Rush Limbaugh 👊 Trump Dares Call Hillary a Bigot

Rush Limbaugh 👊 Trump Dares Call Hillary a Bigot

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


RUSH: Now, here’s another good test-market question for Trump supporters.  This is last night, audio sound bite number six.  I’m not telling you that.  I’m telling the broadcast engineer.  Jackson, Mississippi, campaign event, teleprompter, out of the blue Trump…

TRUMP:  Hillary Clinton is a bigot who sees people of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future.

RUSH:  Did you hear that crowd reaction?  Now, it was mixed.  There was a lot of support for it, and there was shock.  And, in fact, if you saw it on screen left, to Trump’s right as he’s standing there, there’s a woman, I think she’s wearing a white dress, she’s brunette, and the moment that Trump says, “Hillary Clinton is a bigot,” her face contorts in such a way that you can tell she doesn’t know if she’s supposed to clap or not.  She doesn’t know at that moment whether she’s supposed to applaud this or not.

But this crowd ate it up.  You go to the Drive-Bys, “That’s just so unbecoming of a presidential candidate.  That’s just not the kind of words we want to hear. That’s so beneath what we are all accustomed to. You just don’t see that. You don’t see one candidate calling another candidate a bigot,” particularly a liberal Democrat.

But Trump did. (interruption) Well, I know, Hillary’s been calling him worse than that for weeks.  But that’s okay, because that’s the conventional wisdom, that Trump is unsuited, he’s unfit, doesn’t have the right temperament, any of that.  Hillary did react to this, by the way.


RUSH:  One thing I need to add, this is not the first time Trump has called her a bigot.  Yeah.  I’m sure you remember the other time.  So why are the Drive-Bys going nuts?  Why now?  I’ll tell you exactly why.  It’s because Trump all week has been making the case to African-American voters that the Democrat Party is taking them for granted, underutilizing them, failing to come through in their promises.

Trump is tackling that head on while assuring them that he will actually improve things for them.  And this is sacred ground.  There’s no Republican ever who’s supposed to ever try to get the black vote.  The Democrats are considered to own that, it’s theirs, and you’re not even supposed to try for it.  And here’s Trump now in the middle of a full, solid week’s effort of outreach.  They’re offended, they’re angry, and a little bit worried. So now they focus on Trump calling her a bigot, and Mrs. Clinton responded to it last night on Anderson Cooper.

HILLARY:  Donald Trump has shown us who he is, and we ought to believe him.  He is taking a hate movement mainstream, he’s brought it into his campaign, he’s bringing it to our communities and our country.  And, you know, someone who’s questioned the citizenship of the first African-American president, who has courted white supremacists, who’s been sued for housing discrimination against communities of color, who’s attacked a judge for his Mexican heritage and promised a mass deportation force is someone who is, know, very much peddling bigotry and prejudice and paranoia.

RUSH:  That’s quite a laundry list of things that Hillary has there, but she left out the things that she really should be focusing on, and that is he’s unfit, he’s got the wrong temperament, doesn’t have the qualifications.  I mean, that’s her thrust.  That’s the primary point that she’s been out there trying to make.  She was off message.  You know why?  Because this was written down.  She cannot rattle all that off, I don’t think, from her memory.  She’s on the phone, so nobody can see her.  She’s on the phone with Anderson Cooper and I think reading from the cheat sheet, and somebody forgot to tell her to include the fact, which is their main campaign thrust is that Trump’s not qualified, is unsuited and all that.


Are the POLICE Racist?

Are the Police Racist?

Does the truth MATTER?

Not to groups like Black Lives Matter.


This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Do they disproportionately shoot African-Americans? Are incidents in places like Ferguson and Baltimore evidence of systemic discrimination? Heather Mac Donald, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute, explains.

Does the truth matter?

Not to groups like Black Lives Matter. That’s tragic for many reasons, not the least of which is that black lives are being lost as a result.

When it comes to the subject of American police, blacks, and the deadly use of force, here is what we know:

A recent “deadly force” study by Washington State University researcher Lois James found that police officers were less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white or Hispanic ones in simulated threat scenarios. Harvard economics professor Roland Fryer analyzed more than 1,000 officer-involved shootings across the country. He concluded that there is zero evidence of racial bias in police shootings. In Houston, he found that blacks were 24 percent less likely than whites to be shot by officers even though the suspects were armed or violent.

Does the truth matter?

An analysis of the Washington Post’s Police Shooting Database and of Federal Crime Statistics reveals that fully 12 percent of all whites and Hispanics who die of homicide are killed by cops. By contrast, only four percent of black homicide victims are killed by cops.

But isn’t it a sign of bias that blacks make up 26 percent of police-shooting victims, but only 13 percent of the national population? It is not, and common sense suggests why. Police shootings occur more frequently where officers confront armed or violently resisting suspects. Those suspects are disproportionately black.

According to the most recent study by the Department of Justice, although blacks were only about 15 percent of the population in the 75 largest counties in the US, they were charged with 62 percent of all robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults. In New York City, blacks commit over three-quarters of all shootings, though they are only 23 percent of the city’s population. Whites, by contrast, commit under two percent of all shootings in the city, though they are 34 percent of the population. New York’s crime disparities are repeated in virtually every racially diverse city in America. The real problem facing inner-city black communities today is not the police but criminals.

In 2014, over 6,000 blacks were murdered, more than all white and Hispanic homicide victims combined. Who is killing them? Not the police, and not white civilians, but other blacks. In fact, a police officer is eighteen and a half times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer. If the police ended all use of lethal force tomorrow, it would have a negligible impact on the black death-by-homicide rate.

In Chicago, through just the first six-and-a-half months of 2016, over 2,300 people were shot. That’s a shooting an hour during some weekends. The vast majority of the victims were black. During this same period, the Chicago police shot 12 people, all armed and dangerous. That’s one half of one percent of all shootings.

Does the truth matter?

If it does, here’s a truth worth pondering:

There is no government agency more dedicated to the proposition that black lives matter than the police. The proactive policing revolution that began in the mid-1990s has dramatically brought down the inner-city murder rate and saved tens of thousands of black lives. Unfortunately, that crime decline is now in jeopardy.

As I write in my book, The War on Cops, police officers are backing off of proactive policing in black neighborhoods thanks to the false narrative that police officers are infected with homicidal bias. As a result, violent crime is going up, in cities with large black populations, homicides in 2015 rose anywhere from 54 percent in Washington DC to 90 percent in Cleveland. Overall, in the nation’s 56 largest cities, homicides in 2015 rose 17 percent, a nearly unprecedented one-year spike.

Many law-abiding residents of high-crime areas beg the police to maintain order ? precisely the type of policing that the ACLU, progressive politicians, and the Obama Justice Department denounce as racist. This is tragic because when the police refrain from proactive policing, black lives are lost.

Lost because of a myth.

The best research and data reach this conclusion: there is no evidence that police are killing blacks just because they are black.

You now have the truth. Does it matter?

I’m Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute for Prager University.
Give Old Guard Audio a Listen, you will be glad you did!

Facing High Labor Costs From Minimum Wage Hikes, Chicago Restaurant Closes 💰

Facing High Labor Costs From Minimum Wage Hikes, Chicago Restaurant Closes 💰

cantina 1910

Leah Jessen /

A Chicago restaurant abruptly closed this week, with ownership blaming the “rapidly changing labor market” and a 27 percent increase in base minimum wage costs over the last two years as culprits for the collapse.

Cantina 1910, a farm-to-table Mexican restaurant located in Chicago’s Andersonville neighborhood, opened in September 2015.

Former Cantina 1910 employees said they were shocked to find out late Sunday evening of the closing, DNAinfo reported.

“We are unable to further raise prices in this competitive restaurant market in order to sustain the labor costs necessary to operate Cantina 1910,” Mark Robertson and Mike Sullivan, Cantina 1910’s owners, said in an emailed statement to The Daily Signal.

In December 2014, the Chicago City Council passed an ordinance to raise the city’s minimum wage from $8.25 an hour to $13 an hour by 2019. The minimum wage for nontipped employees went up to $10.50 an hour on July 1.

“Unfortunately, the rapidly changing labor market for the hospitality industry has resulted in immediate, substantial increases in payroll expenses that we could not absorb through price increases,” the restaurant’s owners said. “In the last two years, we have seen a 27 percent increase in the base minimum wage, a 60 percent increase in kitchen wages, and a national shortage of skilled culinary workers.”

The owners say they “do not see a path forward” with mandatory paid sick leave and minimum wage set to increase in 2017. They stated:

As we look down the road, we are facing a Dec. 1 change in federal labor regulations that will nearly double required salaries for managers to qualify as exempt, a 2017 mandatory sick leave requirement and another minimum wage increase. Coupled with increasing Chicago and Cook County taxes and fees that disproportionately impact commercial properties and businesses, we are operating in an environment in which we do not see a path forward.

Raising the minimum wage was a “much needed” and “an essential step in making sure that hard work pays off for all of our residents,” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat and President Barack Obama’s former chief of staff, said in a July 2015 statement.

Employment in the Chicago area’s leisure and hospitality sector sunk to a five-year low, according to government data, after a $1.75 an hour minimum wage hike went into effect in July 2015, Investor’s Business Daily’s Jed Graham wrote this past January.

“The law of demand states that when prices rise, customers buy fewer goods or services,” James Sherk, a research fellow in labor economics at The Heritage Foundation, says. “Cantina 1910’s closing is another demonstration that this economic law applies to businesses too.

“Chicago raised mandatory starting wages in the city, but the restaurant could not afford to stay in business at those prices. So it closed and all its employees lost their jobs. Heritage Foundation analysis finds that if Illinois mandated $15/hour starting wages this would cost over 300,000 jobs statewide.”

Judges Put Election Reforms in Wisconsin on Hold, Except for Voter ID ✍

Judges Put Election Reforms in Wisconsin on Hold, Except for Voter ID ✍ 


Hans von Spakovsky /

On Monday, a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused without comment to stay a Wisconsin district court opinion in One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen that threw out changes the state legislature had made in early voting rules as well as other changes such as the residency requirement for new voters.

However, the state’s voter ID law will remain in place for the November election because the district court judge, James D. Peterson, a President Barack Obama appointee, stayed his earlier ruling against the ID law on Aug. 11.

Peterson didn’t have much choice on that issue: The same three-judge panel that refused to stay his overall ruling had issued a stay on the voter ID issue on Aug. 10 in a second district court case in Wisconsin, Frank v. Walker.

In that case, another federal judge, Lynn Adelman, a Bill Clinton appointee and former Democratic state senator, required the state to allow anyone who signed a form stating they could not obtain an ID to vote—despite the fact that Adelman admitted “most voters in Wisconsin either possess qualifying ID or can easily obtain one.”

The 7th Circuit disagreed with that decision, pointing out that Adelman’s mandate would allow anyone to vote “even if the voter has never tried to secure [an ID], and even if by objective standards the effort needed would be reasonable (and would succeed).” And it criticized Adelman for telling state officials they were “forbidden to dispute or question any reason the registered voter gives” for not obtaining an ID.

Unfortunately, Peterson’s other rulings in his July 29 order will remain in effect, despite the fact that there is no legal basis for them.

For example, he declared that the legislature’s changing the number of voting days to 12 from 30, as well as limiting the early voting locations to only one per county, was unconstitutional under the First and 14th Amendments.

Early voting is not a constitutional requirement. In fact, it is a relatively new phenomena: Texas was the first state to implement early voting in 1988, and there are still about a dozen states like New York that don’t have early voting at all.

Early voting is really a form of absentee voting that is provided for voters who will not be able to vote at their assigned polling place on Election Day. But absentee voting is a privilege, not a right.

The Supreme Court said in 1969 in McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners that there is no constitutional right to absentee ballots. In fact, having 12 days of early voting would still put Wisconsin close to the median of 14 days of early voting of those states that allow it. Peterson’s ruling would mean that any state that has not implemented early voting is suddenly violating the Constitution, a legal conclusion that makes no sense.

Peterson also barred the state from changing its residency requirement for voting from 10 days to 28 days, finding that it was a violation of the First and 14th Amendments. He did this despite clear Supreme Court precedent, Dunn v. Blumstein (1972), finding that a 30-day requirement was acceptable. In essence, Peterson thumbed his nose at both of these binding precedents.

Peterson also threw out the completely reasonable requirement that student IDs used to meet the voter ID requirement not be expired. Given that the percentage of out-of-state students at the University of Wisconsin in Madison is almost 35 percent, and given the high likelihood that many of them will be leaving the state as soon as they have graduated, not allowing voters to use expired student IDs makes perfect sense—except to Peterson.

“Perfectly reasonable” describes another change that Peterson threw out—requiring dorm resident lists that are submitted to election officials for voter registration purposes to indicate a student’s citizenship. The University of Wisconsin itself boasts that “over 4,000 international students from more than 130 countries chose to study” there, and the university is “consistently ranked among the top 20 universities in the United States with the largest number of international students.”

Yet a simple administrative rule easily complied with by the university, which will ensure that noncitizens do not illegally register and vote in Wisconsin elections, is such an undue burden that it is unconstitutional according to Peterson.

These cases simply illustrate how important that empty seat is on the U.S. Supreme Court. The six-member majority that upheld Indiana’s voter ID law as constitutional in 2008 is now two judges short: Justice John Paul Stevens retired and we lost Justice Antonin Scalia, to our great misfortune.

Getting a new justice on the court who will sustain that precedent and overrule these types of bad decisions from federal judges like Adelman and Peterson when the cases get to the high court is crucial to maintaining and improving the security and integrity of our elections, as well as ensuring that states retain their control of the election process as delegated to them by the Constitution.


Portrait of Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research.

Rush Limbaugh 💘 The Drive-By Media Is Hillary Clinton’s Campaign

Rush Limbaugh  💘 The Drive-By Media Is Hillary Clinton’s Campaign


Rush Limbaugh @ Old Guard Audio

Rush Limbaugh @ Old Guard AudioRush Limbaugh

RUSH: The New York Post yesterday had a big story.  “Hillary campaign manager Robby Mook has written a panicky pitch to Hillary Clinton supporters warning that fundraising numbers are dipping — even adding ‘that’s how elections are lost.  Our poll numbers are holding steady, which is good. We’re growing our field organization, building out neighborhood teams in communities all over the country — which is even better,’ Mook wrote. ‘But that’s happening at a time when our fundraising levels are, frankly, dipping.’ … ‘We have to remind ourselves that it’s only August — and that Donald Trump has more than enough time to find his way to a win by November.”

Let me tell you something.  Democrats are already planning her agenda as president.  They’re already having meetings about that.  They think this election is over.  They think the campaign is essentially over.  They’re not even worried about debates.  You know why?  I’ll tell you why.  Because they don’t think Trump can keep up on policy.  The one thing Hillary Clinton is, is a wonk.  Hillary Clinton can talk policy meaninglessly, but in a way to make the low-information crowd think that she is a genius on it, just on the basis-of-knowledge.

She can start throwing out terminology, numbers, success stories, linking it to all of her efforts for children and so forth. She can name every freaking law and act that has been implemented since she was first lady, and she can speak the public policy language, and Trump can’t.  So they’re not even worried about that.  They are not even worried she might have to take a 10-minute break to go to the bathroom, deal with some medical issue, whatever it is.  Well, she did one during Bernie’s debate.  She vanished for 10 minutes. They had to go to a long commercial break while she was gone.  We still don’t know why she vanished.

So there’s something clearly going on there.  But whatever it is, they’re not worried about it. They’re not even worried about the debates.  I know a lot of Trump people think, “Hey, man, you know, he may be down in the polls now, but in those debates he’s just gonna kick her upside one wall and down the other,” and they don’t think so on the Hillary side.  They don’t think Trump can keep up with her for 10 minutes.

And remember who’s gonna be moderating these debates.  And remember the kind of questions. Hillary’s gonna be asked, just to give an example, the nuclear triad and she’s gonna be able to name generals and admirals who have had input in the nuclear triad. And she’s going to be able to quote what that general or this admiral told her about what needs to be upgraded.  Trump doesn’t know what it is, or didn’t.

Now, in the primaries it didn’t matter because that was not Trump’s appeal.  I’m just telling you this is why the Democrats are not even afraid of the debates.  They think it’s over, folks.  And I’m telling you, it’s so over Hillary’s not even doing rallies.  It really is true.  The Drive-By Media is her campaign.  The Drive-By Media is taking Donald Trump out every day.  The Drive-By Media is focusing solely on Trump and blowing him up every day.  Whatever he says, whatever he does, they’re doing their best to blow it to smithereens, poke holes at it, fact check it, destroy it, whatever.

I might have been one of the first to say years ago that journalism as everybody thinks of it has ceased to exist, that it’s not news anymore. There isn’t any news every day.  It’s the daily soap opera, and there’s a script that’s written called the narrative every day, and the narrative every day here is destroy Trump.  Hillary doesn’t have to.  She’s running ads.  She has been running ads.

Trump has an ad that he has started running, a national ad.  I think it’s a national ad.  Maybe battleground state ad, I’m not sure which, and he’s raising money, and they are concerned in the Clinton camp how much money Trump has raised.  That’s the one thing they’re worried about.  If they have a concern, it is television ads.  They work.  Trump hasn’t been running any.  If Trump starts a TV ad campaign, gets enough money, and has a focused message to go along with the ads, there are some people on the Democrat side that don’t think it’s over, or at least have the common sense to not act like it here in late August.

But everybody I’ve spoken to that has intimate knowledge of the Democrat Party, they think this is over and done.  They think they are headed for maybe a 49-state landslide.  They think Trump might not even reach 100 electoral votes.  And the reason they think this is because they are totally devoted to the Drive-By Media, ’cause the Drive-By Media is simply the Democrat Party.