See, I Told You So:
Media Not Upset by Notion of FCC Monitors in Newsrooms; Journalism Schools Behind the Idea
February
21, 2014
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: So yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, I told you that the media would
not be upset over this FCC idea of monitors in newsrooms. And I further told you -- and I admit this was a guess but it was
an educated guess -- that I wouldn't be surprised if I found out that a journalism school was actually behind this idea.
I mentioned to you that there wouldn't be any protests from journalists or journalism schools. I said:
"If it turns out here that a dean or an entire j-school is behind this idea, it won't surprise me a bit."
And guess what? There are two, ladies and gentlemen. "The FCC commissioned the University of Southern California
Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Communication and Democracy
to do a study defining what information is 'critical' for citizens to have.
"The scholars decided that 'critical information' is information that people
need to 'live safe and healthy lives' and to 'have full access to educational, employment, and business opportunities' ..."
That's what the news should be. Any mea culpas in there? Anybody want to now admit what I told you: This isn't about
news anymore, it's about advancing the Democrat Party agenda? It's about advancing the leftist agenda. (interruption) Why
is it uncanny?
For
25 years I've been accurately predicting this. This is interesting. It really is. For 25 years I've been predicting
this, and yet people still doubt me. Now, look, I'm smiling when I say this. I don't want anybody to misunderstand.
But, on the one hand, it is kind of serious. I am a renowned authority -- one of the world's foremost -- on the left;
I'm never wrong about them. And yet, even now, after 25 years of demonstrable proof of that assertion, I'm still doubted.
(interruption) All right. Okay. All right.
So this goes to the core of a free press. You would think even they would understand this. It's a new world.
There isn't any news. That's not what journalism is anymore. You don't go into journalism because you want to
report news to people. You don't go into journalism because you want to find out first what's happening and be the first
to report to other people what's happening.
That's not why you go into journalism. You go into journalism to advance an agenda. World peace,
ending world poverty, destroying the powerful, whatever it is. But it is not related to the news anymore. By the
way, Katy Bachman, who I mentioned yesterday that I've encountered in my professional broadcast career, writes at Adweek. She reported yesterday
that the program has been dialed back.
It hasn't. It has not been dialed back. They want us to think it has. Lanny Davis has stood
up in outrage. Well-known Clinton defender, Lanny Davis, stood up in outrage. It's typical. He says, "Obama needs
to find out who did this and fire him!" Lanny, Obama would have to fire himself, and that isn't going to happen.
Can I tell you what else I found? I found a tweet. I have a got a screen shot here. It's very small, and
it could have been Facebook.
But it's a tweet, and it is from a Democrat running for Congress in Virginia against Eric Cantor. The
Democrat's name is Mike Dickinson, and it looks like the tweet is from February 17th. So four days ago. I'm going to read you the tweet. "Fox News does nothing
but tell lies and mistruths. They have unqualified political analysts. We need FCC to monitor and regulate them."
That's a Democrat candidate for Congress. Do you think
this is a coincidence, four days this clown comes out and tweets this? Do you know whose idea this really is? I can't
say it's her idea, but do you know where this gem of an idea originated? Try Mignon Clyburn, the daughter of James Clyburn,
who was a ranking member of the Congressional Black Caucasians in the House of Representatives. He has a daughter. He named
her after a steak -- a prime cut of steak, but nevertheless a steak.
The filet is the least amount of fat. If you serve it without a bone, it's
the tenderest. Yeah, it's probably one of the most tender cuts, prime cuts you can get. He named his daughter
after a steak. A very lean steak. Mignon Clyburn. Mignon is the agent behind this. The Washington Examiner: "The First Amendment says
'Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...'
"But under the Obama [Regime] the Federal Communications
Commission is planning to send government contractors into the nation's newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing
articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets the public's 'critical information needs.' Those
'needs' will be defined by the administration, and news outlets that do not comply with the government's standards could face
an uncertain future.
"It's
hard to imagine a project more at odds with the First Amendment." No, it's not hard to imagine! That's the point!
It isn't hard to imagine it! Maybe it's hard to accept it, but it isn't hard to imagine. It's right in front of your
face! They're being very open about it! They're not even doing this under the cover of darkness. They're not even doing
this while nobody's looking. They're doing it wide open, under a full sun.
"The initiative, known around the agency as 'the CIN Study' (pronounced 'sin'),
is a bit of a mystery even to insiders. 'This has never been put to an FCC vote, it was just announced,' says Ajit Pai, one
of the FCC's five commissioners (and one of its two Republicans)." So he's one of the FCC's commissars, and he's one
of two Republicans commissars. Of course, the president being a Democrat, he gets the majority of the commissars.
They used to be called "commissioners," but I'm calling
these people "commissars" because they're high commissars -- and in the German, they are "haupt commissars,"
h-a-u-p-t, high commissars. And it is what it is. Here are some pull quotes: "Advocates promote the project with
Obama-esque rhetoric." Advocates! Advocates! There are people in support of this. There's nobody out there in the media
frightened about this. They think what this is going to end up doing is silencing Fox News and me.
That's the attraction to them for this. "This study
begins the charting of a course to a more effective delivery of necessary information to all citizens," said FCC commisar
Mignon Clyburn in 2012. This thing goes back two years! One of the Republican commissars is who made this public.
Now that it's public, nobody's denying it. They did tell Katy Bachman that they're pulling back on it but they're not.
I want you to listen to this quote again from Mignon Clyburn.
She might pronounce it "Mig-non," I don’t know. I've never heard her name pronounced. (interruption)
Is it Mignon? Have you heard her name pronounced? (interruption) Well, I'll call her Mignon. Mignon Clyburn, daughter
of James Clyburn, Congressional Black Caucasian. By the way, do you know what he does?
The guy's got a publication in South Carolina, Charleston I think. They've got a
publication aimed at the African-American community. So he's in the business himself, so to speak. But listen
to this. "This study begins the charting of a course to a more effective delivery of necessary information to all
citizens." This means the Regime is going to determine what the news is. The study is for the news outlets
to tell the Regime how they pick the news and what they decide to ignore in the news.
And the Regime is going to come in and say, "No, no, no.
Here's what the news is, and here's what isn't the news." That's, in a nutshell, what this is. This is the regime
officially making it State-Controlled Media. "The FCC commissioned the University of Southern California Annenberg
School for Communication & Journalism and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Communication and Democracy to
do a study defining what information is 'critical' for citizens to have.
"The scholars," at these two journalism schools, "decided that 'critical
information'" that We the People need from the media "is information that people need to 'live safe and healthy
lives'..." Well, they're already doing that. Don't you get it? They're already telling us how much we can eat,
how much of a soda we can't have. They're already doing this, and not just the media! Elected officials are already
telling us how to live healthy lives, what we can and can't eat.
Also, the scholars of these two journalism schools decided that another avenue of
critical information for the people is 'full access to educational, employment, and business opportunities,' among other things."
So the news is going to become a giant classified ads section: Educational, employment, business opportunities, among other
things. "If the FCC goes forward," pull quote from the story, "it's not clear what will happen to news
organizations that fall short of the new government standards.
"Perhaps they will be disciplined. Or perhaps the very threat of investigating
their methods will nudge them into compliance with the [Regime]'s journalistic agenda. What is sure is that it will be a gross
violation of constitutional rights." This is Byron York's piece, by the way, from the Washington Examiner, I'm reading.
That's his pull quote. In the United States of America this is being written, as though it's likely to happen
it's almost a fait accompli?
And all we're talking about here is what's going to happen to the dissidents, what's going to happen to the
resistance? It will be underground. They're going to have to broadcast some private locations on private frequencies.
"Perhaps news organizations that fall short of the new government standards ... will be disciplined. Or perhaps the very
threat of investigating their methods will nudge them into compliance..."
That's what they've done with the Republican Party. The Republican Party is
in total compliance with the Democrat Party, is it not, in terms of the party at the establishment level? Have they
not been "nudged" into total compliance? And who are the holdouts? Me and talk radio and, some of them
say, Fox News. They're not pulling back on this. They have not set it aside, as they reported yesterday. I have
some audio sound bites from the commissar, Ajit Pai, coming up.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: By the way, for those who think the media would stand up in righteous outrage
I want to remind you: October 9th, 2013, last year, Los Angeles Times announced that was going to be stop publishing letters
to the editor if they held a view that manmade global warming was a hoax. If they were "climate deniers,"
the LA Times was no longer going to publish them because they're just wrong. They're not going to waste space.
Here is Ajit Pai (it may be "pay," it's p-a-i) last
night On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, and she said, "What's been the response by the other commiss[ars] at the
FCC?"
PAI:
I'm pleased to report that, uh, tonight, uhh, the chairman of the FCC Tom Wheeler has instructed the contractor who will be
doing this study, uh, to remove questions from the study relating to news philosophy and editorial judgment. And I think
that's a positive step, but, of course, the devil's in the details when it comes to the actual study as implemented.
RUSH: Right, and remember: The Republicans have two seats
on the FCC. The Democrats have three plus the chairmanship. This is not going to be dialed back. Whatever they
have to tell Republicans in Congress to get them to go along with whatever the Democrat agenda is, they'll say. This is the
Democrat agenda. This is going to happen. Mr. Pai had one more thing to say about this.
PAI: The study was designed and adopted under previous leadership
and I think the reaction you have is the one that a lot of people in America have, and that is that the government doesn't
have a place in the newsroom. They don't need the government over the shoulders telling them that they're doing something
wrong. The study hasn't yet started, and that's why I think it's critical for us to make sure at the outset that either
we stop the study or if it's going forward, uh, we make sure it doesn't infringe on anyone's constitutional freedoms.
RUSH: I tell you, that just amazes me. No, I don't
have time to tell you why because I have to break right here. But what amazes me is the whole attitude here. It
just amazes me.
BREAK
TRANSCRIPT
RUSH:
By the way, ladies and gentlemen, this is already happening in the UK. I have a UK Guardian story here from January 30th: "Diversity
Monitoring Service Will Show Broadcasters If They're Hitting Targets -- BBC, ITV, Sky and Channel 4 to join pilot to be launched
by the Creative Diversity Network. A monitoring service that will assess how the major broadcasters are performing against
their diversity targets -- and each other -- is about to be launched by the Creative Diversity Network.
"The aim is that the initiative will become a permanent
benchmark to track the industry's successes and failures, holding its key players to account. A pilot is set to launch in
the spring, featuring the BBC, ITV, Sky and Channel 4. However, it is not clear how much of the data will be shared publicly."
So "diversity monitoring" is in the works in the UK. Now, technically this isn't being imposed by the government,
per se. It's being done after pressure by the government. The British don't have a First Amendment, by the way.
There's no freedom of speech, per se. There is no freedom
of the press, per se. Did you know that, that the British don't have a constitution? (interruption) You didn't know
that? Everybody thinks that every other country has a constitution. The Brits do not have a constitution -- and, ergo,
there's no actual First Amendment. There may be in practice the notion of a free press, but it isn't codified.
Sticking with the sound bites, would you grab number three?
I have to be careful. I don't want to be critical of the Republican Commissar,
Mr. Ajit Pai. It might be Ajit Pai. (sigh) I'm sorry. I need to make a mental note. I need to find pronunciations
of people's names, because I never hear them pronounced because of my hearing. I don't ever have the volume up. It's
just noise to me. So if there's no pronunciation guide, I don't know, and so I have to pronounce it all these different
ways to assure the subject I'm not trying to purposely get it wrong.
I want you to listen. I'm sure he's a great guy. But think of what's
going on here. We actually have the federal government ripping the First Amendment to shreds here, and we're talking
about it in a reasonable, scholarly, introspective, ahh, extro-speculative scholarly way. This ought not be given one
iota of respect! This view doesn't have any merit. We don't have to respect this view that the government's going to
go in and start monitoring the content of the news!
Hey, look at this, a pronunciation. It's Ah-jeet Pie." I was really close. Again, he's one of the two Republican
commissars, FCC. Greta Van Susteren last night: "Look, it might be a positive step that they're dialing this back
a little, but you'd have to be out of your mind to have proposed this in the first place. So, you know, I suppose it's
great the commissioner now, after everyone is raining all over his parade. But who in his right mind, suggested this in the
first place, or thought it was OK to send monitors into newsrooms?"
See, she's got the right attitude. She's literally outraged at the entire
concept.
Here's
the answer again...
PAI:
The study was designed and adopted under previous leadership and I think the reaction you have is the one that a lot of people
in America have, and that is that the government doesn't have a place in the newsroom. They don't need the government
over the shoulders telling them that they're doing something wrong. The study hasn't yet started, and that's why I think
it's critical for us to make sure at the outset that either we stop the study or if it's going forward, uh, we make sure it
doesn't infringe on anyone's constitutional freedoms.
RUSH: What do you mean "if it's going forward"? It is infringing on constitutional freedoms
by virtue of its design! The government doesn't get to monitor content. The government doesn't get to say what
anybody can or can't say, specifically in political speech, and specifically if they're in the media. Do you all find
it strange that I am one of the few in the media outraged by this?
I mean, I'm not technically a journalist, because I laugh and smile and I love America.
So I'm not a journalist. But there's cricket silence out there about this. Now, admittedly people like me are
the target of this thing, and the Drive-By journalists do not think they're the targets. I guaran-damn-tee you that's why
they're being silent. They don't think they're the targets.
They don't think Obama wants to shut them down and they know how to make sure he
doesn't and that is: Just kiss ass. Every day, just keep kissing butt, that's all you gotta do. You've got a regime
monitor in there. This is why I was telling Snerdley yesterday I think the media is going to like this. "There's
a monitor in there! There's somebody who can report back to Obama how good I'm doing, how big a butt kisser I am.
"There's a monitor in there going to report right back to
Obama what a great job I'm doing advancing the agenda." There's no fear in the Drive-Bys because they don't think
they're the targets of this. (interruption) They don't know that. Snerdley says, "They've got to know they won't
stay in power forever." You know what my dad used to always tell me? When he was being educated about communism
and what it did to people...
You know, what it literally meant for people, how it did not just deny their freedoms but ended up with many
of them dying. There's a wall built in countries to keep people in, not keep people out. You end up in political prisons,
end up tortured. There is no upward mobility economically. The leaders take it all. There's literally nothing.
It's an absolute dungeon of existence, and he always used to tell me that the people in the media don't realize they're going
to be the first to shut up.
They're going to be the first silenced. They're going to be the first to go. Unless they're brought in line,
unless they're willing to toe the line, unless they're willing to become absolute butt kissers and report everything written
for them. If there's any dissent there, they're gone, because the state is going to control the media -- and anybody in the
media who is not cool with that is going to be the first silenced.
Actually, the first thing a totalitarian regime will do is go for universal health
care. If you doubt that... Look, that's a matter of historical record. That's not an opinion even. Go look
at what the national socialists did in Germany. What's the first thing? It's always under the auspices of helping
the poor, the downtrodden, making everybody healthy and keep everybody from getting sick, everybody.
You control healthcare and you control every aspect of every
citizen's life. You hold their lives in your hands. If they surrender their medical care to you, you own them.
Then the next thing you do is you move in -- it almost happens simultaneously -- and you control the media. Go study
what Mao Tse-tung did. Go study what Castro did the revolution in Cuba. Anywhere. Look at Hugo Chavez. The
reason I say this is Snerdley said, "Don't these people in the media know?"
No! They think they're on the same side. They think they're loved and adored.
They want to be agents. The people that you see on CBS, ABC, they want to be on the team. So they're going to
be sucking up, doing whatever they have to do to get noticed, to stay in good stead if you will. Here's more from Ajit
Pai. Greta Van Susteren said, "Well, look, what's the authority for the FCC even to think that it can do this,
Mr. Pai? What's the statute that they think that they must or are complying with here to do something like this?"
PAI: Technically the FCC is relying on a statute that requires
the FCC to report to Congress every three years on barriers that entrepreneurs and small businesses face when they're trying
to get into the communications industry.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, stop there. What does asking the question about whether or not you've been
prevented from telling a story have anything to do with being a barrier?
PAI: That's exactly the concern I have, that there isn't any connection --
and moreover, uh, even if there were some connection the FCC doesn't have any regulatory authority when it comes to the print
media. And so we don't tell newspapers what to cover. And newspapers, nonetheless, are covered under the CIN study.
RUSH: What does that tell you? They don't care what
the First Amendment says. But you notice the hook here. I mentioned this yesterday. The hook is, "We're
going to do a study to find out what the barriers are to minority ownership of media properties." So Greta said,
"Okay, so, what in the world does how any newsroom chooses the stories that it's going to report have to do with whether
or not the minorities can own broadcast properties? Mr. Ajit Pai said, "Yeah, that's the same question I had."
I'll tell you the answer, that's how you get everybody supporting
the study, the concept of the study. "It's to help minorities. It's to help victims. It's to help the poor
-- and, of course, this country's so unjust and so immoral and so unfair that the media is like everything else. It's
like Big Oil. It's like Big Pharma. It's run by a bunch of racist, rich, white pigs -- and we have to change that.
"So we're going to find out how these racist, rich, white
pigs are keeping everybody out -- and we'll do that by finding out how they taint the news so as to create racist attitudes
about potential minority entrepreneurs." Everybody's going, "Yeah! Yeah!" TMZ. E Entertainment
Network, Low-Information Yahoo News. "Yeah, go for it because we want equality and we want fairness," when in truth
the biggest barrier to anybody owning a broadcast property is what?
Money.
Money.
So
I think, if they're really serious, they need to take the subprime mortgage program and transfer it over to the broadcast
business, and call it the Subprime Broadcast Purchase Opportunity, and let people that can't afford to buy broadcast outlets
buy them. Give them the mortgage. Give them the loan. Let them buy the TV station, the radio station or whatever
and know that they can't pay it back. Demand that the banks lend the money like they did in the housing business, or else
they will be investigated.
That's how you do it.
But you see there's much more than this than just minority ownership.
That's just the hook.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com
END TRANSCRIPT
Related Links
RushLimbaugh.com: Journalists
Won't Put Up with Regime Monitors in Newsrooms? Don't Be So Sure... - 02.20.14
Washington Examiner: New Obama
Initiative Tramples First Amendment Protections
FOXNews: FCC Commissioner Ajit
Pai ‘On the Record’
Twitchy: Cantor Challenger:
‘We Need FCC To Monitor And Regulate’ Fox News Channel
AdWeek: FCC Backs Off Study
of Newsroom Editorial Practices. GOP Said Study Violated Freedom Of The Press
RedState: Why Is the Obama
Administration Putting Government Monitors in Newsrooms?
UK Guardian: Diversity Monitoring
Service Will Show Broadcasters If They Are Hitting Targets
FOXNews: Does The FCC Have
The Right To Invade Newsrooms?
==================================
Beckel: DC Reporters Sleep with Sources
February 21, 2014
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Bob Beckel has confirmed that journalists of all three sexes are sleeping with their sources in Washington
and have been for years. The subject has been popularized by the latest season of House of Cards. Have you delved
into it yet? Have you watched it on Netflix? (interruption) All right. In the show, journalists and members of
Congress routinely sleep with each other, and so it came up on Fox the other day.
It's come up in other places, since the show is in its second season. Dana Perino, Bush's Press Secretary, said,
"No, no, no. That would never happen. It would never happen!" Beckel said, "Heh, heh, heh. Are you kidding?
Let me tell you something. I've been in this town 20 years and I'm gonna tell you what: Everybody's sleeping with everyone.
And it's males and females and sources and journalists. Heh, heh, heh."
Dana Perino said, "I can't believe that
would actually happen here," and it is happening.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Let's get to the Bob Beckel business. House of Cards star Robin Wright. Snerdley, you do watch the show,
right? (interruption) But you're wrapping up season one? (interruption) Oh, you're reviewing the last season, so you remember
where it left off so that you're up to speed when it picks up? (interruption) Well here it says all 13 episodes are
up there on Netflix. They're all one hour. I think the last one might be 63 minutes. They're all 58, 59
minutes.
If you want, you can speed through the open.
The open's about two minutes but the open doesn't actually open. You can't really do that, because the show opens cold
with actual content and the open comes up. But whenever the open hits, it's two minutes. You can speed through it.
So he's catching up with it. Robin Wright plays... What do you think of this, if you watch the show.
Some people think that Kevin Spacey's character and his wife
Robin Wright are actually depictions of Bill and Hillary. They're not president. He ends up... Well, no, I can't
spoil it. He's a high-ranking member of Congress. She runs a nonprofit think tank. But the depiction, some
people are saying... I don't know if most people know this, the House of Cards, the original is Brit. It goes way back
to the '90s. It was a four-season extravaganza. (interruption)
Is it on Netflix, the original House of Cards?
(interruption) You've watched that one twice? (interruption) Now, that one is, that series, that's not Bill Clinton,
and his wife is not Hillary. But this is the adaptation. Some people are saying that. "House of Cards
star Robin Wright made waves in Washington this week when she claimed she had it on good authority from an unnamed Obama Regime
official that reporters really do sleep with their Capitol Hill sources, just as characters in the hit Netflix drama do on
screen. According to ... Bob Beckel, it 'happens all the time.'"
The
audio sound bite, this is The Five. Eric Bolling is co-hosting and he mentions what Robin Wright said about sources
and journalists sleeping with each other in DC. He's acting kind of dubious of it, and Beckel weighs in.
BECKEL: Are you kidding me? I was in Washington for 30 years.
I can tell you... I don't have to guess. I can tell you specifically. I know one female reporter from a particular newspaper
chain that slept with at least two members of Congress. I know of a lobbyist, a female lobbyist slept with maybe eight
members of Congress.
TARANTULA: Woo!
BECKEL: I know, when I was in the administration, uhhh –
TARANTULA: (snickering)
BECKEL: Well, anyway, to answer your
question about female, uh, members of Congress, that's been done. Uh, yes, it happens all the time.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com
END TRANSCRIPT
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Journalism School Grad-Mother Who Has
a Daughter in J-School
February
21, 2014
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: To Ellen in Tex'iss somewhere in Tex'iss. Great to have you on
the program. Hi.
CALLER:
Hello. Thank you for taking my call.
RUSH: You bet. By the way, you've got to say, "Tex'iss." It's not Texas. Texas is
a northern pronunciation. It's Tex'iss. Right?
CALLER: Well, I have a child in the Principles of American Journalism class
at the University of Missouri right now.
RUSH: Oh, no.
CALLER: Oh, yes. So I contacted her yesterday and asked if they had spoken about it yesterday, and
there was no mention made at all. But they have been talking about whether or not Twitter is journalism.
RUSH: (laughing) Really?
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: Now, it's only been around a year. Give them time to get to it
--
CALLER: (groans)
RUSH: -- and it only did really reach prominence yesterday.
So you need to stay in touch with your daughter, did you say?
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: Because at some point,I really would be fascinated to know how this
comes up, if it does at some point.
CALLER: Well, it's actually interesting. I floated around on the journalism school websites, because
they run a radio station, a television station, and a daily newspaper.
RUSH: Right.
CALLER: It's part of the Missouri Method, which is the most incredible way to learn journalism. But on
the television website, for the television station, they have a section which gives justifications for the newsworthiness
of the stories that they have run. So it may already be taking place, informally, in some of these newsrooms.
RUSH: Well, it is, but there's a big difference. Now, I
don't mean to be splitting hairs here, but if there is a representative of the federal government at the University of Missouri
J-School helping to determine these stories, then, yeah. If it's just a professor judging how the students are reporting
news, that's an entirely different matter. Can you hang on through the break, Ellen?
CALLER: Oh, sure.
RUSH: Yeah? Good. Don't go away.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Back to Ellen in Tex'iss. Ellen, thank you for waiting.
I appreciate your patience. What year is your daughter at the University of Missouri J-School?
CALLER: I'd rather not say.
RUSH: Okay. Okay. I understand, totally. Your illustration
that the TV station, you go to the website and they're already grading or passing judgment on which stories are reported,
that's all fine and dandy as part of the teaching of, the instruction of journalism. The problem then begins
with who is doing the teaching and what is their agenda and what is their purpose?
CALLER: Right. Oh, I completely agree. I also
attended the j-school.
RUSH:
At Mizzou?
CALLER:
I did, yes. I don't work in journalism now, but we were taught it's
who, where, why and how. But also, that you should move to tell people what it means to them.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: But I've always thought that shouldn't people be able to figure that out
on their own for themselves? When I was there, everybody wanted to be Woodward and Bernstein or Nellie Bly.
RUSH: That's what I was going to ask you. Why does
your daughter want to be a journalist?
CALLER: It so happens that her program falls under the school of journalism. She doesn't want to
be a daily journalist at all.
RUSH: Oh. Oh. Okay.
CALLER: But the way the things are divided into schools, her program falls under the j-school.
RUSH: Now, what did...? In your era everybody wanted to
be Woodward and Bernstein. What did that mean?
CALLER: It meant digging for truth wherever it was. We wanted to be Nellie Bly. We didn't
want to be Walter Duranty --
RUSH: Wait a second.
CALLER: -- and if something like this had come down, it would have been declared Stalinist from the get
go.
RUSH:
Wait, you're really firing my brain off here. I could ask you a question after practically every word. You and your
fellow students did not want to be Walter Duranty? What were you taught about Walter Duranty?
CALLER: That he pretty much white-washed the Soviet era.
RUSH: He was a Pulitzer Prize Winner! He wasn't treated
as a hero?
CALLER:
Back then he was, but as more and more things came out, you know, people woke up to the fact that it was (garbled) all the
way down.
RUSH:
No, in your student days, how was Duranty portrayed to you as when you were a student there?
CALLER: Honestly, I don't recall him being mentioned at
all. But I do want to say that while I was at Mizzou I took a criminology class and we were taught about the true Margaret
Sanger.
RUSH:
And that is?
CALLER:
And that was that she wanted to rid the world of "undesirables" and we were also taught about the forced sterilizations
and the experiments on African-Americans, the syphilis testing. We were taught about all of that. No spin. At
all.
RUSH:
Who were the undesirables in her world?
CALLER: Well, you know, "the lower classes," "the immigrants." The African-Americans.
RUSH: It was "the stupids."
CALLER: The minorities.
RUSH: Well, they did assume that African-Americans were
dumb and stupid and the world would be better without dumb and stupid people.
CALLER: And it was also Italians and Irish.
RUSH: Right.
CALLER: It was the immigrant groups, and there was a belief in phrenology,
the bumps on the head. The size of your skull could tell you if you were a criminal or not. It was just insanely unscientific
back then.
RUSH:
Yeah, but she wasn't alone, by the way. She had some of the so-called brightest thinkers alive who were supporters of hers.
They were fellow travelers in this whole eugenics movement. I want to go back to Woodward and Bernstein -- and, by the
way, I'm not setting you up for anything with these questions.
CALLER: I don't think you are.
RUSH: Okay. Because when I asked you, "What did it mean to a journalism
student to say, 'I want to be the next Woodward and Bernstein?'" you said, "To get to the truth." That's not
what I think it was. I think Woodward and Bernstein brought down a Republican president. Let's just leave it at
"president." Woodward and Bernstein brought down a president. Journalism can destroy people, and it
wasn't just Woodward and Bernstein.
Others that went to j-school back in that era, and still to this day, want to be on 60 Minutes. You can
walk down the hall at your average j-school, it doesn't matter where it is, and ask the students, "Why are you here?"
And they'll tell you, "I want to change the world! I want to make the world a safer place. I want to make a difference."
And, of course, the answer is, "Well, then, you're in the wrong place." "What do you mean I'm in the
wrong place?
"Journalism
isn't about world peace. Journalism isn't about making the world a better place." "Well, yes, it is!"
"No, journalism isn't about social justice. Journalism is about telling somebody who wasn't there, where you were,
what happened. That's all it is."
But that isn't journalism today. The agenda of journalism today
is all about the narrative and who sets it. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not. The narrative is related
to the agenda.
The
agenda is what everybody in the journalism department cares about supporting, that happens to be liberal causes today. So
journalism is about advancing the agenda of the American left. I think journalism students today, to one degree or another,
are propagandized, brainwashed.
But at the same time, that may not be necessary because many arriving may have
figured out that's what it is. If you look at how journalists are rewarded and climb the ladder, that's it.
A profile on a powerful person in a small town holds them up
to ridicule and destroys them? (snaps fingers) That's a resume enhancement. The who, what, when, where, why, whatever
you mentioned? That's first-year stuff. That's boilerplate, satisfies the requirements of the curriculum, and then they
get serious after they've glossed over that. But you stay in touch with your daughter, because I would love to know
what the reaction in her classroom is when this whole idea of government monitors in newsrooms is discussed.
CALLER: It will be interesting to see what the discussions
are like.
RUSH:
Make sure you tell her that it was two journalism schools that came up with the idea: The University of Southern California's
Annenberg School and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Journalism School. Those were the two places that devised this
test, this study, at the behest of Mignon Clyburn. Thank you, Ellen, for the call. (interruption) The official show
observer has a question. What's the question? (interruption) Mmm-hmm. (interruption) Mmm-hmm.
What would the old guard do what? (interruption) Oh! Snerdley
thinks he's asked me a brilliant question, folks. He thinks it's a brilliant question. See, because Snerdley is
convinced that a "real journalist," be they the biggest communist on the face of the earth, would want nothing to
do with the government monitoring them, directing them, observing them, none of that, no matter how leftist they are.
So he's asking me, "What would Cronkite's reaction be? What
would John Chancellor say if he were alive today? You know, Garrick Utley just passed away. What would Garrick Utley say?"
He's asking me, "What about Eric Sevareid?" I'll tell you, if you want to get the answer go ask Bill Moyers.
He's one of them and he's alive and kicking at PBS, and I'll bet you that Bill Moyers will find a way...
Ah! Ah! I don't want to prejudge it, because Bill Moyers will
say whatever he has to make me wrong so I'm not going to predict what he would say. But what you want me to say is what
you believe, which is that Cronkite wouldn't have none of this. "He wouldn't stand for it, whoever it was, in any
administration! If it was the Johnson administration, which he loved..." Let me put it to you this way:
If the Kennedy administration, Camelot, said, "We want monitors
in there. We want to make sure that you're covering the news right. We want to find out what you're leaving on the cutting
room floor. We want to find out what isn't making the news. We want to find out what is." The war in Vietnam is going
on and the Kennedy administration says, "We're going to send Bob McNamara over, in fact, to find out why you're telling
all this rotten news about our bad luck in Vietnam."
You think, you are convinced that Cronkite would stand up with righteous indignation
and kick them out of there and would not want any part of it, right? You believe that the old line journalists, be they as
commie lib as they might have been, wouldn't put up with this. But you are willing to concede that the current crop -- the
heirs, if you will, of Cronkite... Who are they? Diane Sawyer. Who are the nightly news people? Scott Pelley.
Brian Williams. The F. Chuck Todds.
You still don't believe that I'm right that they would not have a problem with it? (interruption) You
think that they would. (interruption) I know that. (interruption) Because Moyers was one! When he was doing commentary, he
took over for Sevareid. When Moyers was doing commentary on the CBS Evening News with Cronkite, he came from the Johnson the
administration! He was a monitor. These are revolving doors.
Don't you understand that these journalists are, in effect, part of these administrations?
That's what people can't get their arms around. Journalism in Washington is not in a cocoon. A journalist will
leave and go work for a Congressman.
Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary, used to work at Time Magazine as a
columnist/editor/writer. He left there, went to work for Biden, and from there went to work for Obama.
Tim Russert used to work for a member of Congress. (interruption)
Moynihan, right. What's his face, Chris Matthews, worked for Tip O'Neill. It's an incestuous pool, a revolving door.
I mentioned the other day that I saw this babe Jilllll Dougherty. (That's how she used to pronounce her name, "Jilllll
Dougherty, CNN, Moscow!") Now she's at the Kennedy School. So are they journalists or members of the administration?
Are they journalists or are they...?
I happen to know a CNN info babe whose husband is on the staff of Jane Harman, Congresswoman from California.
What's his name? David Gregory, Meet the Depressed, his wife is a big lawyer over at Fannie Mae. To say that journalism
inside the beltway is in a cocoon and those people have no relationship with the people they cover and they're doing it objectively?
They go back and forth. They're all liberals, and one thing...
People ask me all the time, "How can a liberal Jewish person be so critical
of Israel?" It's because they're liberals first.
Liberalism... If a liberal is a liberal, that's the most important self-identifying
characteristic. Whatever else they are -- feminist, Jewish, I don't know, take your pick -- liberal is first. They are always
liberals first, and that is what unites them and that's what animates them.
So whether they're in journalism or working on The Hill or over at the White House
or clerking for a Supreme Court justice or what have you, they're liberals first and that means they're advancing the agenda.
If they're in the bowels of the EPA, writing regulations, denying farmers in the Central Valley water in order to protect
the snail darter, they are liberals first. That person at EPA might some day be hired by CBS to be a producer or an
editor.
It's
just incestuous. They go back and forth. So to say that journalism is made up of people who are insulated from... You
used to hear them say, "I can't get too close to my sources. I must be able to remain objective."
That flew out the window I don't know how long ago. Kennedy and those old guys back then, everybody in the media during
Camelot, would have paid to be hired to be in the Kennedy White House and orb. It was like being part of the Beatles!
It was like -- BREAK
TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com
How TV and Print Journalists Ended Their Feud
February 21, 2014
BEGIN
TRANSCRIPT
RUSH:
You know, as strange as it sounds, I've known people who went to journalism school. I have known people that graduated
from journalism school. I've known some people that graduated from the University of Missouri Journalism School. Do you know what? Back
in the day... I'm going back decades now. Do you know that graduating journalism students had to take a course in advertising
sales, and do you know why? It's so that they would know what it was that enabled a free press.
It was so that they would have an understanding that it was taking
place in a free market. Now, what happens if all of a sudden that type of instruction is removed from the curriculum,
and journalism begins to be taught as something that is a nonprofit or should be a nonprofit, that there ought not be any
profit in it at all? That it is so important and it is so crucial, "Why, look, they gave us our own clause in the First Amendment!" It's so crucial
that we shouldn't even have bottom-line pressures.
If young skulls full of mush at journalism school are not taught about the role of economics and the free market
in sustaining and making a free press possible, what do you think the odds are that they'll be much more accepting of a government
monitor, or of the government enabling them to do what they do rather than the market enabling it -- and especially when the
journalism professor can point to the First Amendment and say, "Look we've got our own clause in the First Amendment
there.
"So
we're entitled to do what we're doing, and we shouldn't have to make a profit," and let me jump forward to when Laurence
Tisch of the world famous Tisch family. (interruption) The Paley family owns it still. That was William Paley, whose
wife "Babe" was a brilliant shopper and great socialite. When William Paley... Well, that's what she's known
for. I'm sorry, it takes talent. We should not diminish it.
When Paley sold it to Laurence Tisch, the first thing Tisch did -- what anybody
would do -- was look at the bottom line. "Where's this thing bleeding money? Where do I get a handle on outgo?"
He saw that the CBS News Division was bleeding money. So, he's a businessman. The first thing he did was he announce
they were going to lay off 250 people from the news division, and Dan Rather had a cow. Dan Rather and Charles Kuralt,
and that whole crowd, they just went bonkers.
They went bananas. (interruption) What Black Rock? (interruption) It was a revolt, even though the broadcast
center is not at Black Rock. The broadcast center is right across the stage from where we did our show. But at
Black Rock on 6th Avenue, there was a revolt in there. It was led by Dan Rather. Dan Rather was running around
saying (summary), "We ought not have these bottom-line pressures! What we're doing here is too important.
"Why, we ought to be immune from any bottom-line concerns.
We oughta make what we make and there ought not be any concern at all what it costs," and there was always, back in those
days, there was a friction, folks. Some of you, I'm sure, there remember this. There was a friction in those days
between journalists in print and journalists on TV, and the journalists in print looked down on the TV people. They
didn't think they were journalists. They thought they were actors reading a script on a teleprompter.
They didn't think they were anything other than pretty boys.
The problem was, the TV guys were making 25 times what the print guys were. The print guys are all at Langans drinking
straight, no-high-brand scotch or bourbon while smoking cigarettes at the bar and the broadcast guys are at 21 arriving in
limousines. The print guys were just livid, just absolutely livid at all the money that the TV guys were making -- and
remember, they were nothing but pretty boys.
They weren't journalists, they weren't reporters, they didn't pound pavement. They had producers that
did all that. They had producers and editors and cameramen. They went out and gathered the news, and the reporters
were given a script, it was put on a prompter, and they read it and they got paid a lot of money. So there was a lot
of friction. Then Dan Rather blew up at the bottom-line concerns -- and the print guys all of a sudden said, "You
know what? We better be in solidarity with them or the same thing could happen to us."
So the print guys, the New York Times print journalists, sided
with Dan Rather and the CBS guys who were bellyaching. Even Tom Brokaw. I was in Sacramento. This was in 1985
when this happened. I was in Sacramento. Tom Brokaw was in town to do a speech to some local group, and I had
a chance to interview him. I asked him about this. I said, "I don't understand how in the world Dan Rather
thinks that news division is supposed to operate in the red all the time.
"The people that own that cannot sustain that," and he said, "Make
the money in some other division. Make the money in prime time. Make the money somewhere else." He said,
"Yeah, we need to have bottom line concerns because we don't have a blank check. But what we think is that these
networks have plenty of other places they can make the money for us to operate." Now, this... (interruption) Oh,
they hated Tisch! They despised Tisch! He didn't hang around long.
It wasn't any fun. This guy was hated almost as much as I am, just to give
you an idea. Now, this enmity that existed between the print guys and the TV guys, you'll note that has gone away.
Do you know how they made that go away? You probably would not have this register, but to give you an illustration of
how this went away, I'll give you two examples. There was a program called the McLaughlin Group.
It started out at about this time. It started up in the
'80s, and the McLaughlin Group brought in print people, put them on TV, got them into the opinion journalism business, and
they started making a lot of money. They became stars, and then they sided with the TV guys, because they became them.
And then PBS did their version of the McLaughlin group, locally in Washington. It's still on. Gordon Elliott was the
host. Dr. Krauthammer is still on that show.
Robert Novak did his version of it on CNN, and they brought in print people. ESPN has done this. How many have
watched on ESPN a feature a thirty-minute documentary on, say, Joe Montana? Look at who the guests are. Look at who the experts
that they bring in to add a little commentary here on how great Montana or whoever is. It's always the print reporters from
the papers that covered in this case the Fort'iners.
Sometimes ESPN will put on reporters from the Newark Star-Ledger sports page that happened to cover the 49ers
when they played the Giants. Now, the reason this was done was to rid this jealously that the print people had for the
TV people. So they brought the print people over, the McLaughlin Group and other such shows, and the print people on TV started
exploding in opinion guest slots. They were paid television money.
They became stars, where they were no-face by lines at the newspapers. So
it was important in order to keep the unity between all branches of journalism -- and now, if you're in print, it doesn't
matter. You'll end up on the Fox 6:00 show with Bret Baier offering your opinion on something. If you work at
the New York Times, you could be hired at Fox. You might be at the roundtable on Fox on Sunday or roundtable on Meet the Depressed
on Sunday.
But
they bring the print people in so as to maintain journalism unity and give the print guys some money, 'cause the TV money
has been much bigger than what print people made. I mean, you've heard of the ink-stained wretch. The print people,
before TV, didn't make anything. Some of the columnists... They're always exceptions. Some of the columnists did
okay. But now there is an almost... Look at CNN!
CNN wouldn't know a profit if it came and knocked on the newsroom and door stripped
naked. They wouldn't see it. MSNBC would not know a profit. They are losing money left and right. However,
CNN is owned by Time Warner, and the money to operate CNN is made in other divisions. Further able to paper it over.
It's the same thing with MSNBC. NBC is making money somewhere else that covers the costs of MSNBC.
So whoever buys them (in this case, Comcast) will look at the
bottom line and does not do what Larry Tisch did. Does not say, "We're going to cut the news division. We've
got to get rid of some of these expenses MSNBC. Nobody's watching!" Nope. They'll cover it somewhere else -- or even
if they can't cover it financially, they'll absorb the loss and get kudos from everybody else in the liberal community for
keeping hope alive, for keeping the cause alive.
So it was a fascinating thing to watch, and now journalism schools don't teach ad sales. They don't teach
anything about how the free market keeps the news business solvent. What's taught is that it shouldn't have to be, that
the news is as important as any branch of government because it has its own amendment there, its own clause in the First Amendment.
So profit and silly concerns like that can't be responsible for the news not taking place.
When that happened, when the melding of the print and the TV
guys took place, a giant unity took place and that was the beginning of, "We don't have to make a profit! We don’t
have to be concerned about advertising sales. We don't want to know about it. We don't want to get anywhere near it.
Eww! Yuck. All that does is get in the way of our objectivity. We don't even want to know about it. We don't want
to go to client meetings or entertain advertisers. We don't want any part of it," and they're not.
Therefore the bottom line with all this when a couple of j-schools
say, "You know what? We think the government ought to put monitors in the newsrooms to make sure you're doing it right,"
it's applauded (clapping), because these guys in news already think they're in government, folks.
They have
their own clause in government. They already think they are. They don't think they're journalists. They think
they're part of the government. They think they're part of moving the agenda, the Democrat Party forward.
It isn't news anymore.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com
Tragic: More Black Babies Aborted Than
Born in New York City
February
21, 2014
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: If I may get solemn and serious, as this requires, there is shocking news
out of New York. I don't know how shocking it is, but it's really bad, and it's Cybercast news service, but the actual source
of this is the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. So this is a city source: "In 2012, there
were more black babies killed by abortion (31,328) in New York City than were born there (24,758)..."
So out of a possible 56,000 black babies in New York City in
2012, 31,000 were aborted and 25,000 were killed, "and the black children killed comprised 42.4% of the total number
of abortions in" New York City. This is shocking. Let me run these numbers by you again, because I know they're
tough to follow on radio and I screwed up the addition. So there were, give or take, 56,000 black pregnancies in New
York City 2012.
And
31,000 of the 56,000 were aborted and 25,000 were born. The 31,000 aborted was almost 50% of the total number of abortions,
but the African-American population is only, what, 11 to 13%. These are striking numbers, and this is... Dare I go there?
Yes, I do. This is exactly what Margaret Sanger had in mind when she came up with the whole notion of Planned Parenthood
and eugenics.
I've
always been amazed that the white, liberal elite champion Margaret Sanger, when it wouldn't take anything for Jesse Jacksons
and Al Sharptons to go back and figure out who she is what she really wanted. How in the world there's any support for whatever
Margaret Sanger attached her name to is beyond my ability to comprehend. Well, no it's not, because I know the left.
Abortion is the sacrament to them. But this is just...
These people that are relying on the Democrat Party to protect them to take care
of them, to guard them against whatever extremism might be coming their way from conservative Republicans, are wiping themselves
out -- with the support of and the recommendation of the Democrat Party -- which puts abortion in top two of the most important
issues going. It's just amazing here, and when you look at the reality of this and then you understand who it is they
blame for their lot in life and their plight?
"The report is entitled, Summary of Vital Statistics 2012 The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes, and
was prepared by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Vital Statistics." Now, you'd have
to say this is shocking news, and you've got Democrat Party advocacy behind it. You've got Democrat Party identity behind
it -- and if you'd add all the other abortions that Democrats are having, you may have a little bit better understanding of
why they're so eager for amnesty,
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com
END TRANSCRIPT
Related Links
CNSNews: NYC: More Black Babies
Killed by Abortion Than Born
======================================
There is No Resistance to the Regime
February 21, 2014
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's Marie in Dayton, Ohio. Marie, it's great to have you on the program.
CALLER: Hi, Rush, how are yeeeew?
RUSH: I'm fine. Thank you.
CALLER: Remember you used to say that? (chuckles) Super
dittos.
RUSH:
I appreciate that. Thank you.
CALLER: (silence)
RUSH: Are you still there?
CALLER: Yeah. It's such a rush to be on Rush.
RUSH: I know.
CALLER: I'm... I'm... I'm tongue tied.
RUSH: I know. I've been where you are.
CALLER: I just wanted to remind the voters that Hillary Clinton got the Margaret
Sanger Award recently. But what I really called about was that don't you believe that the administration is trying to
provoke us into something, like Venezuela and the Ukraine, and what's going on there right now?
RUSH: Wait a minute, now. Wait a minute. I
want to make sure I understand what you're asking. Are you actually suggesting here that the Regime might be doing things
so outrageous it'll force some Tea Party people into the streets in revolt?
CALLER: I actually think so. They've been doing the incremental-ism,
boiling the water for a while now.
RUSH: Okay, so, how would that benefit the Regime if people pour into the streets in the form of protest
of the Regime?
CALLER:
They've already got the laws on the books and previous administrations. They can lock the hammer down.
RUSH: They've also got all the bullets, by the way.
They've bought up all the hollow points. I don't know if you know this or not, but they have. They've bought up
all the ammo.
CALLER:
Yeah, and the body bags and everything. You know, if they can't provoke us then at least they've gotten that much farther
into their liberal --
RUSH:
You know something, folks? This is a risky area to discuss. But it is an interesting thing. I'm not going to address
whether the Regime is trying to provoke anybody into any kind of public protest, and then from there forecast what the Regime
would do about it. But it is, nevertheless, interesting to observe that it isn't happening. People's health care
is being destroyed right in front of their eyes.
The Regime can go out and they can brag all they want and lie about how many people are signing up, and they
can tell people that they're going to save $2,500 a year, and they can tell people they can keep their doctor and all that.
But the thing about health care is, it's all lies. People are losing their health care. They are being cancelled.
People are not able to keep their doctor or their plan and their premiums are not $2,500 cheaper.
One of the things that is the most important thing to a lot of
people's lives is their health care, and their health insurance is in a total state of disarray, and people don't know whether
they have any. They don't know if their doctor is going to treat them. There are all kinds of things -- and if
you are in Washington and you are a member of a Regime and you look out over the countryside, you don't see any manifestation
of this opposition unless you look at a poll.
You don't see any anger.
There isn't anybody marching in the street.
There's nobody marching on Washington like there was during the Iraq war -- and,
by the way, about that. Do you realize now that the body count in Afghanistan is way beyond the body count in Iraq, and where
is the anti-war movement? Where are the Cindy Sheehans? Where are all those people that were calling Bush a murderer?
Where are all of those people demanding we get out of Iraq? Where are all of those people?
Occupy Wall Street? Where are they? They were so concerned
about the loss of life in the military, so concerned about an endless war. Where are they? They're nowhere, are
they? The anti-war movement doesn't really exist. What are we to conclude from that? It's very simple: There
is no anti-war movement. If there were an anti-war movement, it would be alive and kicking and protesting and marching
on Washington and demanding that Obama close Gitmo like he promised.
They'd be demanding to get out of Afghanistan, and they would be making sure that
the news kept track of the body count from Afghanistan every week like we did in Iraq. None of that is happening, but that's
all that happens. I mean, that was daily, and during the Bush administration, while all that was going on there were
books being written, and movies being produced on the assassination of George W. Bush, if you recall.
The anti-war movement had newsworthy figures that were on television
all the time. Cindy Sheehan. People out in San Francisco. But now they're nowhere to be found. So
maybe they're not really part of an anti-war movement. Maybe all they are is leftist activists who will take any occasion
during a Republican presidency to protest it and feed the news media with reasons to portray a country that's dispirited,
enraged, angry, not unified, a country torn apart, a country roiling.
Now, look. We have big scandal after big scandal.
We've got Benghazi and four Americans dead.
Zip.
We have a body count dwarfing Iraq in Afghanistan.
Zip.
We have one-sixth of the US economy that has literally been destroyed in the process
of moving it from the private sector to government, and we've got...
Zip.
We've got Barack Obama today saying "the era of austerity is over." I don't know if you've heard
this, but he said, "Okay, we're through now with our budget cutbacks." We've gone from a $10 trillion national
debt to nearly $17 trillion in Obama's five years and he's saying (summarized), "This is the era of austerity, and it's
over now. We've cut back now. We've got to really start spending."
Zip.
We have both parties willing to open the borders and allow a flood of illegal immigrants
and there's...
Zip.
There's nothing happening.
We have people losing their jobs left and right and the government
is saying, "That's good! You are liberated. You're no longer a prisoner of 'job block.'"
The First Lady on Jimmy Fallon last night said that the people
that voted for her husband are "knuckleheads" for not buying something they can't afford: Health care. Here,
grab sound bite number nine. She called young people that voted for her husband knuckleheads!
MICHELLE: Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, young people can
stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26. But once they hit 26, they're on their own. And a lot of young
people think they're invincible, but the truth is, young people are knuckleheads.
AUDIENCE: (laughter)
MICHELLE: They're the ones who are cookin' for the first time and slice their finger
open. They're dancing on the barstools. Young people think they're invincible. They're not. Life happens,
and now young people can get insurance for as little as $50 a month, less than the cost of gym shoes.
RUSH: No, they can't.
They're knuckleheads and all that?
The president is saying, "Give America a raise," while
his policies are resulting in people getting fired. The president is proud of Michael Sam coming out ahead of the NFL
draft as homosexual, but he would forbid his imaginary son Trayvon Martin from playing in the NFL. In other words, if
you're the Regime, whatever you're doing, the country is asleep and not noticing. So why would you stop? If you're George
Bush, there's protests everywhere in every city.
The country is made to look like it's falling apart, disunified, angry, roiled, and at war with each other.
If you have a Regime now, there's nobody protesting. Ther's nobody upset. The only thing you can do to find out if there's
anger is looking at a poll because the media is not going out and finding people unhappy here. The media is not finding
the knuckleheads. No, they are finding the knuckleheads. The knuckleheads are happy! They're satisfied.
Because they believe in global warming too and the president's fighting it.
So if you're the Regime, what are you worried about?
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com
END TRANSCRIPT
Related Links
Washington Examiner: New Obama
Initiative Tramples First Amendment Protections
Newsbusters: Michelle Obama:
‘Young People Are Knuckleheads,’ So They Need ObamaCare
Who Does Hillary Think is Losing the Information War?
February 21, 2014
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: So let me refresh my memory on this. I want to get this right.
Who was it...? That's right. It was Andrea Tarantula who was talking
to Lanny Davis, filling in for Hannity last
night, and she said: "Your good friend Hillary Clinton admitted recently that the [Regime] is losing the information
war," and then asked him, "Is that why you guys want to put monitors in newsrooms?" That's when I asked, "What
is 'losing the information war'?"
Who in the world is Obama losing the information war to? Me? Fox News? So I ended up doing
an exhaustive search, and here are the fruits of that labor. It's actually from almost a year ago, January 27, 2013.
Hillary Clinton: "America Is Losing' an Information War That 'Al Jazeera Is Winning' -- Secretary of State Hillary [Rodham]
appeared before a US Foreign Policy Priorities committee this morning," a year ago, "stating that counter to our
history, we are now 'losing an information war' to other countries.
"Clinton also told the committee that private media isn't up to the task of
fighting the information war..." Private media. It "isn't up to the task." Here's her quote: "Our private
media cannot fill that gap. In fact, our private media, particularly cultural programming, often works at counter purposes
to what we truly are as Americans and what our values are. I remember having an Afghan general tell me that the only
thing he thought about Americans is that all the men wrestled and the women walked around in bikinis because the only TV he
ever saw was Baywatch and World Wide Wrestling."
So Hillary is... (laughing) Hillary is in Afghanistan, talking to an Afghan general, who actually told her this?
Remember now, Hillary's been told a lot of things by a lot of people. Remember, Hillary has had to dodge "snipper"
fire. Remember Hillary had to corkscrew land into Bosnia to avoid snipper fire. It turned out there wasn't any.
She made it up. (interruption) Well, my queue sheet said "snipper," or the news report had a typo.
Instead of "sniper" they wrote "snipper."
I thought it was funny, and I ran with it because that's what was printed. Sniper/snipper. It's Dick Gephart who
has the invisible friend who is rich and wants his taxes raised. But Hillary's got a bunch of those, too. Hillary's got people that tell
her things, and so now there's an Afghan
general. The only thing he knew about Americans, the only thing he thought was that all the men wrestled and women walked
around in bikinis watching them.
"She also mentioned that while the US did a great job in getting America’s message out during the
Cold War, after the Berlin Wall fell we stopped and we are paying a price for that. As a result, the emphasis on cultural
programming has led to other countries beating us at our own game." So she's saying here that our "private media"
cannot cut it compared to al-Jazeera. She's also talking about the entertainment media, not even the news media!
I mean, Baywatch and the WWE are not even the news media!
This is really nonsensical, when you get down to it.
Our private media is "losing an information war. ... Our
private media cannot fill that gap. In fact our private media, particularly cultural programming often works at counter purposes
to what we truly are as Americans and what our values are." Man, oh, man. If I was one of Hillary's acolytes at ABC,
CBS or NBC I would have been righteously indignant and offended if I heard that.
Because Hillary is saying that her friends are doing a lousy job getting the true
story of America out there. She's been saying something like this since 2011. So Andrea Tarantula was asking Lanny
Davis, "Is this why the regime wants monitors in there, to make sure that the stories that are told help America's image
abroad?" What's the Secretary of State supposed to do? What did she tell the Afghan general after he said
that? This is just... I don't know, folks. These people are just absolute whackos.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com
END TRANSCRIPT
Related Links
Mediaite: Hillary Clinton:
‘America Is Losing’ An Information War That ‘Al Jazeera Is Winning’
RushLimbaugh.com: See, I Told
You So: Media Not Upset by Notion of FCC Monitors in Newsrooms; Journalism Schools Behind the Idea
Washington Post: Sec. of State
Hillary Clinton: Al Jazeera is ‘Real News’, U.S. Losing ‘Information War’
9-Year-Old Read Rush Revere in Three Hours
February 21, 2014
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Lookie here. It's Open Line Friday, and we have a
9-year-old named Jaden from Conover, North Carolina. He's nine years old, obviously calling to talk about Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims. Jaden, how are you?
CALLER: I'm good.
RUSH: Nine years old. I'm happy to have you in the audience. I'm
glad you're out there and it's great to have you call in. What's up?
CALLER: Um, well, I called to talk about the book. I read it in about three
hours.
RUSH:
Three hours?
CALLER:
Yeah.
RUSH:
Jaden, that's incredible. It took me three days to do the audio version. Of course, I had to do some parts over again.
You read this book in three hours?
CALLER: Yeah.
RUSH: That's incredible. Do you like it?
CALLER: Yeah, it was really good.
RUSH: Well, that's cool. Nine years old. So none of it stumped you?
You're right there. We wrote it for the 10- to 13-year age group. You're obviously a little advanced if you could do
it in three hours. Have you always been able to read fast like that?
CALLER: Yeah. I love reading and history, so...
RUSH: That is great. That's absolutely great.
You're way ahead of the game, caring about things like that at 9 years of age. So what did you learn that you didn't
know or that you found really interesting in this book?
CALLER: Um, that the Pilgrims went to another country from England, went from
England to another country and then to America.
RUSH: That is very perceptive. That's another thing a lot of people don't know. A lot of adults
actually think the Pilgrims set sail from Britain, and they didn't. They had a stop in the interim and also had a second
ship they were going to use that didn't work out. Well, that's great. Are you going to get the second book?
CALLER: Yeah, my dad's going to preorder it soon.
RUSH: Well, that's great. It comes out on March the
11th. If you liked the first one and you were able to read that in three hours, you are going to devour this one. I
don't mean to say that this is better. It's just really good. If you liked the first one, this one is going to be just
as good and maybe even better. The Boston Tea Party is the primary event that happens in this, but there are a lot of
other fascinating things, and we introduce a character that tries to sabotage things for Rush Revere. One of the school kids
tries to sabotage the rest.
CALLER: Mmm!
RUSH: It's really, really good. I can't wait for you to see it, Jaden.
CALLER: Yeah. I can't wait either.
RUSH: Well, March the 11th and you'll have it, because
your dad is a forward thinker and preordered it, which is great. Now, Jaden, I want you to hang on, because I want to send...
Do you have the audio version? You probably don't.
CALLER: No.
RUSH: Well, you do now. If you'll hang on, Mr. Snerdley will get your address so we can send you the audio
version so you can listen to it.
CALLER: Okay, thank you!
RUSH: You'll hear me read it, and it's a little different experience. The same words. It's not abridged.
It's the same thing, word for word, just read by me. So don't hang up. Mr. Snerdley will be right with you.
In three hours, he read it. Nine years old and loved it. Do you realize what a testimonial that is for Rush Revere
and The Brave Pilgrims? I can hear it in his voice. He can't wait for the next book.
He wishes he had it right now. He wishes he could read
it right now. Before he goes to bed tonight, he wishes he could read it, but he's not going to get it until March 11th.
Rush Revere and the First Patriots. He's right: It's available
for preorder, at all the usual places, Books-A-Million, Barnes & Noble, Amazon, iTunes. What am I leaving out? At any number of places you
can order.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com
END TRANSCRIPT
Pearls of Wisdom
February 21, 2014
"You control health care and you control every aspect of every citizen's life.
You hold their lives in your hands. If they
surrender their medical care to you, you own them."
"CNN wouldn't know a profit if it came and knocked on the newsroom door and stripped naked. They wouldn't
see it. MSNBC would not know a profit. They are losing money left and right."
"The Republican Party is in total compliance with the Democrat Party, is it not,
in terms of the party at the establishment level? Have they not been "nudged" into total compliance? And who are
the holdouts? Me and talk radio and, some of them say, Fox News."
"Bob Beckel has confirmed that journalists of all three sexes are sleeping
with their sources in Washington and have been for years."
"Everybody thinks that every other country has a constitution. The Brits do
not have a constitution -- and, ergo, there's no actual First Amendment. There may be in practice the notion of a free press,
but it isn't codified."
"There isn't any news. That's not what journalism is anymore. You don't go into journalism because you
want to report news to people. You don't go into journalism because you want to find out first what's happening and be the
first to report to other people what's happening."
"I'm not technically a journalist, because I laugh and smile and I love America. So I'm not a journalist."
"Governor Chris Christie at a town hall meeting yesterday
said that he hopes someday that he and Bruce Springsteen can be friends again. He really hopes that Springsteen thinks he's
a good guy, because Springsteen made fun of him with Fallon on the bridge thing. I'll have the sound bites for you on Monday.
I'll remind myself."
"Who in the world is Obama losing the information war to? Me?"
" Remember, Hillary has had to dodge 'snipper' fire. Instead of 'sniper' they
wrote 'snipper.' I thought it was funny, and I ran with it because that's what was printed. Sniper/snipper."
"When the Lewinsky scandal hit, you could see some of the
journalists thinking, 'Why not me?'"
"Don't you understand that these journalists are, in effect, part of these administrations? That's what
people can't get their arms around. Journalism in Washington is not in a cocoon. A journalist will leave and go work for a
Congressman."
"People
ask me all the time,
'How can a liberal Jewish person be so critical of Israel?' It's because they're
liberals first…
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the
rest on RushLimbaugh.com
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/02/21
The Press Has Relinquished Its Freedom
February 24, 2014
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: The story about the FCC monitoring is back. "FCC Backs Off
Newsroom Study." You know, there are two things happening with this. A, they never back off anything.
They just set it aside for a while where they can bring it back when nobody's looking. When they propose something like
this that gets a lot of pushback, then they shelve it, and they bring it back at a time when nobody will know it's happening,
or when they think there won't be any pushback.
And the way they're trying to mask this is, "Wait a minute. You all are misunderstanding this. This
was not about monitors in newsrooms for content. If you go back and look at what The Steak was actually saying, 'Filet' Mignon
Clyburn, she really is concerned about minority ownership. That's all this was." Right. The questions
about story selection and why and why not has to do with minority ownership.
It's not about minority ownership at all. The thing, again, that is really
cockamamie about this is the media's already thrown in the towel. Monitors are not needed, folks. There are no
monitors needed in most of the newsrooms in this country. Television, newspaper, radio, most of the places monitors
are not needed. The media has already chosen sides. The media's all-in already. The media has given up any
pretense of accountability.
The media has chosen the narrative that they wish to support every day. They are all-in for the agenda.
These monitors aren't needed. The guidance isn't needed. The media is very predictable. You get a Democrat
administration, you're gonna get a media which promotes it and attacks its critics and makes excuses for it. Whatever it has
to do to advance the agenda.
You get a Republican and you're gonna have nothing but constant accountability, constant lies, constant misrepresentation,
constant pounding -- and everything is gonna happen to make sure the American people hate and despite whoever the American
president might happen to be. That's the game. That's already happened. You know it as well as I do.
That's why I get frustrated.
I admit it to you when I get phone calls here, "Rush, somehow we gotta get the media." The media's
gone, folks. It's not even the media anymore. There is no news. I know I'm sounding broken record on this.
But there is no news media, per se.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Politico has a story on this FCC backing off the idea of having newsroom monitors from the Regime.
Right here it is. They say, look, it was never what all the critics said. It was just a market study to find out
"how and if the media is meeting the public's 'critical information needs' on subjects like public health, politics,
transportation and the environment," and to encourage minority ownership.
Look, I'm gonna keep looking for ways, different ways to make the point. I
mean, it's one thing to say the media is not about reporting news, anymore, that they just exist for the advancement of the
liberal agenda. If you look at any Sunday morning show, with that framework in mind, and you'll see what I'm talk about.
But there are other ways of explaining this as well, and I'm
going to be exploring those in an attempt to be persuasive. But you could say they've chosen the narrative and they're
all-in, folks. There's no doubt. I don't think there's even any pretense at being "The Media" anymore, and
there's no question that there's still a couple places where if they could get some monitors in there to intimidate people,
they would put them in there.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Let me try it this way. I'm chomping at the bit here to come up with a way to explain this
in addition to what I said. There's nothing wrong with telling you there is no news anymore, that there's nothing left but
the advancement of the agenda. That was perfectly clear, I understand that, but there's something more to it. You remember
when this thing was first announced? You remember last week when it was first announced that the Regime wanted to put
monitors in the newsrooms?
The FCC, that's the Regime, wanted to put monitors in the newsroom. I read the questions to you. They
were gonna examine what stories were reported, what stories weren't. They were gonna want to know why certain stories
were reported and others weren't. It went on and on and on -- and do you remember, I made the point that there was no outrage
from the mainstream media. There was none.
Not only was there no outrage. I predicted it. If you'll also recall, Snerdley came in and when I told him about
it, he said, "This is it. This is the last straw. You're gonna see these people erupt," and I said, "No, you're
not. They are not gonna erupt. In fact, they are already doing it. There's already supportive. They're not
gonna be upset at all," and I gave 'em a couple reasons why. The First Amendment grants "freedom," by
the use of that very word, to the press.
Free speech. Free press.
They have given up their freedom, is the point. They have tossed it away. They've chosen something
other than a free press. They have chosen sides. In fact, they didn't even have to choose. It's just who
they are. You would probably be surprised to learn of the marriages that exist between people in the media and people
in government, people in media and people in elective office, or at various cabinet bureaucracies or wherever.
I mean, it's quite an incestuous revolving door. But the
media is not really engaging in a free press -- and even when there's a Republican president, what they're doing is not exercising
freedom of the press. They are in the process of protecting the agenda at that point. When you've got a Democrat
in office, it's advance the agenda -- and, of course, cream and attack the opposition.
When the opposition happens to overpower you and win the presidency,
then it becomes time to protect the agenda and to trash and destroy the people who are in power, and that's the only time
they will do it. It's been that way for quite a while. As such, if the press... The Founding Fathers were brilliant
people. They knew that a free and independent press was crucial to a representative republic remaining free.
Once the media becomes state-run or state-controlled, the Founding
Fathers knew what the various levels of intellect and intelligence were among the population, paying attention. They
knew how important it was. We're reaping the benefits... Well, not the benefits. We're seeing the results here
of what happens when a free press isn't free. Susan Rice, I guess, is good example yesterday.
Susan Rice, in a normal political world, would have been embarrassed
and ashamed to show up, after having previously appeared on five Sunday morning shows and lying repeatedly about Benghazi
and the reasons for it and what happened. But instead, what happened? She shows up and she's celebrated! She shows
up and she's applauded. She shows up on these Sunday morning shows and is regaled as a conquering warrior.
Because what really happened was they brought Susan Rice back,
and the media joined in an on-air celebration of her survival against attempts by the opposition to get rid of her, or to
humiliate her or to diminish her. She survived. The Regime survived. The narrative on Benghazi survived.
"Let's bring Susan Rice back and we'll have an on-air celebration that is disguised as a Sunday morning news show,"
and that's what it was.
They've surrendered their freedom, just like a lot of people have. You've heard the old stories. Benjamin
Franklin, I think, was the one who warned of it. Be very worried about people who will surrender a little of their freedom
for a little security here, surrender a more freedom for a little security there, because after a while you're not gonna have
any freedom anywhere.
Well, they've surrendered it, and the reason they've surrendered it is because they have been made to believe
that they are ranking members of the elite. Their assignments happen to be as journalists. Others are assigned
to be in elective office. Others are assigned positions in the bureaucracy. Others are assigned positions of professor
at institutions of higher learning. Others are assigned positions of community organizer.
There is no independent media, certainly not in Washington.
But I'll give you example. Algore. Here we are in the midst of record cold, record ice at the North and South
Poles, record ice in the Great Lakes. I just saw a satellite photo of the nearly totally frozen Great Lakes. I think
Lake Michigan is the only one that has a little free-flowing water on the surface. It's an amazing picture. So
Algore goes to Kansas City over the weekend.
The Kansas City Star does a news story on Gore coming
in, and there's not one syllable of skepticism of Algore's message in this report. Algore walked into Kansas City's
Crown Center Hotel there, a big ballroom. I've been there many times. He predicted that the Dust Bowl is on the
verge of returning, and the Kansas City Star dutifully reported that the Dust Bowl is gonna soon be returning!
The Dust Bowl of the thirties, by the way, devastated Kansas.
It was a very hot, and it was a very dry summer. There's only one problem. What caused the Dust Bowl 80 years
ago? There weren't any SUVs, so it couldn't have been CO2 buildup, because that wasn't an issue back then. So
what caused the Dust Bowl? What was man doing 80 years ago that caused the Dust Bowl?
Whatever it is, we're still doing it. Algore marched into Kansas
City to predict that the Dust Bowl is about to return. Here's how it begins: "Al Gore has been known for his climate
change warnings since the 2006 film 'An Inconvenient Truth.' But the former vice president, speaking Saturday in Kansas
City, cited many more recent examples how heavy use of fossil fuels is contributing to extreme weather events and trends,
in his view.
"Gore
filled a Westin Crown Center ballroom with a 90-minute presentation, using photos and videos to illustrate a litany of floods,
wildfires, torrential rains, droughts, dust storms, rising sea levels and increasing world temperatures. To those attending
the Folk Alliance International conference, he noted examples of flooding in locations both remote and closer to home, such
as in Manitou Springs, Colo. ...
"He cited the possibility of how flooding in Pakistan could destabilize that country, a nuclear power,
and the possible effect that continuing drought in California might have on the world's food supply." He didn't
mention that the drought in California is manmade, not caused by global warming but by water policy.
The drought in the California Central Valley has been caused
not only by the US Fish and Wildlife Service but state environmental agencies who are diverting water from agriculture to
what are said to be endangered species. It isn't new, but as a result there is a drought, not because of global warming or
manmade climate change, but rather manmade decisions on the distribution of water.
Anyway, it goes on. The Kansas City Star dutifully reports
everything. There's not one word of skepticism. There's not any challenge. There's not even any doubt about it -- and
this is what I mean. So people in Kansas City are not clued in. They get up, read the Kansas City Star on Sunday, hear
about Gore's message, and now sitting there worried, scared to death -- in the middle of a frozen tundra -- about the returning
Dust Bowl.
They've
given up their freedom as a constitutional entity and instead have chosen acceptance by the elites as a fellow member of the
club.
That's
essentially what's happened here.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's Rick in South Bend, Indiana, as we head back to the phones. Rick, welcome to the EIB Network.
Great to have you here. Hello.
CALLER: Thank you. Hey, Rush, I've been listening to you for a long time, before the Clintons came
in. But I was going back to your thing on the FCC where they're trying to monitor the content of what everybody's saying.
I would like to see 'em, like, before every show, people come on, that they would do what you do when you say your accuracy
rating is 99.7%.
RUSH:
Well, that's an opinion audit, which is a much different thing than an accuracy rating. But I get your drift.
You think they ought to be subject to the same thing.
CALLER: Yeah, I think person that comes on and has a news show should say that, you know, so people know
exactly where they stand.
RUSH: They wouldn't dare. Rick, let me tell you something. This is not an exaggeration.
One of the traits now, just short of being a hallmark, is how much the so-called mainstream media get wrong. It's incredible
how much they report that actually is wrong. It's almost become standard operating procedure, and it's because they've
thrown objectivity overboard. To be objective... Evan Sayet, conservative lecturer, made the point: To be objective
is to be a bigot, and they've thrown it
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com
END TRANSCRIPT
<a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/prnd/prn-rush;prngenre=conservative_talk;prntype=web;prnpage=interior;pos=;sz=575x100;u=prngenre*conservative_talk!prntype*web!prnpage*interior!pos*!sz*575x100;ord=123456789?"
target="_blank" ><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/prnd/prn-rush;prngenre=conservative_talk;prntype=web;prnpage=interior;pos=;sz=575x100;u=prngenre*conservative_talk!prntype*web!prnpage*interior!pos*!sz*575x100;ord=123456789?"
border="0" alt="" /></a>
Related Links
Washington Examiner: Journalists
And Republicans Must Keep FCC Out Of Newsrooms
RushLimbaugh.com: See, I Told
You So: Media Not Upset by Notion of FCC Monitors in Newsrooms; Journalism Schools Behind the Idea - 02.21.14
Politico: FCC Backs Off Newsroom
Study
Kansas City Star: Al Gore Brings
Climate Change Message To Kansas City
The Obama Foreign Policy Disaster
February
24, 2014
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: There's a lot in the news today that surprises me that it is in the news,
and the reason that I'm surprised that it is in the news is that nobody cared about it the first time, so why do they think
anybody's gonna care about it now, specifically Susan Rice? Apparently, she went on TV yesterday and she was perfectly
cool with her previous performances where she lied to everybody about Benghazi and the video and everything.
"She went on TV again yesterday, and she didn't have any remorse!" Why
should she have any remorse? What happened? What went wrong after her last TV appearance? Absolutely zip,
zero, nada 'cause nobody cared about what went on in Benghazi. I mean, the Republicans didn't even care about it as
a campaign issue.
Now, you've got this business in Ukraine, and there's one reason why the Regime is not happy with what's going
on in Ukraine, and it's not what you think. The only reason... Well, it wasn't the only, but I would predict to you
the primary reason the Regime is upset with what's happening in Ukraine right now is that Obama and his people are not happy
with you being able to see the problems of communism right before your very eyes.
I mean, they don't care about what's happening to the Ukrainian
people. They don't care about that. It's just that what's playing out here is the way a totalitarian state acts, and that's
what they don't want anybody to see. If anything, Obama probably called Putin and said, "What are you doing to
me, pal? I told you, just be patient with me and I'll be more flexible after I win reelection.
"Now you're doing this and you're giving people a heads-up
on what's heading our way here. You've gotta back off, man! You can't do this with the news media watching right over
there at the Olympics." Seriously, the blogs today and Fox News, everybody's going bonkers over Susan Rice.
Who cared about it the first time? I'm talking about the people, the low-information voters. Nobody cared about
it the first time.
No,
in fact, the Olympics are over, and we have an official statement here from Vladimir Putin. Since the Olympics are over,
for you low-information people that means your TV shows are back. Reruns are over, and first-run episodes of all of
your favorite prime-time shows are back. So when you go to find the TV shows on demand, it's gonna be new stuff starting
tonight, because there's no more Olympics.
But here's Putin and his post-Olympic games statement to the world.
(playing of spoof)
There you have it, Vladimir Putin's post-Olympic games statement to the United States
and our own Dear Leader. Samantha Power. if I'm talking about Susan Rice, I've gotta mention Samantha Power. Samantha
Power is our UN ambassador. Now, if you may not know who she is. If you were watching the State of the Union show,
you may remember this. Every so often, the camera cut to people in the House chamber watching the State of the Coup
speech.
And
every so often, the camera hit on a redheaded, really freckle-faced woman who appeared to be in absolute agony and pain.
That was her. That was Samantha Power. She was not in agony or pain. She was in full, total groupie adulation
for what she was hearing from Barack Obama. She is the wife of Cass Sunstein. She is all-in, in terms of extreme
liberalism.
She's
also a full-fledged (as many liberals are), absolute idiot. She delivered the Daniel Pearl lecture at UCLA, and she
met with Daniel Pearl's parents. You remember Daniel Pearl. Daniel Pearl, a Wall Street Journal reporter who was
en route to a meeting, an interview with an Al-Qaeda leader, somebody in Pakistan. He was kidnapped on the way to that meeting,
and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 911, killed him.
KSM is currently down at Club Gitmo. We have a song he sings, New
York, New York, when the trial was going to be here. He was longing for the day he might end up being a cabdriver in New York
when he gets out of Club Gitmo. He beheaded Daniel Pearl, on video, which was seen by anybody who wanted to watch it.
It was grotesque. It was not password protected.
Anybody who wanted to watch the video of Daniel Pearl being beheaded online could.
So she is the UN ambassador. She went out to UCLA and did the Daniel Pearl lecture and met with his parents. Afterwards,
this is what she tweeted, and I defy anybody to decipher it. Not even I can translate this. Are you ready? Dadelut
dadelut dadelut! Here is her tweet: "Daniel Pearl's story is reminder that individual accountability & reconciliation
are required to break cycles of violence."
That is gobbledygook.
That is utter, total incoherence.
I have no idea what this means, but I'll tell you what the root of it is. The root of it is that to Samantha
Power -- just like every other leftist and just like everybody in the Regime and just like everybody in our currently populated
State Department -- militant Islam is not a problem; we are. Militant Islam is not what it is. In fact, mainstream
Christianity poses a bigger threat to this country than radical Islam does, in these people's minds.
And do not doubt me on this.
Here is a Wall Street Journal reporter who was murdered on camera,
beheaded by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Daniel Pearl's story? This is our UN ambassador. "Daniel Pearl's
story is reminder that individual accountability..." What, is it his fault? "Daniel Pearl's story is reminder that
individual accountability & reconciliation..." What? It's his fault? We need to be accountable for what
we've done, and he, an American journalist, represents us, so we need to be responsible?
Individual accountability and reconciliation? With who?
With whom do we need to reconcile when it comes to militant Islam or Al-Qaeda or the Taliban? Who? So these two
things, "individual accountability and reconciliation," are required to break cycles. So Al-Qaeda, the Taliban,
militant Islam, worldwide/international terrorism is just part of the cycle of violence, and somehow we need to break it,
and the way we're going to break it is with "individual accountability and reconciliation"?
It makes literally no sense. All of this is a bunch of
platitudinous, feel-good words that she tweets to make herself feel really warm inside 'cause she has such tender feelings,
and she's willing to do whatever for there to be peace and love and all that in the world. It's absolute incoherence.
There's nobody who knows what this means.
Did the Wall Street Journal murder somebody at Al-Qaeda? What kind of reconciliation or individual accountability
could there be? Did Daniel Pearl behead somebody before Khalid Sheikh Mohammed caught him? (interruption) No, the reason I'm
focusing on this is because these are the kinds of people that are all over the government leading this country.
BREAK
TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com
END TRANSCRIPT
<a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/prnd/prn-rush;prngenre=conservative_talk;prntype=web;prnpage=interior;pos=;sz=575x100;u=prngenre*conservative_talk!prntype*web!prnpage*interior!pos*!sz*575x100;ord=123456789?"
target="_blank" ><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/prnd/prn-rush;prngenre=conservative_talk;prntype=web;prnpage=interior;pos=;sz=575x100;u=prngenre*conservative_talk!prntype*web!prnpage*interior!pos*!sz*575x100;ord=123456789?"
border="0" alt="" /></a>
Related Links
Heritage: Susan Rice: No Regrets
Over Initial Benghazi Comments
Reuters: Sochi Games Over,
Will Putin Take The Gloves Off?
HotAir: Ambassador Power: Daniel
Pearl Decapitation Part Of A “Cycle Of Violence,” Or Something
Don't Doubt Me: Back to the USSR
February
24, 2014
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's Shannon in Concord, North Carolina. Great
to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. How are you?
RUSH: I'm good. Thank you.
CALLER: Well, now that the Olympics have finished, I was waiting with bated breath and wanted to ask you
if you think the Dutch government is gonna issue an apology for what their skating coach said about our football -- somewhat
like, you know, the Swiss government issued an apology after the store clerk offended Oprah over a purse.
RUSH: Oh! Oh! Oh, yeah.
CALLER: I mean, I'm waiting.
RUSH: That's right. The salesclerk insulted The Oprah by assuming she
couldn't afford the purse she was looking at because she was African-American. I forget. What did the Dutch coach say, that our skaters are lousy because
we're playing a sport that kills people? Football is a sport that kills?
CALLER: Yeah. Yeah. The Dutch coach. Honestly, they did an awesome
job, and I don't know why he started picking on us, and was saying that for some reason we're throwing all of our money into
a... I won't use his word, but he meant football.
RUSH: Let me tell something. I think this has to do with Obama, to tell you the truth. If
you recall one of the selling points of Obama in 2008 was that America at the time was hated and despised, and that was because
of that cowboy, Bush. But here comes The Messiah, and Obama was gonna make everybody love us.
The US was immediately going to win back its love and respect,
the love and respect of the world. But then Obama goes with the US Olympic Committee somewhere, wherever they went,
to pitch the games going to Chicago, and he gets slapped down inside of 30 minutes. Plus, there's a survey out today:
53% of the American people believe that we are not respected by other nations of the world because of Obama.
I think this Swiss coach and others, Vladimir Putin, think they've
got a free run at us. I think they think they could insult us all they want and nothing's gonna happen to 'em.
They can build a nuclear bomb in Iran, and nothing's gonna happen to 'em. They can talk about us, to us, whatever they
want to do, with impunity, because they know Obama isn't gonna do diddly-squat about it.
CALLER: Well, I mean, we still haven't really seen what's
happened with Benghazi. But that coach, I saw the video. He was so angry, and I was really so mad because I couldn't
understand why he was so mad at us. I don't know what we did. I know Obama was supposed to part the seas, and
everyone is supposed to love us, but obviously that hasn't happened.
RUSH: No. It's gone just the opposite. There's less respect. I
mean, Putin's laughing at us -- Vladimir Putin who, by the way, is in the process of reassembling the Soviet Union.
Make no mistake about that. Thanks for the call, Shannon.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: You know, speaking of reassembling the Soviet Union, don't doubt me,
ladies and gentlemen. In fact, Vladimir Putin began reassembling the Soviet Union when he invaded Georgia and wanted
to get rid of our ally there, Saakashvili,
And, of course, Obama let him. If you recall, Obama ended up praising Putin for invading Georgia, and Putin has done the same
thing again, and he's done it without troops.
He's done it in Belarus and he's doing it now in Ukraine, and you remember when Putin kept cutting off the gas
and oil to Ukraine before they installed his puppet. This stuff going on in the Ukraine now? Putin is not going
to let Ukraine get away. You watch. The Ukrainian people are standing up. They're protesting, demanding their
freedom. They've got this former female president released from prison; the current president is gone.
In fact, there's a story here that the people of Ukraine... (interruption)
Yeah. Warrant for his arrest. Here's the headline from Reuters. They're very surprised, seemingly, it says here.
"Ukrainians Gawk as Yanukovich's Luxury Estate is Opened to Public -- A sprawling forested estate of graceful waterways
and summer houses -- half the size of Monaco but just one hour's drive from Kiev -- stands as a symbol of the folly of Ukraine's
fugitive president.
"Even
the most cynical Ukrainians, who on Saturday streamed to see Viktor Yanukovich's luxury estate, rubbed their eyes in disbelief
when they were confronted by the scale of the opulence he built around him and kept secret from the outside world. There were
Australian and African ostriches, stretching their legs. There were hares darting around people's feet -- clearly unused to
large numbers.
"Deer
and billy goats -- their cages neatly labeled -- were hunkered down, slightly alarmed at the numbers of sudden visitors. All
this in a country where the average salary is less than $500 a month. ... As [visitors] poured in their thousands, by foot
and by car, onto the 140-hectare grounds for a first glimpse at a luxury they could only suspect, Ukrainians gawped in wonderment
at the fairytale surroundings."
So, as usual, the leader of the people surrounds himself abject luxury. He basically hijacks the wealth of the
nation, gives it to himself and his friends, and lives in ways that his people can't even dream of living. Now his people
have seen it, and this is the story of liberalism around the world. It's the story of socialism and communism around
the world and throughout world history.
You've got exalted leaders claiming to do everything for the little guy, claiming to stand up for the little
guy, claiming to protect the little guy from the hordes -- and who are the hordes? Well, the hordes are conservatives,
Christians, and pro-lifers and so forth. The little guys continue to support the state because they believe the state's
looking out for 'em, the state's gonna protect 'em, the state is gonna keep those mean people from taking everything away
from 'em.
While
the esteemed socialist leadership robs them blind.
It doesn't matter where you go. Cuba, China, Venezuela, Ukraine, Moscow. It doesn't matter where you go, it's
the same old story, and even in this country,
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com
END TRANSCRIPT
<a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/prnd/prn-rush;prngenre=conservative_talk;prntype=web;prnpage=interior;pos=;sz=575x100;u=prngenre*conservative_talk!prntype*web!prnpage*interior!pos*!sz*575x100;ord=123456789?"
target="_blank" ><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/prnd/prn-rush;prngenre=conservative_talk;prntype=web;prnpage=interior;pos=;sz=575x100;u=prngenre*conservative_talk!prntype*web!prnpage*interior!pos*!sz*575x100;ord=123456789?"
border="0" alt="" /></a>
Related Links
New York Post: US To Putin:
Don't Send Troops Into Ukraine
RushLimbaugh.com: Dutch Skating
Coach: Football Kills, Sucks - 02.20.14
Politico: Poll: U.S. Thinks
Obama Not Respected Abroad
So It's the Statue of Immigration, Now?
The Truth of Ellis Island
and Richard Trumka's Warped View of the Problem
July 02, 2014
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: The total number of people that came through Ellis
Island seeking citizenship, seeking entrance into the United States, was 12 million people. Ellis Island
was in business
for 62 years, 12 million people. I don't know if that number surprises you. It does me. I thought it'd be
much, much higher. The reason I thought it would be much higher is because of all the things I've seen about Ellis Island,
all the movies and all the talk about "we are a nation of immigrants."
I've just been led to believe or maybe I did it to myself
that it was very many more than 12 million people. But I wanted to run some numbers on that. So we had 62 years
Ellis Island was in business, 12 million people came through. That means 193,548 people, on average.
I mean, if it was
the same number of people every year, that's how many people entered America through Ellis Island, on average, 193,548. Do any of you know, off the top of your heads,
how many immigrants
are permitted
into the country per year under current immigration law? Seven hundred thousand. That is three times the number
of people who were coming through Ellis Island, which is right there next to the Statue of Immigration.
And I think the current
number is actually -- (interruption)
Yes, I can for the fun of it. I can tweak 'em if I want.
The fact of the matter is that there are more than 700,000. That's legal. And even at the 700,000 legal number,
that's three times the number of people that came through Ellis Island. And the current number has gotta be much higher than
700,000, but that's the safest number to use because it's what's legally permitted. But now we have, what, 12 million illegals in the country now if we
are to believe that number. Some think it is much, much higher.
Speaking of the people
who are living in the shadows. Before I leave this and get on to Benghazi, grab sound bites eight and nine, and ten.
Maybe just eight and nine. Just for the fun of it, just to listen to how this whole thing ends up perverted, distorted,
and corrupted. Richard Trumka was in Washington yesterday during a panel discussion marking the one-year anniversary
of the passage of the Senate immigration bill. He runs the AFL-CIO. He used to be with the United Mine Workers.
I think his dad was
the mine workers union head honcho, and Trumka now is AFL-CIO. You would think off the top of your head that unions wouldn't want any illegal immigrants here
because it lowers the job base, it lowers the wage scale. Undocumented workers working in the shadows, and by admission
they work much cheaper than Americans 'cause Americans are greedy and Americans are just too good for many kinds of work.
You would think the unions would oppose that, but they don't.
I'll tell you why in just a second. Here's Trumka at a panel discussion marking the one-year anniversary of the passage
of the Senate immigration bill. First of a couple bites here.
TRUMKA: Today marks a bittersweet moment in the fight
for justice for immigrants. It's obviously bitter because after 18 months of work, the Senate immigration bill languishes,
deportations continue, and our immigration system remains broken.
House Republicans have failed to --
in their duty to serve the national interests and they've squandered a very historic opportunity to move our country forward.
RUSH: Mr. Trumka, you know, you and your buds keep
saying the immigration system is broken. I thought we fixed it back in 1986. I thought that's what the Simpson-Mazzoli
Act was all about. And that Senator Kennedy promised us if we just let this three million -- at the time that's what
it was -- three million, just legalize
them, make them citizens, give them amnesty and we'll close
the borders and this is never, ever gonna happen again.
Well, here we are nearly 30 years later, and it's four to
five times the number of people that Simpson-Mazzoli was dealing with, but we were told that that was gonna fix it.
Now you want to do the same thing over again under the guise of fixing it. What broke it? Who broke the immigration
system? Who's responsible for breaking it? It isn't broken. It just isn't being enforced. There's
plenty of immigration law out there. But not all of those laws are being enforced. If they were, it wouldn't be
broken.
So when their clowns
say that the immigration law, the immigration system is broken, it means they don't like some of these laws, and they want
to get rid of some of them or pretend they're not there so that they can bring in these. Because I guarantee you this is about
Democrat voter registration and it's about, strangely enough, raising the minimum wage. Here's the way this works, and
it takes time for all of this to play out. Bring in these people that have no skills and they don't have any money and
obviously not very much education.
They're not qualified to do a whole lot,
so they take certain kinds of jobs. After a while, Democrats start talking about how inhumane it is to pay 'em so little. It's just not fair.
You can't support a family of four on 90 cents an hour, whatever it is, seven dollars, you can't. Raise the minimum
wage. When the minimum wage gets raised is when the unions come and say, "Okay, we are far more qualified than
those minimum wage jerks. We are far better. We deserve far more." And they use that to up union contracts.
You would think that the influx of all kinds of low-skilled, low-wage people would harm the unions.
But remember, liberals
are liberals first, and then they run unions, or then they make movies or then they teach school or then they go into journalism
or then they do think tanks. But they are liberals first, and everything else they do comes second, because the ideology is
the religion. They are
not atheists. They are not agnostic. Their religion is simply their ideology and it trumps everything. And
if the current iteration of the ideology is the transformation of America, and if the way to do that is simply break it by
importing people with no ability and no education and no money, then that's what we're gonna do.
Now, I don't know
what's in it for -- well, I do know what's in it for them in the end. But it's nothing that's good for the vast majority
of the people of the country.
So here's Trumka. Immigration is broken. Who broke it?
Why didn't Simpson-Mazzoli fix it? Why don't we just enforce the laws on the books and then it wouldn't be broken?
Trumka said this next.
TRUMKA: See, the war that we've been fighting is,
of course, a moral one. The devastation of families. The disruption of communities. Emotionally, I gotta
tell you, in my heart, it hurts.
RUSH: Aw.
TRUMKA: It hurts
every time I see a family split up; every time I see a life disrupted; every time I see somebody's plans sort of erased.
RUSH: I don't
believe that.
TRUMKA: But the deportation crisis is not America as it's supposed to be,
nor America as it can be.
RUSH: I just don't believe that. Now, it sounds
good. It sounds like tugging heartstrings, "Oh, he cares, man, he really cares." If all that were true, he's
talking about immigrant families being devastated. "It's not fair these kids arrive and they're separated."
You know what it's like? The Menendez brothers kill their parents and then the trial out here, the jury acquits one
of them because they feel so bad for him that he's not gonna have his mother as he grows up.
Well, yeah, that's
because he killed her."I
know, but it's so sad that he's not gonna have his mother!" Well, he busted up his family.
"I know. I know. But he's gonna live now in a broken family.
That's so un-American. Punishment enough." Right.
So same thing here. We're not busting
up any families. The people involved are leaving their families and then somehow this ends up our responsibility and
our fault and something we have to do?
We're causing this?
Being who we are is
causing this? Being a magnet for people who want to escape poverty or bondage or whatever, that's our fault and it's our responsibility
to do something? If this man really cared about the devastation of families, he would not be a Democrat, because the
Democrat Party has destroyed more families in this country than you can count. They've destroyed the black family and they've done it with the welfare
system. They have simply made it unnecessary for fathers to become husbands and stay home and provide.
The government's taken
that responsibility, and so single-parent families are all over this country because the government's right in there playing
daddy, or mommy, whichever the case may be. You don't have to look south of the border to find busted-up families.
All you gotta do is go to any American city you want where the Democrats have been running the show for years and years and
years, and you'll find all of the devastated families you want.
You'll find disrupted communities.
You'll find communities where water's been turned off for tens of thousands of people so bad the United Nations is coming
in to try to do something about it. "Every time I see a life disrupted, every time I see somebody's plans
sort of erased, I just hurt in my heart."
Well, I don't know how you can still be a Democrat,
then.
Well, I know that's probably a tough thing to say because the Democrats have the reputation and image of
caring about everybody and trying to help everybody and so forth. The circumstances that we all face in this country today
didn't just happen. I mean, this is the result of Democrat policy.
Last six years of Obama policy.
By the way, he's back on complaining about something else. Oh, the highways. Yes, just one crisis right after
another. Now it's the highways. Six years, I thought the stimulus bill in 2009, his first year, I thought that
was gonna fix the roads and bridges and schools. Now we're back to the highways are in a such a state of disrepair,
why, kids can't get to school, people can't get to work.
Wait a minute. I thought you didn't
want people driving cars anyway. I thought you wanted them in lawn mowers and golf carts. It's just tough to keep
up with these people.
Do I want to play this? Oh, yeah. Here's the next Trumka sound bite.
Here's what he thinks broke immigration.
TRUMKA: In the 1990s our immigration system broke under
the pressure of NAFTA. And employers came to realize that workers without legal papers could help sleazy businesses
RUSH: Yes.
TRUMKA: -- exploit all low-wage workers --
RUSH: There
you go.
TRUMKA: -- everywhere. Why? Because employers grew to understand that --
RUSH:
Right.
TRUMKA: -- immigrants without legal protections.
RUSH: Right.
TRUMKA:
-- can't complain about working conditions.
RUSH: Right.
TRUMKA: And if you're a sleazy
employer choosing between equally qualified workers, and one has citizenship and the right to stand up for him- or herself,
and the other can be intimidated, who do you choose?
RUSH: Note that for this argument
to work, you must have a sleazy employer. That is the given. And who is to blame in that scenario? The sleazy
employer, not the person that broke the law coming here. No, no. That person is virtuous. It's the sleazy
employer that's the problem. The sleazy employer is always going to choose the incapable, the weak, because the sleazy
employer doesn't need anybody to do anything for him.
No, no. The sleazy employer doesn't
care about his business running well. The sleazy employer doesn't care if his products kill people. The sleazy
employer doesn't care if his service harms people. All the sleazy employer wants to do is be mean to people. So
every employer who will not hire an illegal is sleazy.
And this is the worldview -- well, the left's
view of the United States of America.
Sleazy employers, sleazy corporations, sleazy this, sleazy that, while they
are clean and pure as the wind-driven snow.It's against the law to hire undocumented workers, but that's not being
enforced, either. So if you're a sleazy employer choosing between equally qualified workers and one has citizenship
and one doesn't -- what kind of convoluted choice is that? That is rationale for granting citizenship to illegals?
We concoct that scenario to justify breaking the law?
Well, when the rule of law doesn't count for
anything, you can say things like that, and you can get credit for compassion and thoughtfulness and all of that. But
you're also endorsing breaking the law in order to get what you want, and that's where they are.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH:
Read
or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com
END TRANSCRIPT
<a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/prnd/prn-rush;prngenre=conservative_talk;prntype=web;prnpage=interior;pos=;sz=575x100;u=prngenre*conservative_talk!prntype*web!prnpage*interior!pos*!sz*575x100;ord=123456789?"
target="_blank" ><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/prnd/prn-rush;prngenre=conservative_talk;prntype=web;prnpage=interior;pos=;sz=575x100;u=prngenre*conservative_talk!prntype*web!prnpage*interior!pos*!sz*575x100;ord=123456789?"
border="0" alt="" /></a>
Related Links·
AP:
Immigration Advocates Stack Demands for Obama ·
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newspaper Apologizes
for Endorsing Obama
July
02, 2014
BEGIN
TRANSCRIPT
RUSH:
A newspaper has apologized for its 2008 Obama endorsement. "The Billings Gazette apologized on Friday for its 2008 endorsement
of Barack Obama for president in an editorial titled 'Gazette Opinion: Obama Earned the Low Ratings.'"
The Billings, Montana,
Gazette in its editorial said, "it missed George W. Bush and the 'good ol’ days when we were at least winning battles
in Iraq.'"
The Billings, Montana, Gazette, in its editorial, apologizing for their 2008 endorsement of Obama, said that
Obama had failed on energy policy -- Keystone pipeline -- failed in Iraq.
They wrote that "the Bowe Bergdahl exchange
made the Obama administration seem incompetent.
... The VA system been mismanaged.
Obama has also broken his promise to become the 'most transparent administration in history.' The Gazette said the president’s
administration is so opaque that is has earned a reputation worse than that of Richard Nixon."And then the Billings, Montana, Gazette, apologizing for its
2008 endorsement of Barack Obama, closed its editorial by noting that these mistakes made by Obama "demonstrate a disturbing
trend of incompetence and failure."
From the editorial: These are all signs --
none of them definitive on their own, necessarily. However, when taken in completely, these demonstrate a disturbing trend
of incompetence and failure. It’s not just that Americans are in a sour mood about national politics. That’s probably
part of it. Instead, Obama has become another in a line of presidents long on rhetoric and hopelessly short on action. Obama’s
hope and change have left liberals and conservatives alike hoping for real change, not just more lofty rhetoric."Would I be justified in saying See, I Told
You So?
Suckers are born every minute. These
people fell for all of that rhetoric. They fell for all of it. They knew exactly. My point is that everyone
-- well, that may be going a bit far. I just think they knew. I don't know how engaged people could not have known
who Obama is. I just don't understand that. How could people who are engaged or able to read or able to find out
what somebody stands for, what they've said, what they believe in, have resources, how could they not know?
Well, that's it.
They wanted to believe that what they knew wasn't true. They wanted to believe the hope and change. They wanted to believe utopia was possible.
They wanted to believe in all this stuff. And of course there's the racial component they're not even gonna touch here,
which has to have been a factor in a lot of this, the historical aspect of the election and so forth. So big whoop. Apologize six years after the fact.
(interruption)
Well, you take it,
but my point is they could have written this editorial before he assumed office and been right about everything they said
in their editorial on Friday. If they'd written everything they wrote on Friday before he was inaugurated, they would
have been right. They would have been proven right and be seen as prescient.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH:
Read
or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com
END TRANSCRIPT
<a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/prnd/prn-rush;prngenre=conservative_talk;prntype=web;prnpage=interior;pos=;sz=575x100;u=prngenre*conservative_talk!prntype*web!prnpage*interior!pos*!sz*575x100;ord=123456789?"
target="_blank" ><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/prnd/prn-rush;prngenre=conservative_talk;prntype=web;prnpage=interior;pos=;sz=575x100;u=prngenre*conservative_talk!prntype*web!prnpage*interior!pos*!sz*575x100;ord=123456789?"
border="0" alt="" /></a>
Related Links·
Washington
Free Beacon: Newspaper Apologizes for 2008 Obama Endorsement ·
Billings Gazette:
Obama Earned the Low Ratings ·
Washington
Times: Hands Down Obama is the Worst President Since WWII: Poll
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/07/02/newspaper_apologizes_for_endorsing_obama