SENTRYMAN ... Fire them all with Prop 86; the only hope! ... VOTE DEM AGAIN and DIE! ... Everi Mann

A Good Day On The Radio With RUSH

SENTRYMAN .....Prop-86 FIRE THEM ALL Exposing Hypocrisy-101 Nov 8, 08 - and 2.0 below!
In closing - SLAVERY; consider Cause & Effect from the Flip of a Coin
JV vs VARSITY Dec 7th Dream Team
WANT 2 DEFEAT HILLARY?
FIRE THEM ALL: Book Videos Blocked-Addresses Re-established
LIARs & TRAITORs - Loose Lips Sink SEAL-6, Pakistani Doc, Ambassadors & America
You've been O'BAMB'd - Borrowed Dime til 2016 and Agenda 21
Barack or Obama the Muslim? ... Thoughts! ... Feb 2011
Barack, Fire the Military? Thought for the Year: Kick The Can Down The Road. Mar 2011
America: Obama's Private Joke? ....... RUSH said WHO LIED? ...2-22-11
Conservative America, Rangel, Spin, START, Poor Illegals ALERT. ...12-6-10
NASA's new mission: Islam, Racism, Nationalism .... The New OBAMERICA? ..... 7-6-10 to 7-17-10
US Oil ; Spills or Tears of our Fathers ......... NAZIS, Warf Rats and Pyrates. .......... 6-1-10 to 6-12-10
PROP-86 will RESTORE America
Bailout Europe? ..AGAIN? Sentryman DEMAND YouTube VIDEO
YOU SAY YOU WANT A REVOLUTION!
HOLOCAUST: The GLOBAL SPORT
SCHOOL SHOOTINGs ...Unintended consequence 2-27-12 again 12-14-12
America 235 years old. ... 12-18-11
Valley Forge. 11-11-11
sentryman : Defend America With Too Little Military Equipment? ......... 10-2-11
sentryman : Just Another Great Day On The Radio For RUSH 2011 - 2014
Romney ; Obama got his man ......9-13-11..... Stranger than fiction?
Earth to Hollywood; what do you mean People Of Color, Janeane?...9-3-11
OBAMA, Agenda 21, Smart ......... A thought for a HAPPY 4th of JULY, 2011
Peace For Our Time. Memorial Day weekend, Get Out JEWS! 5-27-11
American Idol -- American Tragedy? 4/11 .. Osama Online 5/11
Obama can solve anything Hollywood. Thoughts For The Day! - 1/2/11
Dancing with Stars, and Fences - 11-17-10
LIBERAL TOLERANCE .......1860 to 1917 to 1935 to 2006 to 10-24-10 to 11-14-10
* RACISM in AMERICA * 10-16-10
BUSH's Stupid...Gee, Never hear that stated often enough! Yah RIGHT! ..... 9-9-10
Terrorists, Now we're Coming For You! .......... Aug 25th to Oct 8th, 2010
SUPER Heroes Or GODs? ... HISTORY Always Repeats! 8-19-10
American Common Sense. .. Happy Birthday ........ JULY 4th, 2010
SOCIALISM : The Gateway Drug......... Jun 14 to July 2, 2010
Obama's Unemployment Fix: Dismantle Our Military? ...America will destroy itself from within, yada, yada.... 5-30 to 6-10-2010
Communists & Jihadists thank Dodd/Frank & McCain/Feingold for destroying AMERICA
FaceBook, Tweets, Clips and Quips
AMAZON.com books; American Imperialism Republican Electability for the Uninformed Voters, a Liberal's Perception is Reality!
FIRE THEM ALL?? Books & T-Shirts purchased HERE:

 http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/11/prweb8993010.htm

MY Book "FIRE THEM ALL??" Restores the Economy & Jobs, Solutions For A Renegade Government and Confronts Terrorism.

**MY Book Can Restore The National Economy & Jobs,
Demonstrates Solutions For Our Renegade Government
and Confronts Terrorism For Permanent Result
With The Power & Authority That All US Citizens Possess
To Initiate Simple Legal Procedures To Sidestep Endless Do-nothing
Self-serving Congresses and Take Our Country Back,
No Matter Who’s Living In OUR White House!
http://www.amazon.com/Never-About-Black-FINAL-SOLUTION-ebook/dp/B003H4RA9U/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1405462414&sr=1-1&keywords=It+Was+Never+About+The+Black+Guy%2C+It+Was+About+%22That+Guy%22%21+THE+FINAL+SOLUTION...+FIRE+THEM+ALL%3F%3F#reader_B003H4RA9U




College Student Thinks the 1% Has All the Money and He Won't Get Any
November 02, 2011

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/ 

 
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Joshua in Sylmar, California. 
Hi.  Great to have you on the EIB Network.  Hello.

CALLER:  Hi.  How you doing, Rush?

RUSH:  Excellent.  Thank you, sir.

CALLER:  I have a quick question.  I've been hearing reports -- plenty of reports -- saying top 1%, uhh, own 42% of the wealth in America, and the wealth distribution hasn't been this lopsided since before the Great Depression; and my -- my question is: The way I see it, if there's no more money to be distributed, where exactly is someone like me -- a college graduate, you know, in the middle class...? Where's my...? Where's my opportunity for -- for advancement?  You know what I mean?  Because the way I see the top 1%, they're holding their money in investments and, you know, accounts, but they're not spending the money.

RUSH:  No, that's not it.

CALLER:  There's no money. They're not spending it.  If they have -- if they have all their houses, all their boats, they have everything they need, they don't need to spend money like we spend money.

RUSH:  Joshua? Joshua, you have asked a very timely question with an opportunity here for me, in my answer, to educate gazillions of people.  But I don't have time before the next break.  So I need to ask you, politely and admirably, if you can hold on through it next segment at the top of the hour?

CALLER:  I can do that.

RUSH:  You can?  I appreciate that.  Now, you say you're a college student?

CALLER:  Correct.

RUSH:  You're 23 years old?

CALLER:  Correct. Graduating in June.

RUSH:  Graduating in June.  And you think...? Just make sure I heard right. You think the top 1%, they've got everything they need they've got their boats, planes, houses and so they're not spending anymore and therefore there's no more money to be distributed therefore no money for you to be paid if you get a job?

CALLER:  Correct.

RUSH:  Correct.  Okay, good.  That is... I understand totally why you think that.

CALLER:  Okay.

RUSH:  But I want you to know that you could not have been more ill-informed about something than whoever it is that's put that thought in your head.  You are... Well, not you. That is as wrong as any lie anybody has ever told you, and I'm looking forward to the chance to explain this when we talk again at the top of the next hour.  Don't go away. Please don't go away.BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: Now we go back to Joshua in Sylmar, California.  Joshua, thank you for holding on.  I appreciate you doing this.

CALLER:  No problem.

RUSH:  You're twenty-three years old, and you think there's no future for you because the people who have what they want and need have got it. They don't spend any more; there's nothing for you to get.  Correct?

CALLER:  Correct.  Yes.

RUSH:  Now, I want to tell you: At any time here during my explanation to you, feel free to interrupt and ask me a question.

CALLER:  Okay.

RUSH:  The reason I wanted to hold you over and talk to you is because there are a lot of people who think like you do because it's what you've been taught and I want to try to not convince you but show you how wrong you are because your future depends on it. 

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: You have every bit as much of an opportunity to make something of yourself as I did, and I continue to have.  There's nobody shutting you out. There's no way that all the money in the country's locked up, inaccessible to you.  It's not locked up and inaccessible to anybody.  The thing is: You have to earn it.  It's not given; it's not distributed. There is nobody in charge of who gets what.  That's up to you.  I want to tell you a story.  I want to tell you a story about a rich guy.  I want to tell you a story about a guy that's in the top 1%.  This guy has an airplane.  He has --

CALLER: All right.

RUSH: Pardon?

CALLER:  I'm listening.

RUSH:  He has a boat.  He has a large house.  He's got eight automobiles.  He's pretty much probably what you think of when you think of the 1%.

CALLER:  Correct.

RUSH:  This guy who you probably think's got what he wants and doesn't spend any money, spends three hours every week paying bills, writing checks to people.  This guy has 75 people who work for him.  He pays each and every one of them.  Over 20 years, only one has left.  Nobody has been fired.  He pays them much more than they would earn elsewhere because he loves them and likes them and doesn't want them to leave, because it's too big a hassle to replace them.  People that work in his house, people that fly his airplane, people that captain his boat, sometimes earn twice what other people who do the same thing make. Because he likes them, they do a great job, and he doesn't want them to leave.  When this guy takes his airplane someplace, there are three people he's paying on it. There's a flight attendant and there are two pilots.  I don't know what the total amount they're paid is, but the amount that those three people are paid, if they were one person would put them in the top 1%.  All you have to do is earn $387,000 a year in America and you are in the top 1%. 

If you earn $50,000 a year or more, Joshua, in a year, you're in the upper 10% of earners in this country.  The top 1%, bottom of that is $387,000.  When this guy gets on his airplane, in addition to these three people, there's what's called the line crew.  They work at the gas station that puts fuel in the jet.  That fuel costs anywhere from four to five dollars a gallon, and it takes so much that you buy it by pounds.  People who work for the gas station also are paid by the guy who owns the airplane. So, in addition to the three people that are on the airplane, there are probably five or six servicing the airplane.  Then there's the mechanic in the hangar that services the airplane when it's not flying.  There are probably ten or 12 people being paid to make sure that airplane can fly whenever it needs to.  All of them make six figures, except the line crew. I'm not sure what they make, they're paid by another company, but the company charges a lot. It's the same thing with the boat, same thing with the house.  The idea that the rich are not spending their money is so absurd. If the rich were not spending their money, we'd be a Third World country.If the rich weren't spending their money, there would be no jobs.  Unemployment wouldn't be 9%; it would be a hundred percent. 

Now, I don't know where you get the idea that because there are rich people you don't have a chance, but it's precisely because there are rich people. What we have here is a meritocracy.  I mean, there are some people who are rich because they inherit it.  But most people who are in the 1% are there because they work harder than anybody else, because they found what they love doing, and what they do really isn't work to them.  They can't wait to get up every day (including on Mondays) to go back to work because it's what they love most in the world -- and since they love it, they happen to do it better than most other people do. That's how they end up making a lot of money: They provide a service, or make a product, do something that enough people want and love that it supports them.  Now, there are a lot of other people out there who will criticize people like this, saying that they're not paying their fair share, that they're selfish or they're greedy or what have you. 

There's another thing, too, that you need to know: The people in this top 1%, it's not the same bunch of people.  It changes.  People move into and out of the various categories of wealth all the time.  I knew a guy who lost $200 million twice in his life and earned it back a third time.  He was in the commodities business.  You are gonna be getting out of college soon, and somebody's told you that there's no future for you.Because unless you can find a way to get the rich to unlock their money, there isn't anything left for you.  You couldn't be more wrong.  If you would change your thinking and realize that whatever it is you've learned in college, if it's what you love -- and if it's not what you love, go do what you love and forget what you learned in college.
Find out what you love, go do it, do it better than anybody else, and you'll find that there will be all kinds of people who will pay you to do it. If you do it well, if you do it dependably, if you make it well, if you make it great, if you make it dependably, if you can be counted on, if you can be trusted, if your stuff is great, if your work is great, there will be people who will pay you more than you ever dreamed.

CALLER:  And, Rush, I get that. It makes sense for the individual, and I'm happy for me.  You know, and -- and I understand that for me personally.  But what I'm talking about my generation as a whole. The way I see it, there's only a certain amount of money; and the way I see it, the top 1% have invested in all the vehicles possible to make sure they continue to make more money. 

RUSH: No.

CALLER:  And because they have more money in the vehicles they can make money faster.  So as you get --

RUSH:  No, no.

CALLER: The argument goes, the rich get richer --

RUSH: Joshua?

CALLER:  Yes.

RUSH:  At any point that you want to point to in American history, there has always been X amount of money.  But every day it's different.  Hopefully, the US economy grows.  It's an expanding pie.  It gets bigger.  What's happening to our economy now is, it's shrinking.  It is shrinking because people running the government have the incorrect policies.  They are funneling all the money to government, Joshua. They're doing everything they can to take money out of the private sector where you are going to earn it. 
For you to do well, the government has to get smaller, and the money that they're taking from people has gotta be kept with the people because they can grow their own businesses and thus hire more people.  But at any point, in any generation, somebody in any generation coulda said as you just said, "Somebody's got all the money. There's only so much money."  On any given day, there's only so much money, but everybody parts with it.  Nobody hoards everything they've got.  My point to you was: A guy just spends three hours a week paying bills.  What do you think he's paying?

CALLER:  Yeah, I know and I understand that.

RUSH:  How many...? But every rich person's doing this.  There's not a rich person in the world not spending his money.  They can't live if they don't spend the money.  There's no way to enjoy it if you don't spend it!  They're all spending it.

CALLER:  All right. Rush, can I give you...? Can I give you a quick prediction?

RUSH:  Are you hearing anything I'm saying? I'm really trying to help you because if you listen to what I'm saying, you're gonna go out there and be light years ahead of everybody in your generation who's gonna be sitting around thinking they're defeated because they've been taught like you have that there's no more money to be had.  But there is.  The rich are happy to part with it if you give 'em something they want or if you do something they need done.  The object is you.  The objective is you.  The person who has to get this done is you. 

Let me tell you: You know what I once did?  I'll tell you another story.  I used to know, when he was alive, the former commerce secretary, Robert Mosbacher. Back in the early nineties Robert Mosbacher told me that you weren't a player in America unless you had $250 million.  If you didn't have $250 million, the rest of the wealth community would sneer at you and they wouldn't consider you one of them.  I said, "Well, would you give me a hundred million so I could get in the group?" He looked at me and said, "What do you mean, give you a hundred million?" I said, "Yeah, if I just had a hundred million more, then I wouldn't have to work anymore! I could actually support the way I live now, if you would just give me a hundred million." He looked at me. "What do you mean, give you a hundred million?"

"Well, you said..." I was performing an experiment.There was no way he was gonna give me a hundred million, even though he had it times twenty.  He wouldn'ta given it to a member of his family, until he died.  The point is nobody gives anybody anything.  Everybody who has what they have earns it, with work.  There's not one power sitting there deciding who ends up with what.  Obama would love to be that person, and we're trying to prevent that from happening, but there is not a god. There's not a money god that determines who end up with what.  What you end up with is owing totally to what you do.  The US economy is not a zero-sum game.  If somebody earns a dollar, it does not mean somebody's lost a dollar. 

If somebody loses a job, it doesn't mean somebody was hired.  If somebody was hired it doesn't mean somebody was fired.  It is a dynamic, expanding economy, and it's made for the fit.  It's made for the competitive.  It's made for those who want to play the game and have something to offer.  It's not made for people who think they're owed something.  It's not made for people who think the game's rigged.  It's not made for people who think life's unfair.  You have just as much opportunity as Warren Buffett has had or as I've had.  It's up to you to use it, and it's up to you to recognize that you do have the opportunity -- and don't worry about your generation.  It's not your problem.

CALLER:  Okay.

RUSH:  It's theirs.  You have enough problems worrying about yourself.  If your generation blows it, don't be part of it.

CALLER:  Got it.

RUSH:  Be distinct.  Be different.  If your generation is gonna sit around and be a bunch of slothful takers, don't defend 'em, and don't feel sorry for 'em, and don't be part of it.  You'll be that much ahead of the game.

CALLER: (garbled) Got it.  Could I ask one more question?

RUSH:  Uh, yeah, if you take your mouth or hand away from the phone so I could hear you.

CALLER:  You hear me now?

RUSH: (aside to audience) He's talking to someone --

CALLER:  Hello?

RUSH:  Getting advice. What do you want to ask me?

CALLER:  (garbled) I just want to -- I just want to say, (unintelligible) stockholder since 2008 and what (unintelligible) although yes, I understand where you're coming from with the rich getting paid.

RUSH:  I can't understand what you're saying. I don't know what you're doing out there. You got the phone covered.  But I gather you're not hearing me. You've been a stockholder since 2008 and what?

CALLER: (garbled)  Put it this way.  I've been a stockholder since 2008.  What I'm noticing now is that when the average American can't buy the TV from Best Buy, they can't buy -- and I know, and I know they should be saving their money, they --

RUSH:  Joshua? Joshua?

CALLER:  -- that's who --

RUSH:  Joshua?

CALLER: Okay?

RUSH: There is no average American.  The average American is a myth.  The average American is a statistic.  People are buying TVs.  They're buying them from Best Buy.  They're buying them from Apple.  They're buying them from everywhere.  TVs are sold!  You can go buy one today.  Go to a mall and you'll find people buying TVs.  People are buying everything today.  Not as many people.  The economy is not doing well.  There aren't as many people working and they don't have as much disposable income. Some people it's their fault, while other people in this day and age it's not (because of policies this administration's put into effect). 

I feel like I've wasted my time with you, but I hope that the others in the audience it's not been a waste of time.You've offered me a great opportunity here, but you're clearly not hearing what I'm saying, or at least you're not acting like you're getting it.  I hope at some point that you do. Because, sadly as it might be, people like you do represent the future of the country; and if you're gonna sit around and be a taker -- if you're gonna sit around and be bitter, somebody's got more than you do, somebody's not spreading the wealth or whatever -- you're gonna be miserable your whole life, and nothing's gonna be able to make you happy.  You're not gonna be able to make yourself happy, nobody else will make you happy, you're just gonna be miserable.  And maybe

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/11/02/college_student_thinks_the_1_has_all_the_money_and_he_won_t_get_any 

END TRANSCRIPT


 
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/11/02/bloomberg_blame_congress_not_banks_for_mortgage_mess 

Bloomberg: Blame Congress, Not Banks, for Mortgage Mess
November 02, 2011

 
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Folks, it's an amazing day out there. There's so much going on.  We have the Colorado vote.  We have Democrat operatives admitting that I have been right all along, that Obama's jobs bill was never intended to pass. We've got a Rasmussen Reports poll that shows support for Obama's $35 billion state and local government bill to go out and hire teachers and so forth is only supported by 22% of American voters -- and then there's this. The Mayor New York City, "Michael Bloomberg said this morning that if there is anyone to blame for the mortgage crisis that led the collapse of the financial industry, it's not the 'big banks,' but Congress." Bloomberg actually has said something now that makes sense. 

This is the first time I can recall in I don't know how long that Bloomberg has said something that makes sense.
"Speaking at a business breakfast in midtown featuring Bloomberg and two former New York City mayors, Bloomberg was asked what he thought of the Occupy Wall Street protesters. 'I hear your complaints,' Bloomberg said. 'Some of them are totally unfounded. It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp.
Now, I'm not saying I'm sure that was terrible policy, because a lot of those people who got homes still have them and they wouldn't have gotten them without that. 'But they were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will.
"'They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it's one target, it's easy to blame them and congress certainly isn't going to blame themselves. At the same time, Congress is trying to pressure banks to loosen their lending standards to make more loans.'" He's right about that.  The subprime thing is in the process of being repeated.  So Bloomberg gets it right. 

So now, more and more people see it. See, everybody knows this.  Everybody knows the banks didn't do it. Everybody knows it was Congress -- and Democrat presidents, by the way -- responsible for the collapse of the home industry.  It's very simple.  It's just now that more and more people are starting to acknowledge it. 
Perseverance, I always say.BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: To the phones we go to Atlanta.  Jim, thank you for calling.  You're up first today.  Great to have you with us, sir.

CALLER:  Mega dittos, Rush.  How you doing today?

RUSH:  Very well.  Thank you.

CALLER:  I was just calling to make a comment on Bloomberg's statement, that he was definitely correct in saying that Congress was the cause for the housing failure that we've had.

RUSH:  Damn straight.

CALLER:  I've been a mortgage banker for 28 years, and because of the decisions, my income has dropped 90% and I had to get out of the mortgage industry and find something else at an age in the mid-fifties.

RUSH:  Wow.  Okay, so you can confirm people like you were ordered by federal officials to make loans to people couldn't pay 'em back?

CALLER:  We had to come up with "loan programs," and there's an admirable idea.  We were told to devise loan products that put people into homes that really, you know, could afford the house.

RUSH:  Wait a second.  I know you're trying to be a nice guy, but what's admirable about that?  See, this is where we get caught up in somebody's good intentions. Yeah, we would love for everybody to have a house.  Why not on the beach in the Hamptons?

CALLER: Well, basically everybody should have a piece of American Pie, own a home.  But, you know, quite honestly, we saw products that people were, you know, no credit, no down payments, no nothing; and, you know, we had to put them into homes in order to buy a house.

RUSH:  Wait.  You just said that you thought they should have a home; it was admirable. So what difference does it make if they can't afford it?

CALLER:  Good question.  That's what we thought, the banks. But, you know, when they revised the Community Investment Act, they told the banks: "If you want federal funds you have to get people into houses." We felt basically they were buying votes, putting people into homes to buy votes.

RUSH:  That's exactly what they were doing.  Very admirable, too. But, anyway, you've seen 90% of your income vanish?

CALLER:  Yes.

RUSH:  What Bloomberg was saying is what we all know: They're trying to blame people like you is the thing. They're blaming you for hooking people into these loans. That's what's going on: People like you are trying to be blamed for this when you were forced to do it, and everybody's know it. It's just Bloomberg finally said it 'cause he's probably ticked off by now.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Okay, the mortgage broker from Atlanta said that it was an "admirable objective" to get everybody in a house.  Why stop there?  Why not get everybody in a house in the Hamptons?  But that's not the point of this. 

The point of this is: Bill Clinton, the federal government, Janet Reno, various Democrats members in Congress, created in program that led to the collapse of the housing industry and a huge problem in our financial system: The subprime mortgage.  They then tried to blame it on guys like the caller from Atlanta, tried to blame it on the big Wall Street bankers! Yep, even Obama is out there saying (paraphrased), "These poor people got hoodwinked.  These evil bankers." The "predator lenders," I think they were called. 
Yeah, these predator lenders, you know what they did?
They left their cushy offices on Wall Street and they went down to homeless areas in Manhattan and all over the country and they found these schlubs and they say, "Come here! I'm gonna lend you some money, and I'm gonna force you into a house, and you'll never be able to pay me back!"  That's what they want us to believe?  That's what happened?  These poor saps were sucked in by a bunch of evil idiots who lent money to people who were never going to pay it back?  That's not what happened at all. 

The mortgage bankers were forced to lend the money because it was such an "admirable" idea: Home ownership for every American, yes. 
So what happens then is that these mortgage bankers, under the threat of investigation from Janet Reno and Barney Frank, had to concoct ways to make that worthless mortgage worth something to them. 
So they found ways to sell what was worthless to a bunch of dupes who they lied to about what they were selling; and then those dupes figured out that they were dupes, and they repackaged the whole thing to another set of dupes.  And that kept happening, until finally they run out of dupes -- just like the end of a Ponzi scheme. 

At the end of the day, there weren't any dupes left to buy these worthless mortgages.  That's the simplified version of what happened here; and if they hadn't done this -- if they hadn't come up with these derivatives and credit default swaps and all these other phony baloney ways to assign value to worthless loan paper -- they mighta gone out of business!
You can't stay in business giving money away.  And that's what they were being forced to do, for the express purpose of Democrats being elected to office by these people -- and now look what's happened.  The value of everybody's home has plummeted.  Folks, this is an outrage! It's near criminal what has happened, and it was all perpetrated by Democrats in the federal government.  I'm sure there were some Republicans along the way who thought it was of a good idea, too, because they didn't have the guts to oppose it since it involved "the poor;" and there were Republicans out there talking about the wonderful aspect of home ownership for all and what it meant for America and what it meant for their administration to be able to put so many people in homes.  Why, look at what we did! Look at what it says about America!Blah, blah! It was all phony and trumped up.  So while a bunch of phony politicians engage in something near criminal to get themselves votes and make themselves look good the value of everybody else's house plummets to, in many cases, underwater -- and that is the primary reason this economy is in the sorrowful shape that it's in now. 

That subprime mortgage is the primary reason for unemployment today; it's the primary reason for economic collapse throughout other areas of the economy -- and it was brought to you by Bill Clinton and Barney Frank and Janet Reno and Chris Dodd and any other Democrat you might want to name.  You know it and I know it, and now Bloomberg (probably ticked off at these Occupy Wall Street people for polluting his city and whatever else), finally has had enough and looked at it and said, "You know, let me tell you something: It's not the bankers that are your problem.  Congress did this."  Yeah, Congress did it along with a couple of presidents. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Tim in Salem, Oregon.  I'm glad you called, sir.  You're next on the EIB Network.  Hello.

CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  Dittos.

RUSH:  Thank you very much, sir.

CALLER:  I would like to give you a different way to look at the real estate loan problem and that is to follow the money trail.  Real estate loans generate loan fees.  I recently reviewed a local bank, and 80% of their revenue came from generating real estate loans and then selling them on the third market.  Banks have about 6,000 pages of bank regulations, and they have federal examiners coming in annually.  One of the things that they look for is loan concentrations based on industry. So the bank examiners knew about the banks' real estate concentration.  When I worked for a major bank, we had real estate loans that have put on the market value that exceeded our net worth, so what we did is we securitized the loans and then told them to a third party.

RUSH:  Yeah, that's pretty consistent so far.

CALLER:  So take a look at whether the banks currently secured ties to the loans and then sold them to a third party and they did that to get the loan fees.

RUSH:  Yeah, that's exactly what happened.  Down the line many times.

CALLER:  So it's the third party. (silence)

RUSH:  Uh, okay.  It's the third party -- and we don't want to go "third party." That's how we lose. (interruption) Standard & Poor's fault?  All right.  No matter what we're gonna have people who want to deflect the blame from Congress.  We're always gonna have people saying, "Congress didn't do it, politicians do it, Democrats didn't do it."  There's enough blame on this mortgage business to go around a number of times.  I start with whoever it was that had the idea, and that's the Democrats and their motivation
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com

 
END TRANSCRIPT


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/31/smoking_gun_the_government_caused_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis
 

Smoking Gun: The Government Caused the Subprime Mortgage Crisis
October 31, 2011   

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: It is possible that we were talking about the subprime mortgage crisis as far back as 1998 because I remember Janet Reno, who was the attorney general at the time, threatening banks with investigations if they didn't make these loans.  Now, Investors.com today, Investor's Business Daily has editorials, "Smoking-Gun Document Ties Policy To Housing Crisis."
Now, they act like it's new, and it is to them, but I'm just gonna admit to you, folks, it gets frustrating sometimes being on the lead of this stuff. It really gets frustrating being years ahead of people, because when you're years ahead they ought to catch up years ago.  Anyway, I'm not ripping Investor's Business Daily.  Don't misunderstand.  This is just a generic thing. 
"President Obama says the Occupy Wall Street protests show a 'broad-based frustration' among Americans with the financial sector, which continues to kick against regulatory reforms three years after the financial crisis. 

'You're seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on the abusive practices that got us into this in the first place,' he complained earlier this month.  But what if government encouraged, even invented, those 'abusive practices'?" Well, you and I know because you listen here every day that they did.  You know that it was Jimmy Carter that started it. You know that it was Bill Clinton that really ratcheted it up and you know that it was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and a number of other the Democrats throughout the 2000s which kept this program alive under the whole concept of affordable housing. (imitating Frank)  "We must make sure that people who can't afford houses are in houses, it's only fair," as Barney would say. 

"Rewind to 1994. That year, the federal government declared war on an enemy -- the racist lender -- who officials claimed was to blame for differences in homeownership rates -- and launched what would prove the costliest social crusade in U.S. history.  At President Clinton's direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.

"The threat was codified in a 20-page 'Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending' and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.  The edict -- completely overlooked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the mainstream media -- was signed by then-HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies.

'The agencies will not tolerate lending discrimination in any form,' the document warned financial institutions.  Ludwig at the time stated the ruling would be used by the agencies as a fair-lending enforcement 'tool,' and would apply to 'all lenders' -- including banks and thrifts, credit unions, mortgage brokers and finance companies.  The unusual full-court press was predicated on a Boston Fed study showing mortgage lenders rejecting blacks and Hispanics in greater proportion than whites. The author of the 1992 study, hired by the Clinton White House, claimed it was racial 'discrimination.' But it was simply good underwriting."
There was no problem. 

People were not lending money to people that couldn't pay it back.  This was called discrimination.  This was called redlining.  This was called all kinds of horrible racist stuff, and so the pressure was on starting in '94 through '98, the Clinton years, to start making these loans and it's been that way since the get-go and even now Occupy Wall Street, all of this, everything that's happened since the subprime mortgage crisis became known to the general public.  Everything has been about redirecting blame at Wall Street, at the banks when in fact the blame is going right to the Democrat Party when they ran the federal government. 

Now, the thing is, we've known this for years.  So here now the official smoking gun document which proves it, but this is not the only document that's out there.  I didn't learn this from any back channels.  This was all happening at the moment.  We talked about it while it was happening, throughout the 2000s, even in the late nineties when Janet El Reno was making all of these threats.  It gets frustrating to have the goods on this stuff and nobody pays attention to it, which leads me to believe everybody involved here knew it anyway. 
This is all part of the establishment, I don't care what party they're in, it's all part of the establishment trying to trying to shift blame away from themselves and back on to Wall Street, whatever favorite whipping boys because everybody knows at the end of the day the establishment's in bed with Wall Street anyway, and part of the deal is you take the public flogging and you take the abuse and we'll shut down one of your houses now and then, but we'll see to it you still get to keep your house in the Hamptons. 
Look at this, Jim Geraghty, National Review Campaign Spot: "Former New Jersey governor Jon Corzine," who before that ran Goldman Sachs and started, when he left the governorship, a company called MF Global Holdings Ltd., a futures brokerage.

Well, "MF Global Holdings Ltd., the futures broker run by Jon Corzine, was suspended from conducting new business with the New York Federal Reserve today after posting a record loss. The firm's board met through the weekend in New York to consider options including a sale to avert failure, according to a person with direct knowledge of the situation." Here's a guy living off of his fame at Goldman Sachs, goes to the United States Senate, participates in vote after vote after vote-for-deficit spending and deficit spending.
Then he becomes governor of New Jersey, and everybody has forgotten that this is the guy who left a record $8 billion budget deficit as governor of New Jersey.
So now he's done the same thing to his own firm, MF Global Holdings. "As recently as August, there was speculation that Obama would name Jon Corzine his next Treasury secretary." I tell you, it's a den of thieves, Snerdley! It is just a den of thieves. The Daily Caller. There's a couple stories with this theme. "Experts Begin to Doubt Obama's Reelectability --

"Where's the evidence President Obama can win the 2012 election? Where's the evidence that swing voters even want to listen to him? Barack Obama polls below 50 percent in every state that matters."
You couple that with only 16% of the people who think the country's on the right track -- and those people are the losers that make up part of the Democrat Party base. You combine those two numbers and it looks bleak for the Bamster.

"The economy has stalled, unemployment is much higher than the official number of 9 percent, and Hispanics and African Americans are disappointed. The president’s approval ratings have tanked, and the right-track/wrong-track number fell of the cliff in the summer." It's now 16% who think it's on the right track. "Obama has reached the stage of political doom when voters' disappointment is so deep that they just don’t want to listen to him, talk about him or watch him, said David Hill, a veteran GOP strategist and pollster, in an interview with The Daily Caller. 'Nobody says it to their loved ones … [and] they don’t want to do anything about it,' said Hill, who has worked for conservative and liberal Republicans on the East Coast, the West Coast and in the Midwest, since 1984.

"A tipping point might have been reached in August, when the monthly jobs report showed zero new jobs, Republican pollster Glenn Bolger told TheDC. 'With [George W.] Bush, it happened sometime in 2006, after Katrina and the 2005 Iraq situation,' said Bolger, who heads the polling firm Public Opinion Strategies. Even Obama-friendly experts are close to dismissing him," according to this story. There's a Dick Durbin is also in the news at the same website, the Daily Caller. (That's Chatsworth Osborne Jr.'s website, right? The Daily Caller?) "Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin told the Chicago Tribune that if the 2012 election is a 'referendum' on President Barack Obama, then Democrats are 'in trouble.'"

So there's a theme: Obama's not electable.
It's starting to just appear ever so slightly, just starting to effervesce as a matter of panic and concern. Then there's this from the Business Insider: "Goldman Sachs analyst index does not reflect the modest cheer that people are feeling about the economy." You remember this past week when the gross domestic product came in at 2.5% and everybody was going out there having a party?
And you remember that I, El Rushbo, was telling you, "Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah! Where is it? Can somebody show me this 2.5%?" Well, don't get too excited.
"From Goldman's Shuyan Wu: 'The GSAI fell 0.9 points from 43.3 in September to 42.4 in October. This is the third straight decline since July, and the second straight month that the headline index has registered below the 50 mark ... Declines in the headline index contrast with the small improvement in the September ISM manufacturing report.'"

The bottom line here is that Goldman Sachs is telling their people, "Psst! Psst! Shhh! Shhh! Shhh!
The economy is actually weak and it got worse in October. It didn't grow." That's what all these numbers add up to. That's what the story is all about. It's written very technically, but the essence of it is that the economy was weak and got worse. There wasn't any big growth -- and, see? Everybody knows
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com


END TRANSCRIPT

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Obama takes out as many Generals as Terrorists in this parallel universe.
In a reality where sanity, honor and justice reigns, General Fuller would be elevated to 4 Stars!...
SENTRYMAN

Peter Fuller Fired:

Senior U.S. Officer In Afghanistan

Relieved From Duty

PETER-FULLER.jpg
In this June 10, 2006, file photo, U.S. Rep Jack Murtha, D-Pa., left, and Col. Peter Fuller inspect the new Pennsylvania National Guard Stryker armored vehicles that were rolled out to the public at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. (AP Photo/Bradley C. Bower, File)

LOLITA C. BALDOR   11/ 4/11 06:04 PM ET   Associated Press  

WASHINGTON -- The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan has fired a senior officer from his job as the No. 2 general in charge of training for making inappropriate public remarks about Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his government. Gen. John Allen issued a statement Friday saying that Maj. Gen. Peter Fuller has been relieved of his duties as deputy commander for the Afghan training mission.

In a recent interview with the website Politico, Fuller characterized Afghan leaders as erratic, ungrateful and isolated from reality. The interview quotes him as saying Afghan leaders don't fully recognize America's sacrifices on their country's behalf. Referring to Karzai's recent assertion that Afghanistan would side with Pakistan if Pakistan got into a war with the U.S., Fuller was quoted as calling the comments "erratic," adding, "Why don't you just poke me in the eye with a needle! You've got to be kidding me . I'm sorry, we just gave you $11.6 billion and now you're telling me, I don't really care?"

Fuller said the Afghans have at times made unreasonable requests for U.S. assistance."You can teach a man how to fish, or you can give them a fish," Fuller was quoted as saying. "We're giving them fish while they're learning, and they want more fish!
(They say,) `I like swordfish, how come you're giving me cod?'
Guess what? Cod's on the menu today.
"
Fuller also said the Afghans don't understand the extent to which the U.S. is in economic distress or the "sacrifices that America is making to provide for their security."

He said the Afghans are "isolated from reality."
Allen said the "unfortunate comments" don't represent the solid U.S. relationship with the Afghan government.
" The Afghan people are an honorable people, and comments such as these will not keep us from accomplishing our most critical and shared mission – bringing about a stable, peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan," Allen said.

There was no indication whether Fuller will be reassigned or if he would retire.
Pentagon press secretary George Little said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was aware of Fuller's remarks. Little said Panetta has full confidence in Allen's judgment with respect to his decision in this case.

A native of Andover, Mass., Fuller was commissioned a second lieutenant in 1980 after graduating from the University of Vermont with a bachelor of arts in history and political science. He also holds a master's degree in public administration from Shippensburg University in Shippensburg, Pa.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

.
.
.
.

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

END TRANSCRIPT

 

 

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

END TRANSCRIPT

 

 

 

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

 Chicago Tribune: Ukrainians Gawk As Yanukovich's Luxury Estate Is Opened To Public


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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.
 
 
So we need these illegal immigrants, low skilled, low education, low wage. 
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 ·        
RushLimbaugh.com: Refugee Children at the Border are Not "Migrants," and the Protest Against Them Being Dumped Is Not By Racist Tea Party People Who Are "Anti-Immigration" - 07.02.14 http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/07/02/so_it_s_the_statue_of_immigration_now_the_truth_of_ellis_island_and_richard_trumka_s_warped_view_of_the_problem
 
 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
 
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

 

 


Immigrants to the New World Assimilate...No More!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



Dems to Illegals: America's Doors are Open


July 16, 2014


BEGIN TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: We've got the usual Stack of Stuff on the latest with the invasion on the Southern border, and it involves the Democrats going on Twitter and telling the world, "Come on in, America's doors are open."  Not kidding you.  They're all over Twitter.  John Lewis, same thing. Our doors are open. We're all connected. We can't just build a wall or a fence and say no to more.  This is America.  Our doors are open.  Obama is welcoming them in.  


BREAK TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: "In South Carolina, a 46-year-old black woman has been arrested for letting her daughter play in a nearby park while trying to earn a living. 'The mother, Debra Harrell, has been booked for unlawful conduct towards a child,' a local TV station reports. 'The incident report goes into great detail, even saying the mother confessed to leaving her nine-year-old daughter at a park while she went to work.'"


The 46-year-old mother works at McDonald's.  Now, stop and think of this.  You may think, "Rush, of course, I mean, for crying out loud, this is insane.  No responsible parent would turn their four-year-old loose to run around unaccompanied in a park anywhere while she went to work." 


Wait a minute.  If you let your four-year-old travel alone from Honduras to Texas through desserts, you're considered a hero to the Drive-By Media.  If you are a parent in Honduras, in El Salvador, in Guatemala, and you put your four-year-old on the "train of death" through the hot, dusty deserts of Mexico, on the way to either California or Texas, you're a hero.  You're doing everything you can to improve your child's life.  It's perfectly understandable that you would do it.


If you turn on the Drive-By Media, if you turn on ABC, CBS, NBC, turn on MSNBC, Washington Post, New York Times, it's perfectly normal that a parent would wave good-bye to four-year-old little Jose as he gets on the death train or gets in a van driven by a coyote or as he hits the hoof express through the desert.  Perfectly normal, totally understandable, even worthy of hero status. 


But this lady in South Carolina gets arrested for letting her kid play in a park while she's working at Mickey D's.  She didn't put her in government-controlled day care.  She let her nine-year-old run around with people in the park.  By these standards my mother and every mother of every friend of mine should have gone to jail.  Well, I'm just saying.  I know we don't do anymore.  And I know why we don't do it anymore.  There are rapists, purse snatchers, muggers and all that out there.  My mother would no more put me on a train to Moscow or an airplane or whatever. 


But I can remember many mornings getting on a bicycle, leaving home, and my parents got mad if I got home before five o'clock.  They thought I was being lazy.  They sent me out of the house to play, made me go out, cut the yard, pull the weeds, whatever, sent me off to other people's houses to do odd jobs.  There was no concern.  I understand the difference, don't misunderstand here.  But again, what are we talking about?  Major, dramatic cultural shifts here. 

So it fits right in with Michelle Obama telling parents they're too stupid to know how to properly feed their kids. And today we learned that food stamp recipients are too stupid to know the right foods to buy. If you missed it, the government has a new plan, talking shopping carts in grocery stores that direct food stamp recipients to the proper places in the grocery store to pick up the proper foods, healthy foods, fruits, vegetables, nuts, whatever the hell else they think is healthy.  And if they succeed, if the food stamp recipients, obviously too stupid to know what's best for 'em, if they end up buying a whole lot of really healthy stuff, they could win free movie tickets, also paid for by the taxpayer.  


BREAK TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: I have a fact here, some news that I think is gonna startle a lot of you.  Many of us have heard, particularly in the last  20 years whenever the subject of immigration reform comes up, you can count on hearing from a lot of different places in this country, "We are a nation of immigrants.  We can't shut down immigration. We can't start deporting people.  We're a nation of immigrants.  We're no different today than the people who originally came here.  We're all immigrants.  None of us are original."  You've heard that. 


How many of you know the nation, when it was founded, I mean, yeah, we emigrated here from Europe and so forth.  But there was no immigration at the time of the founding like there is today with actual programs and quotas and policies and so forth.  That did not begin until 1845.  And I believe, if I am not mistaken, it actually began with the Irish fleeing famine, the famous potato famine.  In 1845 modern-day immigration as we know it began.  But do you know that in 1924 immigration was suspended all the way to 1964, 1965, 1960, somewhere around there.  Does that shock you?  Did you know that? 


Did you know that immigration was literally suspended from 1924 to 1965?  Well, it was.  And do you know why it was suspended?  There's a very logical reason why it was suspended.  It was called assimilation, which wasn't that hard, because most of the people that arrived wanted to become Americans.  There was a distinct American culture.  There was a distinct American morality.  There was a distinct language.  It was English.  There was a distinct concept, individual liberty and freedom, government serving people.  It was all new.  It had never been done before, truly unique and exceptional in the sense of an exception to the norm.

 
So during the years that immigration was suspended, all of the immigrants, beginning with the Irish and then the Germans and the Polish and the Eastern Europeans of all kinds just flooded into this country, fleeing oppression, bondage, war, economic strife, poverty, but they all came here wanting to become Americans.  And immigration was suspended to absorb and to accommodate the massive numbers who had arrived.  And assimilation is simply people from different parts of the world coming here and becoming American, because they wanted to.  There was no force applied. There was no oppression.  There were no mandates that you had to.  It was something people wanted to do.  They wanted to learn English. 


They held on to their native tongues and they held onto their native cultures, and they lived together in various neighborhoods and wherever, but they wanted to become American, because it meant and really special and unique.  They all learned English and they all became educated in the American public education system, which was one of the greatest education systems ever at that time.  They learned our national holidays, for example, and why they were celebrated.  They learned about the American founding, all of this in the public school system. 


They learned about the Founding Fathers.  They learned why they wanted to come here.  They knew from afar they wanted to come.  They knew what it represented.  They knew that this was a repository for hope, liberty, freedom, prosperity, success. However they defined the good life, it was here.  And once they got here, they and their children learned how America came to be and why, who the people were that founded it and what they risked, what they gave up, what they sacrificed.  And during this period of assimilation there wasn't any of this drivel that is taught today as part of the multicultural curriculum. 


There was no, "This nation doesn't deserve to exist.  The people that came here and founded and discovered this country, all they did was displace the original owners, and they brought disease and pestilence, and they've stolen things."  There was none of that that these new immigrants learned.  They simply learned what it was to be an American.  They wanted to.  And during that period of -- I mean, little trickle of immigration, but I'm talking about mass immigration was suspended, and that's when the assimilation took place. 

All of that began to change in the sixties.  Everything began to change in the sixties because some of the immigrants who had arrived were, of course, not cool on America and were secretly plotting ways of undermining it even while they lived in the shadows, so to speak.  They ended up teaching in universities and public schools, and the unraveling of the country began. 


That's why, when we get to 1986 and Simpson-Mazzoli, that didn't come after a hundred years of out-of-control immigration.  Simpson-Mazzoli granted amnesty to three million illegal immigrants, and it took those three million about 20 years to amass.  And at the time Senator Kennedy said if we just do this one time we'll never, ever have to do it again. We're gonna go back and secure the borders, but we can't send this many people back. We have to learn to accept them.  But even then the Democrats of the day recognized the illegal immigrants of the day as future Democrats voters. 


But the point, how many of you were aware that mass immigration was suspended for many decades?  Did you know that, Snerdley?  From 1924 to 1964, '65.  It's key not just that it was suspended, but what was the reason for it?  The decision was made to suspend immigration so that all of those immigrants who had arrived en masse starting in 1845 could assimilate.  Back then the leaders of this country were still proud of it.  They wanted everybody else to be proud and wanted everybody else to understand why this country was what it was, how it came to be, and that's what the assimilation was. 


And it's key, again, to remember that those immigrants wanted to assimilate.  It wasn't something that was forced upon them.  They wanted to learn English.  They wanted to become Americans.  That's not what is happening today.  It is with some.  But it is not happening with the mass numbers of immigration that's taking place today.  (interruption)  Well, they're fleeing poverty, but these are kids.  The people making this possible have an entirely different agenda than those who made immigration possible in the mid- to late 1800s, into the early 1900s. 


There are people today who want this country undermined.  Now, they wouldn't say that.  They would say transformed, or they would say changed for the better.  They would say it needs to become more equal and more fair because this nation's always discriminated, blah, blah.  You know the drill.  But the early immigrants we're talking about did not arrive with such agendas, and they did not arrive -- by the way, this is something very key, too.  They didn't arrive as victims.  Certainly not victims of America. 


They didn't come here with the politics of grievance on their mind.  Not aimed at us.  They didn't come here wearing their tinfoil victim hats all over the place.  And they didn't come here with their hands out.  These people really, really wanted to work.  I mean, that's all the world knew.  This just happened to be the best place for that to pay off, and that's why they wanted to be here.  Today that's not at all the case.  You mention the word "assimilation" today in relationship to newly arriving immigrants and you may as well be cursing people out. 


You talk about assimilation, "Well, why would they want to become Americans?  What's wrong with who they are?  What gives you the right to say that everybody who comes here has to be an American?  Just what the hell does that mean?" is their reaction.  "Oh, really?  What have we got to be so proud of?  Look at the way we've treated slaves and the Indians and Native Americans and now the Redskins. What is there to be proud of? Why would we want people to come in and celebrate that heritage?" 

This is the attitude about assimilation today, because on the left there isn't any of this pride in America.  There is no awe-struck reverence for the founding of this country.  It's looked at as something that had been better off, maybe, in history if it hadn't happened.  I kid you not.  Today it's much different.  Now we have House Democrats demanding even more amnesty, $4 billion in funding to facilitate these arrivals. 


And we have. In the words of Representative John Lewis (Democrat-Georgia), "Our doors are open.  We're all connected.  We just can't build a wall or a fence and say, 'No more.'  This is America.  Our doors are open.  Come on in."  Can anybody doubt just how out of touch the Democrat Party has become? This is all being done on Twitter, by the way.  "Our doors are open, our walls are down, come on in, we're all connected.  This is America. Our doors are open."


John Lewis and all these other Democrats are active on Twitter just telling the world, "Come on in! We Democrats welcome you. We want you to come in. There isn't any wall, and you're not going back. Come on in."  They know that they are talking to the lowest of the low-information crowd on Twitter.  They can say anything they want and they're not gonna be challenged because to be challenged...


There's a reason to send John Lewis out there to say it, because anybody critical of John Lewis is automatically gonna be what?  A racist.  Bingo.  So I don't care whether it's Sunny Hostin on CNN or John Lewis on Twitter or any Democrat anywhere. Everybody, including them, is a victim now.  Everybody has a grievance against this country, mind you.  Therefore it is up to this country to assuage that grievance, to resolve it.


Because this country is responsible for all of these victims, even the victims of Central America, even the victims of Mexico.  Yes, they exist in their plight because we exist in ours.  We have discriminated against them, we have shut them off, we have stolen from their countries and their people and we've hoarded all of these goodies.  We've raped and pillaged the world, and that's how we built ourselves into a superpower. 


Well, the world wants it back now. 


They deserve it because it was never ours to have in the first place, and this is modern immigration: Victim after victim after victim parading. Victim after victim after victim on television.  Why, the most powerful law enforcement official, the attorney general, portrays himself as a victim! President of the United States, the most powerful law enforcement official, also at times will get close to portraying himself as a victim. 


Everybody's a victim.  Of America. 


Particularly of Republicans/conservatives in America. 


That is what's different today.  


END TRANSCRIPT
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com



  <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



 


truthwhencecamefromnorthernskies.jpgSENTRYMAN.truth whence came from northern skies







Click my
Music Player below while You enjoy other pages!

.

$$$ NO MORE SCHOOL; Soda, PB&J sandwiches, Bake Sales, Halloween parties or Christmas carols, save STATE indoctrinations - CLICK HERE

GOD BLESS.....KEEP YOUR POWDER DRY..... .......................................................................................................................................... [ Bush, Reagan, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, England, world war, WWI, WWII, Nam, terrorism, desert storm, desert, 9-11, freedom, Washington, Jefferson, HOLOCAUST, Sentryman, TARP, sentry man, Fire them all, prop 86, Everi Mann, 9/11, September 11th, stimulus, Barack Obama, President Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, QE1, QE2, QE3, renewable resources, sentryman.org, liberal, communist, socialist, conservative, debt ceiling, national debt, progressive, racism, Clinton, Hollywood, traitor, stars, Condoleezza Rice, proposition 86, bailout Europe, Muslim, Islam, Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, Jesus, Christianity, Hebrew, Jew, Jewish, Yiddish, Israel, Israeli, Zionist, Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Pashtun, Palestine, exodus, pot, Iraq, Iran, Carter, Arab, Arabic, Farci, caliphate jihad, moors, crusades, Persia, Ottoman, Sharia, China, Russia, bail out, revolution, occupy movement, throw them all out, capitalism, free enterprise, SEALS, President Bush, W, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, America, Newt, Palin, everimann, socialism, oil, fossil fuel, environmentalists, green, green energy, solar, hydro, geothermal, global warming, climate change, global warming hoax, gasoline, gas, natural gas, ethanol, Keystone, coal, North Dakota, north slope, ANWR, anwar oil, tea party, USA, US, US constitution, patriot, Paul Revere, one if by land, Stockholm syndrome, volunteer military, draft, dope, liberty, heroism, freedom, energy independence, Michael Moore, Benghazi, Benghazigate, jihad, Petraeus, everimann, Communism, socialism, military drones, unemployment, mary-jane, marijuana, bhang, cannabis, dope, hashish, hemp, tea, ganja, hash, joint, Obama gold, reefer, roach, weed, doobie, loco weed, Maryjane, Maui wowie, Panama red, Fast and Furious, NSA, propaganda, IRS, U.S., USA, US of A, methane, wind, windmill, George W. Bush, blame Bush, Watergate, George Bush Sr., Sowell, Walter Williams, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Dennis Miller, Morris, Malkin, Coulter, Ingraham, Newt, confederate, Yankee, reb, slavery, Union, Grant, Lincoln, Gettysburg, Civil War, Roosevelt, Yanks, GI, Adams, Truman, military, Romney Ryan, Taliban, Gen. McInerney, Sgt. Bergdahl, AWOL, deserter, desertion, dereliction of duty, Libya, Kurds, Peshmerga, Syria, ISIS, ISIL, Khorasan Group, Dr. Carson, Ben Carson, Doctor Ben Carson, Benjamin Solomon "Ben" Carson, Cara Carleton "Carly" Fiorina, Carly Fiorina, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz, Ted Cruz, Marco Antonio Rubio, Marco Rubio, Randal Howard "Rand" Paul, Rand Paul, Michael Dale Huckabee, Mike Huckabee, John Ellis "Jeb" Bush, Jeb Bush, United States,] Powered by Register.com .