this to protect himself. But then how come nobody knew about this until the New York Times told us about it? How come the investigators in the Senate have not been told about this memo by Comey? How come Comey has not spoken up about it himself?

If Trump was trying to subvert an investigation and shut it down, shouldn’t the FBI director have said something that very next day? Shouldn’t Comey have gone public (as only he could do) with a massive press conference and resign in great fervor over the idea that this pig had attempted to violate the Constitution and stop his investigation? Why did we not know about this until the New York Times lets it loose? There are countless questions here, my friends, that have answers that blow up pretty much every premise the media is attempting to get you to believe. Some of it’s problematic.

Do not misunderstand. I’m not sitting here in abject denial. Some of this is problematic. On the Flynn business, Trump should have known. You know, let them do whatever he wants to do and pardon Flynn later. He doesn’t have to stop the investigation. Pardon him if it happens. Who knows what. I think the truth is I don’t think Trump wanted to let Flynn go. I think he loved Flynn. I think Flynn was loyal. I think he trusted Flynn, and I think the pressure got to him to let Flynn go, and something bothered him.

I’m wild guessing ’cause I do not have any inside context on any of this. (interruption) No, no. Obama actually… Well, here’s what they’re trying to accuse Trump of doing. This is the bottom line. What they want to do, ladies and gentlemen… Let me take a break. If I get started on this I’m gonna go way, way long so let me take a break and we’ll come back and I’ll tell you what this whole thing ultimately is about. And it is something that Obama actually did with Comey, to get an investigation of Hillary Clinton stopped — and she was cleared.


RUSH: All right, here’s (among many things) what’s going on. Here’s what Trump is alleged to have done here vis-a-vis the Comey memo. Comey memo says that Trump asked him to let it go. Let the Flynn investigation go. I can hope you see your way to let this go. He didn’t do anything. The guy… I love the guy, honest guy. Comey said, “Yeah, I can tell you honest guy, good guy.” And what Trump is alleged to have done is actually no different than what Barack Obama did in April last year when he made it known that he didn’t want Hillary prosecuted.

In fact, the Obama situation is actually worse. While Trump indicated he didn’t want Flynn charged, he did not order the case dropped, because it’s still going on. Trump indicated that he wanted Flynn not to be charged, but he did not order the case to be dropped. And the case continues. Grand juries have been impaneled now. In contrast, the FBI and the Department of Justice dropped the Hillary investigation just as Obama wanted them to, and they used exactly the rationales Obama used when he made his public statements.

Well, Obama, was saying there was no intent to harm the U.S., the degree of classified emails that Mrs. Clinton was trafficking in is very exaggerated. Obama went public with all this! He went public with his own exoneration and thought that the investigation should be brought to a screeching halt. And it was! Comey got together and they stopped the investigation, and that allowed them and Hillary — for the rest of the campaign — to say she had been cleared. That’s why they got so mad at Comey when he did the July 5th press conference, because back in April, Obama thought he’d taken care of this.

The July 5th press conference was essentially to announce that there wasn’t going to be a prosecution of Hillary because there wasn’t any intent. This is what Obama had set up with public statements the previous April, and I know you don’t remember the media being jacked up about this. I know you don’t remember any anonymous sources leaking information to the media that looked bad for Hillary and Obama. You just greeted this with, “It’s the usual Democrat-media corruption.” And they’re saying that this is what Trump was trying to sneak through here. He was trying to get Flynn to be cleared so that he could run around and say, “Flynn didn’t do anything. See? I’m clear!”


RUSH: Here’s what the allegation is gonna be, if it hasn’t already appeared the Drive-By Media. The allegation is gonna be that what Trump wanted to do was to have the FBI clear Michael Flynn, and then use the FBI’s clearing him to argue that a thorough investigation had proved nothing bad happened here. All right? Now, why did they think that’s what Trump would do? They’re gonna say that Trump’s plan was to rig the investigation and then exploit the fact that there had been one. By exploiting it, I mean, “Hey, look, man! Look at this detailed investigation! It happened, and my buddy Flynn’s clear.”

The Democrats would know exactly how to do it because that’s exactly what Obama did with Hillary. If you’re scratching your heads about this, maybe you remember in April of 2016, when everybody was wondering, “Is Hillary gonna be indicted?” Remember there was a drip, drip, drip? Every day there seemed to be more news about Hillary’s illegal server and classified documents flying around, and every day people speculated who was behind this, and everybody concluded that Obama was. And remember the debates, the questions?

“Is Obama trying to take her out? Is Obama trying to destroy her? Is it Obama does not want her to be president, doesn’t trust her with this?” Remember all of this stuff? And on the other side of it people were saying, “Maybe Obama’s trying to inoculate her. Maybe Obama’s trying to just dribble this stuff out so that it doesn’t end up hurting her — a little bit here, a little bit there.” But the conventional wisdom was that if he was doing anything, he was trying to hurt her, because it just prolonged everything.

I offer those simply as reference points. You might remember those things being discussed at the time. This is April of 2016. And that’s why the Democrats would know how to accuse Trump. There’s no evidence this is what Trump was trying to do. There’s no evidence for anything here. We have allegations. We have a memo that may or may not exist. We have a memo that may exist without any context. We don’t have anybody that can tell you what crime Donald Trump has committed yet to this day.

But Obama actually did, with Hillary Clinton, exactly what they are accusing Trump of trying to do through Comey at that dinner (where Comey only got one scoop of ice cream) to protect Flynn. If you think back to April 2016, there was no way they were ever gonna have Hillary Clinton indicted. Obama ran the DOJ, and he was running Loretta Lynch, and Obama was running Comey, and there was no way Hillary was ever gonna be indicted. You know it and I know it. But they used the fact that the FBI had ostensibly done a thorough investigation in order to clear her.

That was the purpose of the drip, drip, drip. The purpose — in retrospect — of the drip, drip, drip was to get all the evidence out there and then claim that it had been investigated, and then Comey magically appears on July 5th to list all this stuff that everybody knew. There was some of it that we didn’t know, but he gets it all out there; then says, “No reasonable prosecutor would proceed,” and, bam! She’s cleared! The difference between Obama and Trump is very simple. Obama’s pressure on the FBI to wipe the Hillary investigation off the map appears to have worked.

Regardless of what Trump may have said to Comey, the investigation of Flynn continues. The investigation of the collusion of the Trump campaign in Russia continues. So where is the obstruction? They’re whispering impeachment, obstruction of justice, violation of this and that. Where is it? The investigations are ongoing elsewhere. The House Democrats announced a new one today! Pencil Neck went out there, Adam Schiff, and said, “You know, we’re not gonna wait for a special counsel. We’re gonna do a special commission here in the House!”

So they’ve launched another investigation. Investigations aren’t being shut down. Some people, as I was saying, don’t want to sit around and wait for impeachment. They want whatever is gonna happen here to happen before the 2018 midterms. So there are people suggesting — and one of them is Ross Douthat of the New York Times, quote-unquote, “conservative columnist” there. His suggestion — and many have now echoed it — is (paraphrased), “Well, use the 25th Amendment! That’s how we get rid of Trump. “We don’t have to worry about whether Republicans will join us now.

Just use the 25th Amendment.” What’s the 25th Amendment say? The 25th Amendment says that the cabinet, the president’s cabinet can certify the president’s insane — mentally deranged, deluded, mentally unsound — and get rid of him on the basis that he’s not all there. On the golf course over this weekend and the whole subject of impeachment came up. I said, “I don’t necessarily think that although I wouldn’t be surprised. I wouldn’t be surprised with the way they’re all setting this up. They’re trying to claim, ‘Trump is unbalanced anyway! He never has been all there.’”

So there are many areas here at which they’re aiming at Trump. Now, Andy McCarthy has written a column about this Obama precedent that I just talked about, and I want to give you a couple of paragraphs of this piece here just to batten this down because this is important. What they’re accusing Trump of doing has already happened, and it was Obama protecting Hillary and clearing her in the campaign year 2016.

“April 10, 2016 — President Obama said Sunday that Hillary Clinton showed ‘carelessness’ by using a private email server, but he also strongly defended his former secretary of state, saying she did not endanger national security…” Again, intent is not an element of the criminal statute. It’s been totally made up by Comey. The statute does not require intent in order for it to be violated. Comey just made it up and attached it, and Obama used it before Comey did. On April 10, 2016, Obama said publicly Hillary had not intended to endanger national security.

Of course not!

She’s a great Democrat. She’s a secretary of state. She’s from the Clinton dynasty. There is no way Hillary Clinton would intend to endanger national security. “Come on, people,” Obama said (paraphrased), “Who are we talking about here? Are we serious? Mrs. Clinton, Huma Abedin would want to purposely damage national security?” That’s the route they took. Obama suggested that in the greater scheme of things the importance of what Hillary had done here had been way, way overestimated; way, way too amplified.

She wasn’t trying to traffic in national security! She wasn’t trying to endanger the United States of America. She wasn’t doing half the stuff she’s been alleged to do. He said all this publicly — and next thing we knew, July 5th, Comey publicly stated (in almost exact words that Obama had used back in April) that Clinton had been “extremely careless.” Obama said she had “shown carelessness.” Comey said Hillary had been “extremely careless” in using a private email server to handle classified information.

But Comey insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security — which, again, is not an element of the statute. So you see the pattern? Obama goes public. (paraphrased) “Hey! She didn’t intend anything here. She was just… She showed carelessness.” July, Comey: Hillary was “extremely careless,” but she didn’t “intend” to endanger national security. “Comey acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via her server, but he suggested that in the greater scheme of things, it was just a small percentage of the emails involved.” Just like Obama said, “It’s been so overstated.”

So if anybody’s been working together here to clear a perp, it is James Comey and Barack Obama in April and through July of 2016 — and since that is what happened, the Democrats and the media are now projecting on Donald Trump that which they did. And they are accusing him of wanting to do what they did and claiming that Trump’s desire and effort to try to do this constitutes obstruction of justice and is thus an impeachable offense.

And yet at this very moment, nobody can detail for any of us a single crime Trump has committed, other than winning an election that he was supposed to lose in a landslide, unseating the popular (snorts) Hillary Clinton, whose turn it was — and who openly, in his inaugural address, threatened the Washington establishment and told them their days were over. There’s no mystery why we are here today. It’s been one of the easiest thing to predict.

And I have to tell you, I’ve been saying all week that one of the major things about this that troubles me is that either Trump or his people didn’t even understand the scope of what they had done and what they were doing in terms of being able to accurately predict the establishment’s reaction. They were just not gonna roll over. These are not the people that accept the results of an election. They just don’t. And this is not the first time in our history that they have acted this way. Florida 2000. They just don’t accept the results of elections when they lose them.

So, anyway, July 5th, the case against Hillary is dismissed. Could there be a more striking set of parallels, asks Andy McCarthy? “A cynic might say that Obama had clearly signaled to the FBI and the Justice Department that he did not want Mrs. Clinton to be charged with a crime, and that, with this not-so-subtle pressure in the air, the president’s subordinates dropped the case — exactly what Obama wanted, relying precisely on Obama’s stated rationale.”

And the media could not have cared less about actual obstruction, about actual interference. And of course they couldn’t have cared less, because this is the outcome they wanted. Mrs. Clinton cleared, free as a bird, as the nominee of the Democrat Party.


The Clinton Campaign Is Sponsoring Efforts to Overturn the Election Results


H/T Rush

I smelled a rat when I read Jill Stein was able to 4.8 million dollars to get a three state recall effort going.

I said this money has The Clinton Crime Family and George Soros’ fingerprints all over it.


RUSH: We had a couple calls yesterday, one in particular that I remember from a guy who wanted to know if I thought the effort to not vote for Trump by the Electoral College would succeed.  As you know, the left has mounted a couple of different efforts.  They are intimidating electors. They’re sending them emails, they’re phoning them, they’re bullying them, they’re threatening them to change their vote from Trump to Hillary.

It is unprecedented.  It has not happened before.  Electors have had some pressure before every election, but it’s nothing like this.  We had a caller yesterday ask me if I thought they could possibly succeed.  And I’ll tell you what I told him.  I called a bunch of experts on this, a bunch of people I trust and to a man, to a woman, they all pooh-poohed this, there’s no way it can happen.  There’s no way.  The laws are the laws and the electors have to follow the laws in many of these states.

And then I said, “That’s not good enough for me.  I think if you think this can’t happen, you still, still do not understand who we’re up against here.”  So I said, “Would you please look at this and tell me, if it does happen, how?”  And this is what they told me.  The best analysis of the possibility here that I got is this, that, as currently believed, there aren’t enough electors who could legally change their votes to get Hillary to 270 electoral votes.

However, an analysis shows that it is possible that some electors could be forced to change their votes and deny Trump from getting to 270 as well.

And if that were to happen, the presidency would then go to the House of Representatives.  They would decide it.  Since the Republicans control the House of Representatives now and once the next term starts, then Trump would be elected.  So I don’t think anything is going to change the result, but that doesn’t mean their effort isn’t gonna continue.

In fact, “Computer Scientists Urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results.”  Ladies and gentlemen, I think the Clinton campaign’s behind this.  I think it is the Clinton campaign that is mounting this effort to intimidate and threaten the electors.  You want to hear another theory?  Many people are aware now that Trump has supposedly backed off of his campaign promise to continue the investigation and possibly prosecute Hillary Clinton, under the guise of draining the swamp in Washington.

A lot of people are very bothered by this.  One of the theories being bandied about is that a deal has been struck, and the deal is if Trump — this is a behind-the-scenes deal — and by the way, I don’t believe this.  I’m just telling you what’s out there.  That a deal’s been struck between the Trump and Clinton campaigns that Trump promises he will not prosecute Hillary; Hillary promises that she will pull back on this effort to threaten and intimidate the electors.

You’d be amazed the number of people that believe that theory, though.  I’ve read various blog posts and listened to people talk about it.  And things are still so unsettled out there, and people are still so unnerved because they see the left is showing no signs of indicating that they lost.  And I’m trying to tell people, they never will.

Donald Trump’s presidency is gonna be the most under siege, attacked presidency we’ve ever had, day in, day out.  It isn’t going to stop.  Their objective is going to get Trump out of office.  The second objective will be to get Trump so scared, so intimidated, he will back off everything he intended to do and essentially implement their agenda. Or, if they can’t do that, not implement his.  But they do not slink away in defeat.  They not shrink away.

Now, I don’t believe that theory.  But this story comes from a reporter named Dan Merica at CNN.  And this guy, we got to know him through the WikiLeaks dump.  He was all over the WikiLeaks dump as being connected from CNN to the Podesta and Hillary campaign.  And his story is this.

“Hillary Clinton’s campaign is being urged by a number of top computer scientists to call for a recount of vote totals in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, according to a source with knowledge of the request.”  Now, stick with me on this.

“The computer scientists believe they have found evidence that vote totals in the three states could have been manipulated or hacked and presented their findings to top Clinton aides on a call last Thursday.”

They claimed that all it will take is changing 55,000 votes in three states and Hillary will be the president.  Just to remind you, this guy, Dan Merica, was exposed in the WikiLeaks emails to be one of the Democrat Party’s favorite stooges in the Drive-By Media.

Now, are you ready for the real nub of this story?  What do you think, after I’ve read you that first paragraph? “Wow, wow, they found some evidence out there that some rigged votes. They found some evidence in these three states.  Wow, there were some games played.”  No.  They haven’t found anything.  That’s the bottom line.  The story is a total lie.  It’s a misdirection, it’s a head feint.  They haven’t found anything.  It’s just three activists described as computer scientists urging the Clinton campaign to do this.

The computer scientists “told the Clinton campaign they believe there is a questionable trend of Clinton performing worse in counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared to paper ballots and optical scanners. … The group informed John Podesta … that Clinton received 7% fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic voting machines, which the group said could have been hacked. Their group told Podesta and Elias that while they had not found any evidence of hacking, the pattern needs to be looked at by an independent review.”

In other words, there is zero evidence for this claim.

There is not a shred of evidence.  It’s just three people calling themselves computer scientists claiming that they have looked at trends and concluding there could have been hackery of voting machines.  And they admit there’s no evidence of it!  But that doesn’t matter.  Because once again a favorite tactic of the left: The seriousness of the charge vastly outweighs the nature of the evidence.  Remember the book by Gary Sick at Columbia alleging that George Bush flew to Paris on an SR-71 to meet with the Iranians and strike a deal that they would keep the American hostages in hostage until after the election, making it easier for Reagan to beat Carter.

There was not a shred of evidence.  It never happened.  The Speaker of the House at the time was a guy named Tom… Tom… Tom what…? Tom… I’m having a mental block on his name.  He was from Washington.  And he went on TV and he said, “The seriousness of this charge is such that we must investigate.”  And they did!  They investigated.  This is years after the fact, by the way.  This is like 1990.  Was years after Reagan had left office.  But they investigated.  And they found nothing.  Same thing with Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill.  She had no evidence.

It was the seriousness of the charge that warranted the direction those confirmation hearings took.  And the same thing here.  There is no evidence.  They couldn’t find it.  They’ve looked for evidence that there was hackery in the voting machines in three states, and they can’t find any evidence, and they admit it.  They just say, “Because machines were used, it could have been done.”  So this effort is real.  Now, this story claims that these three scientists, computer scientists have reached a Clinton campaign and are urging them to move forward on this.  Nobody will be able to convince me that the Clinton campaign isn’t behind this effort to harass, threaten, and intimidate the electors in the states who will vote on December the 19th.


RUSH:  Wasn’t it Hillary Clinton who said…? In fact it was, because I have the tweet here right in front of me.  Back on October 24th, Hillary Clinton tweeted, “Donald Trump refused to say that he would respect the results of the election.  That’s a direct threat to our democracy.”  Well, we’ve had a role reversal here, and Hillary — her campaign, anyway — are sponsoring this intimidation tactic of the Electoral College.  Why is this not a threat to our democracy?  It’s Hillary who appears to be the one refusing to respect the results.

And, by the way, lest you think that there’s nothing to this, the New York Daily News has a story today. They’re cheering from the roof tops.  “Six Electors Have Vowed to Change Their Vote to Hillary.” Six electors pledged to Donald Trump say they are going to change their vote to Hillary Clinton.  “At least six electors have vowed to cast ballots that do not align with the popular vote results of their states, and if they do,” if the carry out their intentions, “they would narrow Trump’s margin of victory in the Electoral College.”

Right now Trump has 290 electoral votes; Hillary has 232.  “The highest number of faithless  electors in this country…” It has happened.  This is not unprecedented.  It was 1808 when six electors declined to vote for James Madison, and the New York Daily News says they found at least six members.  So Trump at 290, Hillary at 232.  So there wouldn’t be enough of this to get her to 270 but there are people thinking they can deny Trump 270 as well.  BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: From the Washington Post: “The Department Of Justice Is Not Going To Conduct A Vote Audit Based On Your Phoned-In Outrage.”  There’s something else happening out there, in addition to the intimidation of electors.  Liberals across the country are phoning the Justice Department demanding that they do a vote audit.  They want the DOJ to audit the presidential election vote based on how mad people are out there.

I’m not kidding.  This is how deluded and deranged these people are.  I’m looking for a way to actually characterize these people.  They’re sick, folks, they have literally been rendered sick.  Your average, ordinary, everyday liberal or Democrat is genuinely mentally ill now when it comes to matters of politics and current affairs, current events.  And they’ve been rendered this way by the media.  They literally have believed all this fearmongering and scaremongering.  They believe campuses are places where rapes are happening. They believe innocent black men are being gunned down multiple times a day by the cops.  They believe that Donald Trump’s coming for everybody who’s gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, whatever, and gonna be put in concentration camps.

I mean, people believe this.  The cast of Hamilton.  They’re scared to death.  And they think Trump’s gonna destroy the planet, on purpose.  Trump and the Republicans want to destroy the planet.  And they want to do it so fast that young liberals will not even reach 65.  This is genuine mental illness that we have been up against and that we are up against.  And the mental illness extends to the editorial board at the New York Times and their columnists and the reporters and infobabes at CNN.  I’m convinced it’s a genuine mental illness.

I asked yesterday, you know, watching some 70-year-old, 60-year-old Democrat strategists that I’ve been watching on TV all my life.  I’m asking, what happened to ’em?  I mean, they’ve always been liberal Democrats, but there was none of this fatalistic, fearmongering, scaremongering, apocalyptic, however they describe what they believe, and I’m asking myself, what happened to you?  Seriously, what has happened to you?  This is as close to insane, clinically insane, as I have seen, what the left believes.

Now you got a bunch of liberals that are calling the Department of Justice demanding that the Department of Justice do a vote recount based on how many angry liberals there are.  That alone should justify the recount.  And the Washington Post has a wake-up call for these people.  The headline:  “The Department Of Justice Is Not Going To Conduct A Vote Audit Based On Your Phoned-In Outrage.”

So stop it.  “For supporters of Hillary Clinton, the post circulating on Facebook and Reddit offers hope. The Justice Department, it claims, is ‘tallying calls’ from people who want an audit of the 2016 election. And given the small margins that Donald Trump won by in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, a shift of about 55,000 votes is all that would be needed to change the outcome.

“The problem is,” and the Washington Post even reports this, “it’s bogus. The Justice Department doesn’t count up calls to determine whether it should launch an investigation.”  Oh, but there are prosecutors who have.  I happen to know this.  That’s why they’re doing it.  They’re literally calling the Department of Justice asking that their calls be tallied and if enough people call expressing outrage, they think the DOJ will do an audit because of a couple of posts on Facebook and Reddit.

David Jacobs, DOJ spokesman, said, “The Justice Department does not tally the number of callers to determine whether federal action is warranted. Investigatory decisions are based solely on the facts and evidence as they relate to the federal statutes the department enforces.”

So that’s going on.  They really think if they call in enough numbers, they can make the DOJ — because they believe it. They’ve heard and they’ve read these posts on Reddit and Facebook.  Sick. (sigh) I don’t know.


The Real Story Of Thanksgiving

Leave a comment

H/T Rush Limbaugh.


Here at EIB we are wishing you and your family a Happy Thanksgiving.
No matter what you think of Rush Limbaugh, This is good.RUSH: Time now, ladies and gentlemen, for The Real Story of Thanksgiving, as written by I — by me — in my second book, See, I Told You So.
It’s page 70 in the hardcover version. “On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford.

On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs.
Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible.

The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments.
They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work.”
Now, you know the usual story of Thanksgiving: They landed. They had no clue where they were, no idea how to feed themselves.

The Indians came out, showed ‘em how to pop popcorn, fed ‘em turkey, saved ‘em basically — and then white European settlers after that basically wiped out the Indian population.
It’s a horrible example. Not only is that not true, here is the part that’s been omitted from what is still today taught as the traditional Thanksgiving story in many schools.

“The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store,’ when they got here, ‘and each member of the community was entitled to one common share.

All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. “They were going to distribute it equally. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well. … [William] Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives.

He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. … Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism,’ and it had failed” miserably because when every put things in the common store, some people didn’t have to put things in for there to be, people who didn’t produce anything were taking things out, and it caused resentment just as it does today.

So Bradford had to change it. “What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years – trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it – the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently.
What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild’s history lesson.

If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering,” that happens today and will happen “in the future. ‘The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years…that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God,’ Bradford wrote.

“‘For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.
For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without [being paid] that was thought injustice.’ … The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford’s community try next?

They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products.

And what was the result?” Here’s what Bradford wrote, the governor of the Massachusetts colony. “‘This had very good success,’ wrote Bradford, ‘for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.’

Bradford doesn’t sound like much of a Clintonite, does he?” or an Obamaite, if I can update it. “Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? … Anyway, the pilgrims found “In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves. … So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians.

The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the ‘Great Puritan Migration.” Very few people have heard this story or have had it taught to them — and the “thanks” was to God for showing them the way.

In later parts of the chapter, I quote John Adams and George Washington on their reminisces and their thoughts on the first Thanksgiving and the notion it was thanks to God.

It was an entirely different story than is being taught in the schools. It’s been muddied down, watered down all these years — and now it’s been hijacked by the multicultural community — to the point that the story of Thanksgiving is the Pilgrims were a bunch of incompetents and were saved only by the goodness of the Indians, who then were wiped out.

And that’s what kids are being taught today — ’cause, of course, you can’t mention the Bible in school, and that’s fundamental to the real story of Thanksgiving.

May God Bless and keep you safe.

Panic Sets In for Democrats, Drive-Bys

Leave a comment

H/T Rush

This election will be interesting to say the least.

Will it be a repeat of 1980 when Jimmy Carter conceded by  about 10pm?

My wife thinks it will be a repeat of Bush Gore in 2000. 


RUSH: We have panic starting to set in in the Democrat Party and in the Drive-By Media.  President Obama is out claiming that people not voting for Hillary, men not voting for Hillary, is due to sexism and that men need to try to get past that.  Well, what was it when men didn’t vote for her in 2008 when he opposed her in the primary on the Democrat side?  Was it sexism then, that men didn’t vote for Hillary back in 2008?

We also have polling data that is throwing things upside down.  Here’s one of the biggest reveals in polling data today.  We come to find out that — and we mentioned this yesterday — as evidenced by early voting and other research, black turnout, projected black turnout for Hillary Clinton is way down.  The enthusiasm African-American voters are showing for Hillary is nowhere near what it was for Obama in either 2008 or 2012.

Now, the reason this is important is this:  All of these polls from the Drive-By Media all year up until a week ago, and maybe even up until a couple of days ago, have just assumed a similar African-American turnout in their models as happened in 2008 and 2012.  They just assume that blacks will turn out in the same numbers for any Democrat.  And that projected turnout has contributed to the huge lead in many of these polls that Hillary has had.  Now they’re having to rethink this.

One of the reasons why the polls are tightening is because that projected turnout, African-American turnout, has been way amplified beyond what current research shows it will be.  Now, that could change between now and Election Day.  I’m just giving you the snapshot as of today.  In the ABC tracking poll and in the Investor’s Business Daily poll there is a stunning bit of information.  The Washington Post/ABC tracking poll, Trump and Hillary are basically tied.  Trump I think is up one or Hillary’s up one.

But when you get into the internals there are two things.  Trump has opened an eight-point lead — it’s tied today.  The tracking poll for ABC’s tied — Trump has opened an eight-point lead in honesty over Hillary Clinton in the ABC poll.

And also in the ABC poll — and this has the media freaking and this has the Democrats freaking — Trump is winning big with women, white women who do not have college degrees.  That’s a group that turned out in massive numbers for Ronaldus Magnus in 1980.  The media is stunned because their belief is that Hillary is gonna walk away with every female demographic group. College educated, not college educated, you name it. Trump is winning big with that subset of female voters.  That was not factored, as well.

In fact, in the Investor’s Business Daily/TIPP poll, the headline is: “Trump’s Women Problem Appears to Have Disappeared.”  I think all of this is why Hillary went out yesterday and started screeching about how terrible Trump was with women.  And do you know who introduced her?  She’s brought back Alicia Machado! Three weeks — three weeks — since that news was made, and she’s gone back to the well with Alicia Machado.  I think the Hillary tank is empty.  I think they’ve run out of things to say.  I think all they’ve got is that Trump is a misogynist reprobate.

And they’re panicking because they see women — certain demographic groups of women — flocking to Trump now.  I think women are maybe seeing the difference here between crude comments and compromised national security and dishonesty, what have you.  Now, “That’s not to say…” This is a quote from the Investor’s Business Daily poll: “That’s not to say there isn’t a gender gap — there’s still a big one. But Trump’s support among women has improved 5 points in the past three days in the wake of the FBI’s stunning announcement that it is looking into a fresh batch of emails relating to Hillary…”


RUSH: Look, I know the George Will comment, the Republican Party is never gonna win the presidency unless it gets right with Hispanics and other minorities.  It’s a Chamber of Commerce bromide, Chamber of Commerce run now by pretty much leftists and so forth.  I think this is all gonna be stood on its head if Trump wins this thing.

Look, we’ve got evidence as part of the show prep I have here, Hillary is not generating interest in the African-American population anywhere near Obama.

The key thing about this as I mentioned in the first hour, all of these polls that all year have been projecting Hillary at 10 points, eight points, 11 points, 12 points, whatever, they’ve all made an assumption, and that is that the black vote is going to show up in the same number and with the same enthusiasm as it showed up for Obama in 2008, 2012.

Well, there’s a lot data to suggest now that that’s not the case, and Democrats know it and the Clinton campaign know it and they’re panicking over it in certain sectors.  The early voting, it’s not turning out that way at all.  In Florida, things are upside down right now.  In addition to that, Trump is doing much better with certain demographics of women than anybody projected or thought.

We are learning here that so much of the polling samples that we get, the poll results are based on historical precedent that are being projected to current day, such as the African-American turnout for Democrats.  There are assumptions made that it’s always gonna be there.

Now, we know how the African-American vote is gonna go.  The turnout is a different matter.  But even in this case, I think Trump represents the first Republican to come along in a long time that could upset that turnout ratio.  We won’t know ’til Election Day.  The same thing with women.  But so much conventional wisdom here, ages and ages of conventional wisdom is perhaps being stood on its head.  It’s really exciting to follow and track this stuff.

Let me go into more of the polling data just to illustrate.  Let me review, in fact, starting with the Investor’s Business Daily and TIPP poll.  “Trump’s Women Problem Appears To Have Disappeared.” Now, they make the point here that there still is a gender gap, and a big one, but Trump’s support among women has improved five points the past three days in the wake of the FBI’s stunning announcement that it’s looking into a fresh batch.

There’s another poll that shows Trump’s support with white women, non-college educated, is just skyrocketing.  It’s a demographic that came out in droves for Reagan in 1980.  A new poll has Clinton 45, Trump 44 in Michigan.  Now, Clinton was up as much as 13 points over Trump in Michigan just a few weeks ago, and she’s in Michigan.  She’s been spending time in all of these blue states.

Michigan is considered the birthplace of the phenomenon known as Reagan Democrats, after working class whites began to abandon the Democrat Party in Michigan starting in the mid-sixties.  They rejected the anti-war left and the rising liberal wing, ended up supporting Republicans.  But in 1992 they went back home, so to speak, the Reagan Democrats went back to Bill Clinton and pretty much haven’t supported a Republican nominee since.  But it looks like it’s starting to shift here, particularly in Michigan.

The Los Angeles Times, where presidential race stands today, Donald Trump 47.8, Hillary Clinton 42.4.  Last night on Fox Larry Sabato and I think Karl Rove were both savaging the LA Times poll.  In fact, many in the Drive-By Media have been savaging the LA Times poll since that the LA Times poll first surfaced.  They have just been ripping it apart as unrealistic and inaccurate and not worthy of any attention.

Washington Post:  Clinton 46, Trump 46, and it is in this poll that Trump is cleaning up with white women that are not college graduates.  And it’s got the media buzzing ’cause nobody expected this.  Also in the Washington Post/ABC poll, Trump has opened an eight-point edge on honesty, even though the race remains tied overall.  And in the midst of all this, the media, according to a story here in the Washington Examiner, the media fear an FBI bombshell is going to hand the election to Trump.


RUSH: More polling data from Reuters.  “Low gas prices and President Barack Obama’s high approval ratings are key factors that favor Democrat Hillary Clinton winning the White House in next week’s election, according to a model from Moody’s Analytics that has accurately predicted the last nine US presidential contests. Clinton is forecast to pick up 332 Electoral College votes against 206 for Republican Donald Trump,” according to Moody’s.  It’s a projection based on economics.  And they are projecting a win for Hillary based on economics.

And, for example, one of the economic figures they are using to predict a Hillary win is the increase in real personal income per household.  What real increase in personal income per household are they talking about?  The Democrats themselves tell us that wages haven’t gone up in 15 years.  They blame Republicans for it.  But Moody’s says that, and they’re using government-issued economic numbers such as unemployment and the increase in real personal income per household.  Their point at Moody’s is the economy is roaring!

The economy is humming, and everybody is gonna vote to keep it humming and to keep it going, and that means they’re gonna vote for Hillary.  So that’s the Moody’s report.  However, it’s contradicted in other places you look.  This is from Real Clear Politics: “Dem Strategist: Clinton Should Be in ‘Panic Mode’ Over Enthusiasm Gap With Black Voters, ‘Nothing She Can Do Now.'” Calypso Louie Farrakhan, Louie Farrakhan’s out there saying that Hillary Clinton is Hitler to black people.  Now, think what you want of Calypso Louie, but he’s got people that follow him.

He’s got African-Americans that treat him as the gospel.  He’s out there saying that Hillary Clinton is the same as Hitler when it comes to black people.  “Leslie Wimes, the president of the Democratic African-American women’s caucus, joins MSNBC … to discuss the Clinton campaign being in “panic mode” about low voter enthusiasm in the black community. … ‘It’s over now as far as the African-American community is concerned. She had time back then to get into the community and get people out to vote.

“Now, you know, the numbers are the numbers. There’s nothing she can do now. … What I said before is she didn’t have the luxury of being Barack Obama. We are not as enthusiastic about seeing the first woman president as we were about seeing the first African-American” be elected president. Then from the Daily Caller: “Pollsters Claim Blacks More Excited About Hillary Than They Ever Were for Obama,” a contradictory bit of information.  Democrats on MSNBC are saying she’s lagging far behind in black turnout.

But a poll here, Times-Picayune poll. There’s a bunch of them that are being amalgamated here that indicate blacks are “more excited about Hillary than they were for Obama.”  What Hillary is doing and where she’s campaigning doesn’t bear that out.  So again, you boil it down, and nobody knows.  It’s just… But it does appear that there is significant momentum on the Trump side.


RUSH: I want you to hear a sound bite here from Ron Brownstein.  This was on CNN today.  He’s interviewed by Chris Cuomo, and they’re talking about the ABC poll — the tracking poll — where Trump and Hillary are tied.  Listen to this…

BROWNSTEIN:  In that ABC/Washington Post tracking poll, Donald Trump is leading not only among non-college white men, but among non-college white women by more than Ronald Reagan did against Walter Mondale.  Now, if that’s real, it would be an historic kind of statement, and it would make it very hard for Hillary Clinton in Ohio and Iowa and probably make Michigan and Wisconsin wobbling a little bit, too.

RUSH:  I wanted you to hear that from the actual Drive-Bys, not just me, because this is one of these areas that if you listen to them, “Women hate Trump,” they tell you. “Women don’t want anything to do with Trump, ew!  Women look at Trump and say, ‘Ew!'”  Hillary is still out there using Alicia Machado to introduce her!  Alicia Machado!  Three-week-old news!  It’s empty in the Hillary tank, and Brownstein points out: You look; it’s not just white men.

Trump is getting non-college white women in greater numbers than Reagan did against Mondull.  That was a 49-state landslide against Mondull.  And he said if that’s real, that’s historic. That’s Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin.  Then you put Obama in North Carolina where they’re being told that Trump’s gonna end Medicaid on day one and then dig up Michelle’s garden?  I don’t know, folks.  It’s risky to make these assessments and create false impressions, but I just… I don’t know.  To me, this all reeks of some degree of panic out there on the part of the Hillary campaign.


This Is Not What Happens to a Winning Campaign One Week Before an Election

Leave a comment

H/T Rush 

The Ragin Cajun James Carville is ready for the funny farm.


RUSH: I mentioned yesterday that, if you didn’t know, you should know that they’re in panic. In the deep, dark crevices of power, the Democrat Party, they’re in abject panic.  This is not where they were supposed to be.  Trump was not supposed to be a factor. The election was supposed to be over months ago.  But certainly this week it was not supposed to be in question.  Hillary should have been… They’re already planning inaugural balls and all the other trappings that go with victory.  This is not where they wanted to be, and with the possibility Trump could win, they are in abject panic.  And it’s being demonstrated on TV.

James Carville lost it on MSNBC.  We’re gonna break the ban that we have on MSNBC to let you hear that.  Robby Mook of the Clinton campaign lost it.


They’re all losing it out there over Comey.  Now, stop and think.  The Clintons themselves are responsible for sustaining this.  It has nothing to do with Comey.  Like, there’s a story in about how Comey is gonna soon be under investigation for the letter that he sent to Congress because he violated the law.  It’s not how it works, folks.

I hate to tell you, but it’s the subject or the target of an investigation that is the focus of the investigation — in this case Mrs. Clinton and Huma.  The investigator is not under suspicion.  But this is how the Clintons operate.  They turned it around on Ken Starr, made him the focus (with the media’s assistance), and they’re trying to do the same thing now with one week out. They’re trying to do the same with Comey.  The problem is back in July, they praised Comey to the hilt.  You know what Hillary should have done the minute Comey came out?

Last Friday, when this letter was made public, Comey’s letter to Congress, you know what she should have done?  She could have shut all this down.  She could have owned this week, because they’re not gonna be producing anything… Well, that’s another thing.  I gave you a hypothetical question yesterday that may turn out to have actually some truth behind it.  But if Mrs. Clinton on Friday — or if the Clinton campaign, if Mook or whoever — had said, “We trust James Comey.  He’s already investigated this, and there isn’t anything there.

“We’ve got one week out. We’re gonna continue our quest here to win the presidency.  We have complete, utter confidence and faith in James Comey.  I don’t know what he’s found, but he’s already said that there’s nothing there, and that’s what we think is the case now.” That would have shut it down.  But with her fighting it and with her team trying to make Comey now into Satan incarnate — and with all this, you know, hiding Huma — they have invited scrutiny.  They have made it look like, “Oh, my God!

“Comey must have something or Hillary wouldn’t be acting this way.  There must be something there or the Clinton campaign wouldn’t be reacting this way.”  So all of this they are bringing on themselves.  All of this, they have brought on themselves.  None of this… I’m watching these left-wing commentators, and they’re all complaining about Comey and the FBI.  They’re missing the boat.  If she hadn’t set up this server, if she hadn’t said, “What difference does it make?” after four people died in Benghazi…

If she hadn’t been so cavalier, if she hadn’t thought that laws don’t apply to her, if she had not believed that she was above the law and traditions that everyday people have to follow, she wouldn’t be in this mess.  She’s in this mess because of what she did.  She is in this mess because of who she and her husband are.  She’s in this mess because there is evidence that they have been running a grifting operation and a graft operation at their foundation.  There is evidence that she has not been completely truthful on whatever it is with this email and server, and now that Huma Abedin and her husband are involved in this…

Do you find it as fascinating as I do that here you have a woman who portrays herself as a staunch feminist — and she represents staunch feminists, she represents the new era of feminists — being brought down by a sex pervert married to her number one aide, Huma Abedin?  What about the irony of that?  And then… And then you have Huma marrying the guy in the first place, and then now Huma saying (stammers), “I — I — I don’t know how my emails ended up on my husband’s computer!”  It’s just too rich.  It’s just too rich.

Hillary’s the most cheated-on woman in America, and it’s happening again right in front of our eyes, and this time it’s Anthony Weiner and his own activities because of his marriage… Oh!  Hillary is call Huma now “one of my staffers.” (impression) “Yes, one of my staffers’ laptops is in investigation under questions the FBI, one of my staff.”  One of my staffers?  Huma Abedin is Hillary’s body companion, meaning Huma is everywhere Hillary is.  Huma carries out Hillary’s orders and directives.  Huma advises Hillary.

Huma and Hillary are inseparable.

She’s not just one of Hillary’s staffers.

That’s another indication here that there’s something really going on.  There may be something to see here.  And I just… For people that are so expert in dealing with things, they have really mishandled this.  Now, let’s take a look at some of the headlines and news summaries that happened since we were last together.  The New York Times has come out with a piece last night that says definitively there is no Donald Trump link to Russia.  Now, they put it on page 21 so that New York Times readers on the Upper West Side won’t see it and have their days ruined, but they still run it.

Zabar’s is not gonna be damaged here by deranged New York Times readers ’cause they won’t see this. It’s on page 21.  However, they ran it. It’s all over their website and it’s all over the country now.  The New York Times came out with a piece last night: There is no Donald Trump link to Russia.  Now, what’s going on with that?  That is a major, major cutting ’em off at the knees for the Clinton campaign and Obama, who have been living off this notion that Trump knows Putin, that Trump’s a friend of Putin, that Trump and Putin are behind the email did you review that WikiLeaks has.

The New York Times says there’s no Trump link.  Then we had Doug Schoen saying he can’t vote for Hillary anymore.  He’s been around her ever since she’s been in public life and he’s withstood every scandal, but this one he wants no part of, and he announced publicly on Fox he’s abandoning Hillary.  CNN dumps Donna Brazile after they learn that Donna Brazile’s been sharing debate questions with Hillary Clinton.  The sidebar to that is: Isn’t it amazing how many people in the Hillary camp think she’s incapable of simply answering issue-oriented questions on the fly?  They have to cheat. They have to furnish her the questions

They have to let her get a leg up and maybe an advantage in preparation, ’cause they just don’t trust that she’s up to speed enough issue by issue to handle a question.  I mean, who can’t anticipate the questions? But they have to go out of their way, and here’s Donna Brazile. Whatever she did for Hillary Clinton has resulted in her being canned at CNN.  That takes a lot.  Then Obama came out via Josh Earnest and said (summarized), “We totally trust Comey. We don’t think Comey has done anything here to interfere with an election. We think Comey and the FBI are behaving here with utmost integrity.”

You say, “Whoa!  Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!  What does this mean?”

If you read a little further, you might also sense a warning from Obama to Comey, but I have to take a break on that aspect.  I’ll complete all this when we get back.


RUSH:  I actually had a couple people email me last night because they came across everything I just shared with you.  It looked to them like, well, the question was, “Rush, is the Democrat Party turning on Hillary?  Have they decided it’s not worth it, that they can’t prop her up?”

I mean, that’s how this stuff appeared to people last night.  Let me review again.  New York Times: “No Trump Link to Russia.” New York Times backed Trump, in fact, on Russia.  Doug Schoen can’t support Hillary: I’ve seen everything and this takes the cake. I’m no longer in the Hillary camp, can’t do it.  You know, that’s a major defection.

CNN is getting rid of Donna Brazile, major, major, unprecedented type things happening on the Democrat side.  Obama holding with Comey! “President Barack Obama does not believe FBI Director James Comey is attempting to influence this year’s presidential vote, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday. ‘The President doesn’t believe that he’s secretly strategizing to benefit one candidate or one political party,’ Earnest said. ‘He’s in a tough spot,'” this is where the potential warning might be.

“‘Comey’s in a tough spot. He’s the one who will be in a position to defend his actions in the face of significant criticism from a variety of legal experts, including individuals who served in senior Department of Justice positions in administrations led by presidents in both parties.'”

They always throw that in.  But despite that — hang on.


RUSH:  Okay.  So before I was rudely interrupted.  White House:  We will not defend nor criticize Comey on emails.  So if you add all of these things up just one more time.  The New York Times last night comes out with a piece, no linkage of Donald Trump to Russia, undercutting a major campaign thrust point of Hillary Clinton.  Doug Schoen, longtime Clinton pollster, announces he can’t support Hillary.  He leaves.  CNN dumps Donna Brazile after they learn she was sharing debate questions with Hillary Clinton.

The undertone there is that Hillary obviously does not have the confidence of her people to go into a debate without having a leg up, without having been able to cheat.  They don’t trust her to be able to answer questions to which she doesn’t know that they are coming.
It’s astounding!  And then Obama announces via Earnest: nothing wrong with Comey, we totally support Comey, we don’t condemn Comey.

Again, here’s the whole paragraph.  ‘President Barack Obama does not believe FBI Director James Comey is attempting to influence this year’s presidential vote.” Now, wait.  It wasn’t that long ago, just a couple days, that the White House was not doing this.  The White House was joining the Clinton campaign in casting aspersions on Comey.

Then all of a sudden there’s a 180 and it made people think, “You know what?  Maybe President Obama sees the handwriting on the wall. Maybe she’s toast and Obama is gonna throw her overboard because what Obamacare’s about, first and foremost, is his legacy in the history books. Not the Democrat Party, not Hillary Clinton, not even his agenda as it relates to this in terms of continuing it.  I actually had people thinking this, sending me emails, “Could this possibly be going on?”

Now, here’s the whole paragraph, though, from Josh Earnest. “The President doesn’t believe that he’s secretly strategizing to benefit one candidate or one political party.”  That’s cutting the Democrat Party off at its knees with one of their main claims that Comey has become a pure partisan.  Now, they don’t have credibility saying this because they praised Comey back in July.

But then Earnest said of Comey, “He’s in a tough spot, and he’s the one who will be in a position to defend his actions in the face of significant criticism from a variety of legal experts, including individuals who served in senior Department of Justice positions in administrations led by presidents in both parties.”

You could construe that as a warning from Earnest — well, Obama through Earnest to Comey.  “The White House had no role in Comey’s decision to inform Congress he was investigating new emails related to Hillary Clinton’s private server, Earnest added. Earnest said he would neither ‘defend nor criticize’ the decision,” Obama wouldn’t, “Amid outcry about Comey’s decision, Earnest called the FBI director a man of ‘integrity and good character.'”  Well, that undercuts every line of attack the Democrats, the Hillary campaign decided to mount against Comey.

There’s one more element to this.  Now, yesterday on this program I asked a hypothetical.  I think it was of a caller, but I asked the question of everybody:  What are you gonna do, what’s your reaction gonna be if Wednesday or Thursday of this week the FBI announces the investigation has proceeded significantly enough that they now know there’s nothing there.  There’s no additional information to be added to what we already know about Mrs. Clinton and her emails and her server, I said, “What’s your reaction to that gonna be?”

And people admitted, “Oh, that would be horrible, Rush, that would be terrible.  That would have meant we’d been played.”  That’s exactly right.  Because while all this five days has gone on, nobody’s talking about WikiLeaks.  Well, did you see what the LA Times reported late last night?

FBI investigators had planned to conduct a new email review over several weeks.  FBI now hopes “to complete a preliminary assessment in the coming days, but agency officials have not decided how, or whether, they will disclose the results of it publicly.”  Developing.  That was a Drudge flash.

So, in addition to all this other stuff, the Times saying nothing to see there, Trump and Russia. Doug Schoen leaving Hillary. CNN dumping Brazile. Obama siding with Comey, praising his integrity. The New York Times backing Trump on Russia. The LA Times saying investigators at the FBI may have some news for us on Thursday, could come this week.

So let’s throw that into the mix.  The FBI says they might have something on Thursday.  The White House is singing Comey’s praises amidst a potential rushed preliminary assessment of 650,000 emails.  Do you realize you couldn’t be blamed if you thought some BS was in the air here.  So the point is, nobody knows.  Again, I hate to keep repeating my mantra, but, boy, there are things happening that we did not expect to happen in any way, shape, manner, or form.

Whoever thought that Obama would side with Comey?  Whoever thought CNN would ever get rid of somebody like Donna Brazile and for the admitted reason that she helped Hillary cheat in a debate?  And let’s not forget that the Obamacare premium increases are out there, and that has dramatic impact on people. Now, the people in the establishment, the people in Washington, the Obamacare premiums are of no concern to them. Immigration, no concern the impact of these things on average, ordinary Americans, no concern to them ’cause it doesn’t affect them.  Obamacare premiums are of no concern to people in the establishment.  Same thing with illegal immigration, same thing with trade deals.

But you have to throw all of those things in the mix.  Folks, on the surface to me, this is looking really bad for Hillary Clinton.  These are not the kinds of things that happen to a winning, vibrant, upbeat and positive campaign one week out from an election.  Nowhere near it.  Now let’s go to the audio sound bite.  Here’s Robby Mook on CNN’s New Day this morning.

Chris Cuomo is talking to him, says, “Okay, so what do you do?  By all accounts, the FBI is not gonna say anything between now and Election Day.  Do you leave it alone?  Because as you accurately point out, we don’t know what the heck’s in these emails. Or do you keep banging on Comey’s door and saying, ‘Tell us more about these emails’?  Or do you keep banging the door and say ‘Trump, tell us more about Trump, look into what Trump’s done.’  What are you doing, Mook?”

MOOK:  If you’re in the business of releasing information about investigations on presidential candidates, release everything you have on Donald Trump. Release the information on his connections to the Russians. Maybe there are investigations now into his taxes.  It was shocking to me yesterday that every time people asked questions about investigations pertaining to Donald Trump they are tight-lipped and silent, quote, unquote, sticking with protocol.  When it comes to Hillary Clinton, they don’t.  We didn’t cause this problem.  James Comey opened this door, and we’re just asking —

CUOMO:  Robbie —

MOOK:  — for him to make this right and treat everybody the same.

RUSH:  So you hear that. (imitating Mook) “We need to investigate Trump.  We need to investigate Trump on Russia.  We need to investigate Trump on taxes.  We need Trump’s investigations to continue.  And we need the FBI to tell us what’s going on.”  This sounds childish.  This sounds like first grade sandbox kind of stuff.  This sounds like Bart Simpson.  “I didn’t do it.  Nobody saw me do it.  You can’t prove anything.”  He’s like a little kid here. “I think you should go after Trump, too.”  He has no defense for Hillary.  He’s got literally no defense for whatever they are investigating Hillary Clinton on.  The only thing he can do is demand the FBI look into Trump, too.

Maybe he hadn’t known that the New York Times has already cleared Trump when it comes to Russia.  And as far as liberals are concerned, the Democrats are concerned, when the New York Times clears you, you are cleared.  The New York Times carries as much weight as the FBI, and if the New York Times says there’s nothing to see between Trump and Russia and Putin, then there’s nothing to see.  It doesn’t matter what the FBI says.  The New York Times is that big a bible for people on the left.

Here’s Alex Wagner over on CBS This Morning.  She’s a senior editor at The Atlantic, used to be at PMSNBC.  Gayle King says, “Are you hearing whisperings of concern about her presidency even in her own party?”

WAGNER:  Yeah.  I mean, I think what happened last week, we were treated to another batch of WikiLeaks, stolen emails from John Podesta’s account which reflect a serious amount of consternation inside her own campaign about how she handled the email scandal when it first broke.  If we are still saying the words “Vince Foster,” if we are still saying the words “Whitewater,” if we are still talking about Kenneth Starr, who’s in the New York Times today, Democrats are forced to say the words “Anthony Weiner” 10 days, nine days before an election is not where the party thought it was gonna be.

RUSH:  I think that’s the same Alex Wagner that worked at MSNBC.  Maybe there’s two of them, and maybe the Alex Wagner I’m thinking of still works — I don’t know.  Doesn’t matter.  The fact is they’re panicked.


RUSH: MSNBC “Live” with Thomas Roberts.  And it’s pretty volatile.  And it just… It’s in the vein of panic and anger.  And I don’t care however you choose to analyze what’s going on, the thing that you have to know is this is not where the establishment thought they’d be one week away from the election. Nowhere close.

There is panic not just in the Democrat Party, folks.  There’s panic at the upper levels of what we now call the ruling class or the establishment or the elites.  I may even change my mind and share with you a couple or three excerpts from this Thomas Frank piece about the Podesta emails demonstrating how our country’s actually really run and who is running it.  And it’s got a soft spot in my heart because it’s pretty much everything that I have attempted to inform people of in terms of just who the ruling class is.

So that’s coming up.

We have a ban on MSNBC.  We do not play audio sound bites that involve their talent. They’re lamebrains and, you know, why promote ’em?  But occasionally they’ll have a guest that goes off one thing one way or another.  Carville did.  Thomas Roberts says, “The Democrats criticized Director Comey. But if he sat on information ’til after the election and there’s something there, wouldn’t he be accused of a cover-up?”

CARVILLE:  He was acting in concert and coordination with the House Republicans.  End of story.  He gave the letter to them. They gave it to Fox News.  Also we have the extraordinary case of the KGB being involved in this race and selectively leaking things from the Clinton campaign that they hacked!  American democracy is really under attack here.

ROBERTS: James Comey was praised in July by everyone —

CARVILLE: (sputtering)

ROBERTS: — for not moving forward with the recommendation —

CARVILLE: (sputtering) Right.

ROBERTS:  — to Loretta Lynch.

CARVILLE: (sputtering) You know…

ROBERTS: So why now is this different for Comey when they find something that could be pertinent?

CARVILLE:  You know what John Maynard Keynes said?  “When the facts change, I change my mind.  What do you do?”  Well, he said something else in July, so y-you can’t say in spite of justice department policy, in spite of former people in the Bush administration, in spite of ethics people all over saying this is unprecedented. Why are you defending this?

RUSH:  Comey sent his letter to Republicans and Democrats.  Carville says Comey “was acting in concert and coordination with the House Republicans. … He gave the letter to them.” He gave it to both parties, and then, “[t]hey gave it to Fox News.”  So what?  Fox News is a news agency! We also got it.  I had it that afternoon.  Everybody had it.  “And now we have the extraordinary case of the KGB being involved in this race…”  Carville has lost it.  Carville has become a left-wing conspiracy loon.

Believing whoever in the Democrat Party started this insanity that the KGB or the Russians are responsible for exploiting the Clinton server and then leaked the information to Assange who then put it on his servers at WikiLeaks? And he’s actually trying to sell that.  That’s not what happened.  The Russians don’t have anything to do with this, folks.  But the Democrats, that’s all they’ve got is to blame it on the Russians.  And if the Russians didn’t do it and they’re just out there saying it as a political point, this is dangerous.

Accusing a wannabe, potential again superpower of meddling when they’re not? The Democrats… The point is they can’t get over this.  It has to be something totally complicated and inexplicable to explain how they allowed such a monumental screw up to happen.  The monumental screw up is not jettisoning the Clintons long ago.  When you’re in business with the Clintons, this is what happens to you. So now their only recourse is to blame the KGB?  That’s Putin.  You know, Putin was KGB, so Carville’s trying to be colorful here.

Rather than say the Russians, he’s trying to say the KGB.  “American democracy is really under attack here”?  No.  There are people trying to save it, James.  That’s what this election is really all about, Mr. Carville.  There are people working their butts off trying to save our republic and save democracy from the likes of powerful people in the Democrat Party who want to take this country and turn it into a personal little playground for their own private gain.

And to hell with what happens to anybody else that lives here.  People are fed up with it.  So Thomas Roberts says, “So, James, in July when Comey did the unprecedented act of holding a press conference to reveal that he wasn’t going to have charges recommended to Loretta Lynch,” recommending she charge Hillary or anybody else, “no one then on the left was up in arms over what James Comey had just done,” that Comey was acting in ways he shouldn’t act. They praised Comey back then. “Isn’t this a double standard?”

CARVILLE:  No! It’s not a double standard at all.  You’re sitting here defending an assault on American democracy.  This is an unprecedented event that was done at the behest of the House Republicans, that was leaked to the press by the House Republicans, and as we know the KGB is all over this election, and this is what we’re talking about.  This is unbelievable eight days before an election, and it’s more unbelievable that people like you are defending this.

RUSH:  Right.  And there’s still more, folks.  One more to pay.  Here we go…

ROBERTS:  In no way am I defending it.

CARVILLE: Well, of course you are!

ROBERTS: I’m just trying to ask questions of you.

CARVILLE:  You’re making excuses for Comey by bringing up something somebody said in July.

ROBERTS:  No, I’m not making excuses.

CARVILLE:  Yes, you are!

ROBERTS:  Director Comey has been praised on the left —

CARVILLE: Oh, come on!

ROBERTS: — and the right for being a pretty —

CARVILLE: (sputtering)

ROBERTS: — neutral guy for his career.

CARVILLE:  I don’t know what someone said in July.  We [are] talking about the FBI — against justice department policy, against everything that we all know — gets involved in a presidential election.  If you want to defend that, you defend it, but I’m not.  I think this is a[n] outrage, and I think the fact that the KGB is involved in this election is a[n] outrage, and I think the American people ought to take their democracy back regardless of what the press wants to do and excuses they want to make for Comey.  And if there’s not something substantial — and I mean, really substantial — then this is, in effect, an attempt to hijack an election.  The House Republicans and the KGB are trying to affect our democracy.

RUSH: (impression) “Ken Starr! Ken Starr and aliens from out of space are trying to get your kids smoking Joe Camel! Dirty cigarettes, Larry! That’s what they trying to do.”  That’s James Carville, my friends.  James Carville. “The KGB! Taking back our democracy! The KGB is threatening our democracy, ruining our democracy.  The KGB interceding in an election.”  No.  Justice — when done properly — doesn’t see a calendar, Mr. Carville.


RUSH:  Right here it is in the New York Times: “U.S. Officials Doubt That Donald Trump Has a Direct Link to [the KGB.]”  Well, it says “Russia” but I’m substituting KGB for Russia. It’s what Carville’s doing.  Right there it is in the New York Times.  “Obama Doesn’t Believe FBI Director Trying to Influence Election — ABC News.”


RUSH: Here’s James Carville.  This is commonplace for him.  We did a parody.  This goes back to the nineties when the Democrats were under siege with Ken Starr looking into the Lewinsky affair and the associated potential violations of law that were part of the Lewinsky affair.  The way the Clintons dealt with that was to attack the investigator, which is what they’re starting to set up with Comey.  So they went after Ken Starr.

Ken Starr, if it weren’t for his varicose veins, would be totally colorless, folks.  The guy is the biggest dryball — and I don’t mean that as a cut.  He’s a straight-line person.  Ken Starr is the kind of guy that wouldn’t be noticed wherever he was, and they turned him into the biggest sex pervert in the country. They turned him into a sex pervert trying to go after Bill Clinton for whatever unfair and nefarious reason, and it got to the point of being ridiculous. So we did a parody of Ken Starr and Carville appearing on Larry King Alive one night.


“STARR”: Good evening, Larry.

“LARRY”: And in our Washington studios, Clinton advisor and former campaign manager, James Carville.

“CARVILLE”: Hi, Larry. I’m just glad you gave me a chance to show America what a madman vicious dog Ken Starr really is. He’s a twisted, evil man, Larry, and I know what the American people —

“LARRY”: Thank you, James. But let’s hear from Ken Starr first. Ken, are you a madman?

“STARR”: Larry, let me just say that I only want to —

“CARVILLE”: — to destroy the president, ’cause he’s crazy! He’s so crazy with tobacco money, he’s lost his mind. You can hear it in his voice. He not only wants to destroy the president, he wants to kill all your children. He wants your babies dead. He’s been giving cartoons of cigarettes to every kindergartener in America, and he ain’t gonna stop ’til all your babies are smoking like Joe Camel!

large“LARRY”: Ken, why would you give cigarettes to five-year-olds?

“STARR”: Larry, I never would —

“CARVILLE”: You see? He just said he “never” didn’t give no cigarettes to your babies. And he’s also been around showing your babies how to play with matches, ’cause he’s been taking all kind of money from them (Cajun) Bic Zippo lighter match people ’cause he’s a madman, Larry, a killer who wants the president and all your babies dead! And you know what else? Ken Starr’s a space alien. He ain’t even a real man! He’s from Mars. That’s right. A madman from Mars, and they’re invading the planet. He flies around a space ship handing out cigarettes made by little green men to kill your babies and destroy our president.

“LARRY”: Pretty serious charges, Ken Starr? Are you an alien?

“STARR”: Honestly, Larry I —

“CARVILLE”: Larry, you can’t trust a man mad Martian out to kill your babies with cigarettes and matches and destroy our president, the most moral man in America! It’s a war, Larry! It’s a war! Bill Clinton against the invaders from Mars trying to kill you through secondhand smoke of kindergarteners, trying to burn down your house with matches and lighters as Ken Starr flies around in a spaceship. That’s it Larry! That’s the plan to get us and our president!

“LARRY”: Quite a compelling argument. Well, we’re out of time. Now, tomorrow night our show will feature a completely different subject: A psychic that says Ken Starr is using mental vibrations to keep Susan McDougal awake at night. See you then.


RUSH:  Well, that’s timeless.  It is timeless.  That’s what they… They don’t have enough time to do it but if they did, that’s what they would try to James Comey, after first praising him last July.


Shouldn’t Obama Be Happy?

Leave a comment

H/T  Rush



RUSH: I played golf yesterday.  I have yet to run into anybody that’s for Hillary.  And, by the way, I go a lot of places where it’s not exclusively Republican or conservative.  I’m not attaching any big meaning to this.  I’m just trying to give as much information as I can.  I still can’t run into anybody who doesn’t desperately want Trump to win.  And without fail, people ask me a variation of the following:  If all of these polls show Hillary ahead by all of these points, 10 points, 11 points, 12 points, how do you explain that her rallies are ghost towns and Trump fills arenas?  And then people say to me, “Does the media really have this much power?  Does the media really have that much influence?”  I answer, I always answer, “Yes, they do.”

And it’s because we have to look at the population as a whole in determining media influence.  There’s a whole lot of people even now who are paying attention to this with 40, 50%, and the other half, they’re out doing other things.  They don’t dig deep.  They just hear what’s reported and they hear what’s reported in the Drive-By Media.  ABC, CBS, AP, primarily AP, would be the primary news source for I’d say 80% of low-information voters.  AP leads at Yahoo News.  AP leads at Facebook.  AP leads on Twitter, this kind of stuff. And that’s what people are going to see, and that’s what they’re going to form opinions from.  Yes, they do have that much control.

Let’s listen to Obama.  This is yesterday in Las Vegas.  He was at a Hillary campaign event.

OBAMA:  For years Republican politicians and the far-right media outlets have pumped up all kinds of crazy stuff about me, about Hillary, about Harry.  They said I wasn’t born here.  They said climate change is a hoax.  They said I was gonna take everybody’s guns away.  So people have been hearing that, they start thinking, well, maybe it’s true.  So if the world that they’ve been seeing is that I’m powerful enough to cause hurricanes on my own and to steal everybody’s guns in the middle of the night and impose martial law even though I can’t talk without a prompter, then is it any wonder that they end up nominating somebody like Donald Trump?

RUSH:  This guy’s obsessed.  This guy ought to be sitting on top of the world, folks.  He ought to be sitting on top of the world.  The Republican nominee for president is about to be vanquished in one of the biggest landslides in the history of this country, right?  And the third term of this guy’s administration is about to be elected in a landslide unprecedented since 1964, right?  Everybody that believes in Trump and everybody that believes in Republican conservatism is about to be vanquished to obscurity.  It is so bad that even the Republican Party is getting ready to form a circular firing squad and start pulling the trigger on November 9th, hoping that talk radio and Fox News are in the middle of the circle.
And yet this guy is obsessed.  This guy is obsessed with what critics are saying about him.  Have you seen his approval numbers?  His approval numbers are 55%.  Who in the world believes this guys is gonna institute martial law?  Who believes this guy is gonna come after their guns?  Who believes this guy starts hurricanes?  Isn’t that what they accused Bush of?  These guys, for all intents and purposes, accused Bush of steering Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans.  Don’t doubt me on this.  There were left-wing websites all over the place saying Bush wanted that hurricane to wipe out New Orleans because he wanted to wipe out black people and he wanted the rest of the population to go to Texas where they’d be counted as Republicans.  It was absurd what they were saying.

The lunatic fringe is on the left in this country.  It’s not here.  But here’s Obama — I’m just saying that if the polls are right, that this is gonna be one of the most historic landslide, i.e., victories, ever, certainly since 1964, and this guy can’t bring himself to be happy.  He is obsessed with Republican politicians and far-right media pumping all kinds of crazy stuff about him, about Hillary, about Harry Reid.

Climate change is a hoax.  Everybody’s guns being taken away, let’s not forget Fast and Furious.  The effort has been made. It’s not that Obama will take everybody’s guns away.  The way these people do things, let’s take Fast and Furious.  For those of you new to the program, let me explain to you what that you really was.  Fast and Furious was a federal program hatched by Obama and then Attorney General Eric Holder.  Major assault rifles, huge, very powerful guns were purchased legally from gun shops in Arizona.  They were then sold.

Part of the plan was to have those weapons bought — this was key — they had to be bought in America, traceably bought in American gun stores.  That happened in Arizona, Phoenix.  Those guns ended up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.  Those guns were then used in the crimes committed by Mexican gun cartels.  The administration hoped that there would be such outrage over this that the American public would see the story, “You mean to tell me guns like that can be bought in America and end up in the hands of Mexican drug lords who can then run around killing people?  Well, Mabel, we’ve gotta have tougher gun control laws.”

They wanted the American public to demand tougher gun control laws.  They know they can’t go take guns out of the hands of people.  They know there’s the Second Amendment.  If they could get rid of it, they would, but they can’t.  There are too many Democrats that are not going to vote for something like that.  So the way they do it is to try to create a mass hysteria.  The program backfired because it was discovered.  That’s how I know about it, any number of other people know about it to tell you.

But this is how people are manipulated, and this is how the left traditionally has done this and countless other things in order to achieve their objective.  Sometimes they don’t wait for public opinion and Obama just issues an executive order to do things.  But the guy sounds just really, really upset here at a time when if we believe everything we’re being told he ought to be just uncontainably happy, wouldn’t you think?

Now, you might want to get into personality types and start saying, “Yeah, but he’s the kind of personality he’s not happy ’til everybody adores him.”  Maybe.  I don’t even want to go there.  Strictly within the bounds of politics, his anger, his paranoia, this rant here at a small section of the media that doesn’t buy hook, line, and sinker whatever he says bothers him to such an extent that it’s really curious to me.


NBC’s 1980 Election Night Coverage: Shock, Dismay — and Faulty Polling

Leave a comment

H/T Rush

I remember that election the lame stream was sure that Carter was running away with the election.

Then reality kicked in Ronald Reagan was the winner not Carter.


RUSH: Yesterday on this program I discussed the 1980 election, Ronaldus Magnus and Jimmy Carter, and in it I described the election night coverage that night and how I will never forget it. Because this was the election that they called it for Reagan before California had even closed the polls, it was such a landslide.

Yet the last polling data going into the election in 1980 had Jimmy Carter winning by nine points.  And so Cookie went back to the archives and got a bunch of audio from John Chancellor, Judy Woodruff, Tom Brokaw and David Brinkley on NBC’s election night coverage of 1980 simply because of the way I had described it yesterday.  It was even discussed on Fox & Friends today.  So we’ll start with those two just to set it up.

Here first is it Brian Kilmeade from this morning, audio sound bite number four…

KILMEADE:  Rush Limbaugh, the most impactful radio host in the history of man, weighed in.

RUSH ARCHIVE:  The polling data in 1980 had Jimmy Carter nine points, winning by nine points, four or five days out.  I will never forget that election night, folks. In 1980 it was so bad for the Democrats — they got skunked so bad — Jimmy Carter conceded before 10 p.m. Eastern time.  Those three networks, you should have seen the long faces and all of the reporters that were at various campaign headquarter locations.

RUSH:  Next up, Steve Doocy, same program, Fox & Friends this morning…screen-shot-2016-10-25-at-1-55-17-pm

STEVE DOOCY:  I was driving around yesterday when Rush was talking about that.  Look, the mainstream media says the race is over.  We’ve seen too many elections where at the last minute for some reason, something moves the needle and the candidate bounced back.  It’s not over.  All depends on who goes out to vote.

AINSLEY EARHARDT:  Rush was saying the Democrats, they think they wrapped it up, that Trump is history, and he said that’s why Hillary Clinton and her camp, they’re now moving into the red states like Texas and Utah.  They think they’ve wrapped it up in the blue states.

RUSH:  Right.  They’re either doing that for psychological purposes, or they actually think they’ve won and now they’re heading up there to try to sew up the House and Senate.  So this is a treat, folks.  I’m happy to be able to share this with you.  Election night coverage November 4th, 1980, NBC. We start with the late John Chancellor.  John “Chance’eh’or,” as Tom Brokaw pronounced his name. John Chancellor.

John Chancellor was an anchor and then he became one of these anchors emeritus, retired but always around during the big events. He became commentator, threw his opinion in there when it was identified as opinion. He always threw his opinion in there, but they gave him the opportunity to say this is his opinion later on.  But this is in the meat of his career where he is anchoring and reporting and all that, and our first sound bite is with John Chancellor.

CHANCELLOR:  Good evening, and welcome to NBC News’ coverage of 1980 presidential election.  Our team of correspondents, analysts, pollsters, and commentators is assembled here in New York and around the country to see if Jimmy Carter can win reelection or if Ronald Reagan will be going to the Oval Office.  We have been polling around the country in the key states, NBC News and the Associated Press, and what we’re learning in the key states is that makes us believe that Ronald Reagan will win a very substantial victory tonight. Very substantial.  That’s our belief as of the moment based on polls in key states.

RUSH:  That was how coverage opened.  And he was talking about the exit polls.  AP and the networks all combined to pay for and conduct the exit polls back in 1980, and it’s still the case pretty much ’til today.  But how rare is it to have the election-night coverage kick off with: Folks, it looks bleak out there if you’re a Jimmy Carter fan.  We’re learning here in our research, in our election polling out there, makes us believe that Ronaldus Magnus “will win a very substantial victory tonight. Very substantial. That’s our belief as of the moment.”

Up next was Judy Woodruff.  She, at the time, was the White House correspondent for NBC News, which means that she was very, very tight with the Carter administration people.


WOODRUFF:  The only way to describe the mood here at the White House, John, is just to say that it’s very sad.  Perhaps the best indicator was Jody Powell’s teenage daughter, Emily, who I saw a few minutes ago with tears in her eyes.  It does seem obvious that the miracle story of Jimmy Carter, the unknown Georgia governor who finally made it to the White House, is — is just about at an end.

RUSH:  See, they can’t… Even though Reagan is winning a landslide here, it’s all still from the perspective of Jimmy Carter and how sad that it is, how unfortunate. Jody Powell’s daughter was in tears! “[T]he miracle story of Jimmy Carter, the unknown Georgia [peanut farmer] governor who finally made it to the White House … is just about to end.” Up next, Tom Brokaw, NBC election night coverage, 1980.

BROKAW:  John, there’s been a lot of talk in the course of this election that someone may win an electoral victory but not the popular vote here tonight.  We’re gonna somehow the popular vote right now and show you that Ronald Reagan is not only running ahead in the electoral vote but he is running substantially ahead in the popular vote as well.  Three percent of the precincts reporting in nationwide, Ronald Reagan with a percentage lead of about 11 points now over President Jimmy Carter.

RUSH:  Three percent of the precincts nationwide, Reagan was up by 11 over President Carter.  They’re on the verge of calling it.  We go back to John Chancellor.


CHANCELLOR:  Well, the time has come.  You’ve seen the map, we’ve looked at the figures, and NBC News now makes its projection for the presidency.  Reagan is our projected winner.  Ronald Wilson Reagan of California — a sports announcer, a film actor, a governor of California — is our projected winner at 8:15 Eastern Standard Time on this election night.

BROKAW:  It certainly is 8:15 on election night.  This race has been volatile, mercurial, fluid, whatever, but I don’t think anyone anticipated that it eventually would become a floodgate.  I can’t help but recall in 1966 riding around in a Greyhound bus with him as he was trying to win the Republican nomination for governor of California and a lot of people were laughing at him then.  1966.  And they have learned in every election in which he’s been involved, never laugh at the chances of Ronald Reagan.

RUSH:  Did you hear? It was 8:15 folks. An hour and fifteen minutes after they went on the air, it’s over, and they could have called it the first five minutes after they went on the air.  We still have to hear from David Brinkley, which we will do after this.


RUSH: Back to our special coverage of NBC special coverage, election night 1980.  Our last sound bite comes from David Brinkley, who at the end of the evening, he was the resident experienced guru at NBC at the time.  This was not long before he left, went over to ABC.  And our final bite, after they’ve declared Reagan the winner, after just an hour and 15 minutes of coverage, 8:15 p.m. they made the declaration, Brinkley decided he needed to ask a question and make some observations of the other NBC journalists.

BRINKLEY:  I’d like to ask a question of you folks.  We have here what I think reasonably could be called a landslide or certainly something approaching a landslide.  Where did it come from?  Nobody anticipated it.  No polls predicted it.  No one saw it coming.  How did that happen?  I don’t want to knock the polls, because I believe in them, and they generally do very good work.  One thing I wondered.  Have a lot of people — did a lot of people decide to vote for Reagan, but didn’t want to say so?

BROKAW:  Well, that’s always been a factor.  He’s an actor, after all.  A lot of people have made fun of him, and maybe I ought not be publicly in favor of him.

BRINKLEY:  Again, don’t want to pick on the polls, but there was none of this insight.

RUSH:  They were bamboozled!  They couldn’t figure it out!  Reagan was an actor!  The polls didn’t say anything this was gonna happen.  They were beside themselves!  He was an actor, he was a sports announcer.  Could it have been, Brinkley wanted to know, could it have been that a lot of people decided to vote for Reagan, didn’t want to say so?

We talk about the margin of error, but we need to talk about the margin of shame, and that is how many people are just ashamed to tell voters they’re gonna vote for Trump versus how many people were ashamed to tell these pollsters they’re gonna vote for Reagan.  They were doing to Reagan what they’re doing to Trump, folks.


RUSH:  No, no, no.  Don’t misunderstand.  I’m not predicting anything here.  I stand by what I said yesterday:  I don’t know, folks.  I just don’t know.  I know what I wish for, I know what I hope is happening, but I don’t know.  I can’t come here with ontological certitude, bravado, and confidence and predict to you what’s gonna happen.  I could.  I could.  But I would have to do it with a proviso or a caveat.  I just find this interesting that Reagan was regarded much the way Trump is except Reagan was governor of California.

He had run for the nomination the Republican Party in ’76.  But he was laughed at.  They thought he was dumb then.  They thought he was slow minded and dim-witted back then.  They thought he couldn’t speak.  They thought Reagan — amazingly, a guy that later became known as the Great Communicator — couldn’t speak. He couldn’t communicate with people. He paused. He seemed to lose his train of thought halfway through his sentence.  It’s incredible, the similarity in media treatment and Democrat Party.

There was disgust. There was not taking him seriously as a buffoon. I mean, Tip O’Neill, even after he became president, called him “an amiable dunce,” which is what the Democrats always do.  The way the Democrats try to dispirit everybody and impugn people is basically insult their intelligence.  If you’re not Democrat, if you’re not liberal, you’re an idiot. You’re kook. Something’s wrong with you.  Reagan got that same kind of treatment — and Jimmy Carter, of course, was beloved.

Peanut farmer. Came out of nowhere, governor of Georgia.  Normally Democrats hate Southern accents, ’cause Southern accents equals Deliverance, equals hayseed, equals idiot. But if it’s one of them… But you had to look the other way with Jimmy Carter and then here came Bill Clinton later.  So depending on where the Southern accent’s from, they’ll make an exception and not be prejudicial about it.  But for the most part, a Southern accent may as well be a slave owner as far as Democrats are concerned; they want no part of it.

But they loved Jimmy Carter, even though — and, by the way, take a look at some economic circumstances.  In 1980, the economy of this country was in the tank after four years of Jimmy Carter.  I mean, it was desperately bad.  Unemployment was sky-high.  Interest rates, unlike today, were sky-high. Fourteen percent interest rate on a mortgage, for example, and 18% on a car loan.  It was just incredible.  Carter had seen us through a couple of near-depression recessions, all of this coming out of Watergate, which happened in 1972.

We had energy crisis after energy crisis.  We had gasoline lines at gas stations.  We had the price of gasoline was skyrocketing percentage basis. It had a genuine impact on people’s standard of living, and they couldn’t find work.  The welfare state was still the welfare state, but we didn’t have anywhere near the unemployed and out of work doing as well financially in 1980 as we do today, and this is a fundamental difference.  In this year, 2016, we have 94 million Americans not working

They’re not panicked like the unemployed in 1980, ’79, ’78 were. Because in 1978, ’79, if you were unemployed, you didn’t have an phone, you didn’t have a big-screen TV, you didn’t have air-conditioned house, and you weren’t guaranteed to be eating three meals a day.  You had welfare, you had unemployment, but you didn’t have the kind of government support system/safety nets that exist today.  So that’s a difference.  But today the economic circumstances really no different.

Most of the new jobs that people are getting are part time because of Obamacare. Obamacare is falling out exactly as it was designed.  To show you how bad this really is, these people announce idea that the average Obamacare premium is going up 25% next year, and they do this two weeks before the election.  Now, normally they would try to hide this until the day after or the week after the election, but they can’t.

The problem here is that it’s not 25%. That’s an average.  In some states, premiums are going up 116%.  In Texas they’re going up 70 or 80%.  In Wisconsin, it’s off the charts how much health care premiums are skyrocketing.  Nobody can afford it.  Nobody’s gonna be able to.  You add to that — and remember, now, this was pitched, Obama lied to everybody.  Premiums are gonna come down $2500.  If you like your doctor, your plan, you get to keep it? There isn’t gonna be any interruption in what you have and you like it?

All lies.

Health care is in as bad a shape as it has ever been after eight years of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party running it and running the US economy.  But in this day and age, even though it’s got his name on it, for some reason it just doesn’t attach to him in terms of accountability as it should.  It is his legislation.  And the Republicans had nothing to do with passing it.  There wasn’t a single Republican vote for it.  In 2010, the Republicans didn’t even have enough votes to stop it.  That’s how outnumbered they were after the ’08 election in the Senate.

They certainly got the numbers in the House, 2010 midterms, but not in the Senate. There was no way they were gonna override any veto.  They couldn’t stop it. So now it’s fully implemented.  What people don’t know is this is exactly what was supposed to happen.  You know in Philadelphia we’re down to two insurers, only two companies you can buy health care from.  And if you have a penalty if you don’t buy but you can’t afford to buy.

It’s an absolute disaster.  Other areas of the economy are a disaster.  Economic growth? There isn’t any.  It’s 1% per quarter, a 4% growth rate per year if we’re lucky.  There is no expansion.  There is no productivity increase.  There isn’t a sense of well-being and optimism about the nation’s future, but that hasn’t attached itself to the Democrats for some reason.  They are not accountable.  It certainly hasn’t attached itself to Obamacare.

That’s why Mrs. Clinton can run around and talk about the need to improve the economy.  She ought to be dead politically on that score right there.  She ought not be able to cite the economy at all as a positive.  She ought not have any credibility at all on the economy.  She and the Democrat Party have overseen the destruction of one of the greatest systems of health care in the world: Ours.  But there are similarities.  The economy’s in bad shape. Unemployment is not as bad by number.

The unemployment rate back in the 1980 election was honestly reported.  It was double digits.  It’s the same thing now but they’ve jiggered with the way the system is calculated, the number is calculated, and so it’s reported as like 5%. It’s not 5%, but low-information people see that it’s 5%.  So it doesn’t have the same degree of impact.  But life experience is the same.  I mean, people are living the misery. Yeah, the open borders, illegal immigrants crossing, depressing wages.

They’re doing working that doesn’t cost much for employers to hire them. They’re not skilled; they’re not educated. They can’t command high wages, depressing wages for the American people.  Then you get into Trump’s riff about all these jobs that have left the country because of NAFTA and other things.  I mean, it’s not pretty out there.  It literally isn’t pretty.  And you have a candidate on the Republican side running against the system.  Reagan did, too.

They’re wanting to blow it up and start over.  Reagan comes out of nowhere, at least as far as these people are concerned in the establishment.  I cannot emphasize for you, folks, ’cause I know many of you were not paying attention in 1980.  You might have been alive. Even if you were, you don’t remember it.  That’s why we went back to the audio archives.  I’m telling you, back in 1980, the media and the Washington-New York establishment was as disdainful of Ronald Reagan as they are of Trump.

I’ll tell you something else, and certainly you’re not gonna remember this because the media landscape wasn’t the same.  But the Republican establishment hated Ronald Reagan too, just like the Democrat establishment did.  There was a burgeoning conservative movement back in 1980 which was not bifurcated and split up and there were not any internecine wars going on.  It was basically led by William F. Buckley and his magazine, National Review, and Reagan.  They were the figureheads, leaders, and everybody was enthused and signing up and joining the cause. There were knock-offs happening, other magazines started up to mimic National Review, but there was nobody in broadcast media that was conservative.  It was ABC, CBS, NBC.

Reagan didn’t have a Fox News equivalent, didn’t have a talk radio equivalent.  And the conservative movement back then was all-in for Reagan.  Might have been some outliers that weren’t, jealously or whatever the reason, but for the most part the conservative movement back then was unified around the concept of defeating Democrats.  The conservative movement today is not so unified.  The conservative movement is not today oriented around the concept of beating Democrats.

They have other objectives.  There are many different objectives, and so therefore there’s not unity on the Republican side either among Republican Party just itself or the Republican Party conservative movement or the conservative movement by itself.  There just isn’t any unity.  And yet on the Democrat side — Morning Update today featured all kinds of things that various groups, constituent groups in the Democrat left are doing that are frowned upon.  But the Democrat Party’s not throwing those groups overboard.  They’re accepting them and everybody’s unifying around the concept of defeating us.

We don’t do that.  We haven’t done that since Reagan, actually.  They want to try to tie this to New Media and Fox News and talk radio.  Reagan leaves in 1989, and that’s when coincidentally I show up, and that’s when all these internecine wars within the conservative movement, and then Buckley died.  That’s when all these intramural, internecine wars began for primacy, dominance, smartest guy-in-the-room competitions began in the conservative movement.

So there’s some differences, is my point.  Back in 1980, the conservative movement was all-in for Reagan.  It was the result of the Goldwater landslide defeat and the ensuing years from 1964.  The Republican Party was not all-in for Reagan.  They were not as opposed to Reagan as they are Trump, don’t misunderstand.  And once Reagan won, they all wanted to be on the team.  It was a landslide.  Everybody wants to bask in that glow.  And then as the Reagan years began, then the Republicans, certain members of the party began to individually fall out and start talking about problems they had, secretly telling the media they thought Reagan was a dunce and a danger to world peace, adopting the Democrat line that Reagan’s finger on the nuclear button couldn’t be trusted.

So nothing really that uniquely different among the Republican Party establishment.  Never liked conservatives, never was really all-in for Reagan except after landslide elections, as I say, that’s a bright light everybody wants to shine in it.  The difference is the conservative movement back then was of singular mind and purpose, and that was promoting itself, expanding itself, persuading people to join it, and defeating the left.  That doesn’t exist today.

So there are some differences.  And I’m not trying, by playing these bites, I’m not trying to say that we’re facing or looking at a likely repeat of history. It would be great if we were.  I’m just playing the bites to show you that polls can be wrong in identical circumstances or circumstances close might be repetitive.


RUSH: I want you to listen to sound bite number 10 one more time.  David Brinkley, about an hour-and-a-half into election coverage in 1980, around 8:30 Eastern time, Reagan has won in a landslide.  California polls are still an hour-and-a-half away from closing!  Carter has conceded, and they can’t figure it out.

BRINKLEY:  I’d like to ask a question of you folks.  We have here what I think reasonably could be called a landslide or certainly something approaching a landslide.  Where did it come from?  Nobody anticipated it.  No polls predicted it.  No one saw it coming.  How did that happen?  I don’t want to knock the polls, because I believe in them, and they generally do very good work.  One thing I wondered.  Have a lot of people — did a lot of people decide to vote for Reagan, but didn’t want to say so?

BROKAW:  Well, that’s always been a factor.  He’s an actor, after all.  A lot of people have made fun of him, and maybe I ought not be publicly in favor of him.

BRINKLEY:  Again, I don’t want to pick on the polls, but there was none of this insight.

RUSH: (imitating Brinkley)”I don’t want to pick on the polls, but they didn’t tell us this, they didn’t give us any indication of this.  There’s a lot of people that voted for Reagan didn’t want to say so?”  Clearly could be happening this year.  They are shaming Trump so much that it might be causing a lot of people to not say they’re voting for Trump ’cause they don’t want to give any sort of idea here.


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: