All Episodes
Previous Next
April 16, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
April 16, 2007, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings, welcome back, folks.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh on fire on a roll.
I'm in charge of the thermostat here in the kitchen, and we're turning it up.
Great to have you with us.
As you know, I use half my brain, the other half tied behind my back to make it fair.
And I do this with talent on loan from God right here from the distinguished and prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
And again, I promise you, we're going to get to your phone calls El Quicko.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Now, one other thing here that I want to mention to you because, I mean, look, you can't read an AP story on this Imus whole situation without them alluding to the fact, and I'm sure you've seen it elsewhere.
Well, I mean, what Imus said is what Imus said.
What about Limbaugh?
There's no question that I'm in the crosshairs.
Everybody thinks I'm in the crosshairs next.
What they're wrong about, I've been in the crosshairs long before Imus knew what it was like to be in the crosshairs by a Democrat-funded arm of their machine, this Media Matters for America Tax Exempt Foundation.
And what they do is they listen to these programs, all of them, and they put them up there, and that's where drive-by media types and the liberals hear, or rather, a better point, they read what is said on this program within the context that the watchdog groups choose to present it.
And they never listen.
They do not listen to this program or any others.
They wouldn't deign to lower themselves.
So they rely on these watchdogs.
Mainstream media reporters do it.
They all do.
I'm going to say something.
I asked Mr. Sterdley here at the break if he thought that this would sound too self-serving.
He said, no, you got to say it.
These people that are doing the watchdogging, these people that are running these websites as arms of the Democrat machine and are agenda-driven, all of the critics of this program, they wouldn't last a week behind this microphone with the scrutiny that I've had.
They wouldn't last a week with the scrutiny they give anybody else in conservative broadcast media.
They couldn't handle it.
Most of these people read cue cards on the morning shows or teleprompters or on the newscasts.
You put them behind a microphone with no net.
You put them there with no guests.
You put them there and you say 15 hours and you make it so people want to listen.
They couldn't do it.
And the first moment they were criticized, they would go bonkers and batty.
They couldn't handle it, folks.
They could not deal with the character assassination.
They couldn't deal with the out-of-context and lies, out-of-context reports and lies, which are nothing more than attempts to destroy my credibility and others.
These are people who couldn't do what we do if their lives depended on it and succeed at it.
Another thing about talk radio, this is a spoken word medium.
It is not the printed word.
When you print what is sometimes said on talk radio and you don't get the context and you haven't listened and all you're doing is reading it, you can draw an entirely incorrect inference and conclusion from what has been said.
And this is understood by the watchdog groups who purposely structure what they print about what is said on this program in a way to influence the drive-bys and others who only You know, let me give you the equivalent.
Let's say that I decided to rely on somebody who literally hates the New York Times for my knowledge of what's in the New York Times.
Let's say I decided to stop reading it, and I assigned somebody who I know who hates it to tell me every day what's in it, and then came on this program as an expert about what's in the New York Times.
That's what these watchdog groups are doing.
They're listening to it.
They're characterizing it out of context.
They're putting it in print, a spoken word format.
And then the people who claim to be the experts in journalism in telling us what happened where we weren't there to see it, they don't listen to the source.
They don't take the time to find out what was really said or here to context.
They just believe everything that's written by it about it by people who have an agenda that is paid for by the Democrat Party.
I want to go to an audio soundbite because this leads me to something.
We talked about this last week, but it's got the soundbite today.
Excuse me just a second.
It was on CNBC.
Joe Kernan, the anchor, was interviewing the activist who's really just a Hollywood housewife, Lori David, the wife of Larry David, Seinfeld fame.
And she's up there promoting, you know, she got this bus tour going on out there with Cheryl Crow.
And by the way, both of these women have written, well, Lori David wrote an open letter to Rush Limbaugh on Ariana Huffing and Puffington's Post out there, her blog.
And Cheryl Crowe also got in on the act at the Huffing and Puffington Post after Lori David got involved.
Open letter to me about how I don't understand anything, and they're thanking me for making their points about global warming and all this erratic, seemingly unseasonable, cool weather that we have had in these months that everybody associates with spring.
So Joe Kernan's talking to Lori David said, look, this is something way out in the future.
It's going to be expensive.
We're going to have to deploy a lot of resources for this.
Does it really make sense to do it when we've got all these pressing problems that are so near term?
I don't know how you can say this is way out in the future.
We're seeing the impacts right now, and they're all around us.
And, you know, we just came through the warmest winter we've had, the worst wildfire season we ever had.
I mean, there are records being broken every single day.
2,300 heat records broken last July alone.
How can you say the impacts in the future?
They're happening right this second.
That's why this is so urgent.
That's why we're out in the road talking to college students.
And, you know, we have to start putting all this energy, all the time we have for interviews into how are we going to solve this.
No, How are we?
It's how's everybody else but you going to solve it?
But like in her open letter to me on the Huffing and Puffington Post, she illustrates here her ignorance of the history of weather patterns.
And look at, she cites all these heat records last July.
We're breaking records in this country for cold and snow in April.
But all that gets ignored.
No, I'm sorry, it's not ignored.
In fact, all of this cold weather, this nor'easter up there that disrupted everything, lots of flooding up there, coastal Long Island and New Jersey, flights canceled, cold weather in Minnesota and so forth, that's caused a global warming.
That's what she said in her open letter to me on the Huffing and Puffington Post.
And she's out there, you know, I made mention of the fact that Major League Baseball is having its early season games in some cities wiped out.
And she said, oh, yeah, thanks for making our point, Mr. Limbaugh, because that proves global warming, which is what I've always said, any weather calamity whatsoever, anything they think is.
There is no such thing as a weather calamity because everything that's happening now has happened before.
Weather's what it is, and there's nothing new in weather.
Cold fronts, record cold, record high.
You're always breaking records, Lori.
There's nothing new in it.
But all of a sudden, it's now attributable to just one thing, and that's global warming and so forth.
But anyway, we're getting to them out there because two open letters to me from Lori David and from what's her name, Cheryl Crowe, on the Huffing and Puffington Post.
Quick time out.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
I'm not going to get into this now, but I'm going to get into it before the program ends.
I have a story here.
And the story is by Jim Karras, a New York Times best-selling author.
He's a weight loss expert.
Got a book called A Cardio-Free Diet.
It says the absolute worst thing you can do to lose weight is aerobic exercise, walking on a treadmill on an elliptical machine.
Cardio will hurt you.
Cardio will not cause you to lose weight.
It kills everything except the appetite.
All it does, it kills the internal organs.
He goes into Jim Fix.
He said, you want to do exercise.
It'll help you lose weight.
You've got to do weight training because that's the only thing that'll up your metabolism.
Meaning, I instinctively know what I'm talking about, even when I am not the expert in the subject.
And I'll have details as the program unfolds today.
But here's Mark in Charleston, West Virginia.
Mark, welcome to the EIB Network.
Yes, Russ, a pleasure to speak with you today.
I have three daughters who play in the local school system, play basketball in the school system.
When they play against public schools, they're constantly pummeled by insults of bitch and hoe.
And they tell me that this is normal.
My point would be that the girls, excuse me.
We were late bleeping you.
You caught us totally by surprise.
There are people out there listening to this show trying to destroy it out there.
And there you are calling up and starting using the word.
Thank gosh, I bleep myself.
Well, Russ, I apologize, but this is common in the school system.
Yeah, you people in media matters.
It was Mark in Charleston, West Virginia said it.
I didn't say it.
I would never say the word.
But you said it.
Let them come after you.
That's right.
And it's common in our public school system.
It goes on on the public courts every day.
And I believe that the girls at New Jersey have probably been called this by their opponents before.
We don't know that.
Don't start speculating on this.
Okay, I won't speculate anywhere else.
Well, you might want to say that they might have heard it in music.
They might have.
They might watch MTV or something like that.
But my point would be: if we want to solve this, start in the public schools, have some accountability there.
Well, that would, I mean, that'd be a great place to start.
One of my points early on in this is if you take a look at Imus or anybody else who has uttered these uncomplimentary terms, what have they done to hold anybody back in the inner city school districts in this country?
What have they done to stunt their growth?
What have they done to poison their minds?
What have they done to hurt them in any way?
Zilch, zero, not about who is the people that run the schools.
The drive-by media supports the teachers' union.
The Democrat Party supports the teachers' union.
And these inner city schools are doing genuine damage.
Look at the dropout rate.
They're doing genuine damage.
And if what you say is accurate about these words being tossed around at play, and I don't doubt they are.
They're all over popular culture.
They're all over music.
They're all over books.
They're all over.
Well, they read these young kids in some of these places, but they're certainly watching television.
And it's all over the place out there.
And the people that produce it, manufacture it, sell it, under no scrutiny.
They're not coming under any problem whatsoever.
But that's a good point.
Started on the school playground.
But you see, it boils down to something else.
In your example, two kids on the school ground calling each other these names.
They don't have hate in their hearts.
No, it's only conservatives, they say, who have hate in their hearts and use these words to try to hurt people and try to harm them.
But there's no attempt to harm on the playground, which, of course, we all know one of the most harmful places when the kids get going against each other.
I did hear Snoop Dogg's reaction.
I quoted Snoop Dogg's reaction last week.
You know what Snoop Dogg said?
It's going to be tough.
I can't say the words.
Snoop Dogg said, don't lump us in with this Imus business.
When we, in the rap artist world, when we use those terms, we're talking about specific women.
And these are these lazy bum who only want to steal a money and use the N-word.
They're just laying around trying to steal our money.
So he insults them again in the process of saying, don't compare me to Imus.
He sits and says that the black women in his hood are nothing but a bunch of what?
Sponges?
They're just sitting out there waiting to steal his money and that of his fellow rap artists.
And that's the culture in which they grew up, and it's frustrating and they're trying to alert the world to it.
But don't compare what we sing about to any of the stuff that these right-wing hate guys are saying on the radio and so forth.
Well, what's Snoop Dogg's real name?
Calvin Brodus.
Calvin Brodus.
I saw, what was the movie?
I watched a movie late last week, middle of last week.
And he was a character.
He was a wheelchair-bound ex-con drug addict who was caught for selling cocaine again somewhere on the street in some dingy neighborhood of some dingy city.
And of course, the character was cool.
He got roughed up by the cops, but the character was cool.
I don't know.
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about here.
I told you, I watched the movie last night where the black characters were not portrayed as, you know, anything other than reprehensible.
And who writes this?
We know liberals write this.
So who produces it?
Who films it?
Who directs it?
Who distributes it?
And who's raking in the profits from it?
A bunch of white liberals.
Anyway, I appreciate the call out there, Mark.
This is Lou in Massapequile in Long Island.
How are you doing today, Lou?
Hey, Rush.
I'm doing great.
Thank you, sir.
Listen, I think you're right on when you say that these groups always target the right.
They have one of their own in their midst who's been who's been talking about that H-word forever.
And I'm talking about the Walt Disney Studios, the Walt Disney Studios who had a film that was a little bit more than a hundred years ago.
Oh, you mean they're talking about the dwarfs out there, and they go hi-ho.
They had seven dwarfs, and all they said to this poor young woman was, hi-ho, hi-ho.
Damn.
I'm sorry, folks.
I'm doing my best here.
They ignore.
Hi-ho.
Hi-ho.
No, no.
Oh, gosh, what's going to happen?
I should resign now.
It's all over for us.
You people are not helping me out there today.
I know what Santa, I already addressed this.
Santa coming down the chimney?
Merry Christmas.
This is Benji in Houston.
Benji, nice to have you on the program.
Nice that you're there.
Mega Dittos Rush.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
It is an extreme honor to talk to you.
I have been listening to you since the late 80s.
Well, you've been veritably here from the beginning, then.
I appreciate it.
Almost.
My best friend put me on to you.
But the point I wanted to make is you had a very good point about the liberals and believing that their elitist and that they are better than everyone, but I don't think you took it far enough.
I believe that the liberals believe that they are above everyone because they deify themselves.
And I mean, it's obvious in the way they treat themselves.
You mean like they're the gods.
They're the gods of judgment, the gods of the arbitrators, the arbiters.
Precisely.
And it is evidenced in the media.
It is evidenced in the entertainment industry.
I mean, maybe that's why.
You may be right.
Maybe that's why liberals don't believe in God because they think they are.
Exactly.
Exactly.
That was something that I had said to your call screener.
But I mean, it is a perfect example.
Anyone who is a conservative actor, which I am, by the way, I'm not in the mainstream entertainment industry, but I'm working my way there at any rate.
You have to hide that.
You can't call yourself conservative and make it in the entertainment industry.
You know, Mel Gibson has been vilified for, admittedly, very stupid things that he's done.
Well, that's not...
Look, I know that's a universally held belief, but there are enough exceptions to it that it's...
I think it's in the process of changing a little bit.
It's still oppressive, exactly as you say.
And I know that you, as a young unknown, really have to keep your identity, your ideological identity close to the vest.
You're absolutely right about that.
So, well, best of luck.
I appreciate the loyalty that you have demonstrated and shown over all these years.
And as I said last Thursday, this is, you know, people ask me all the time, well, you know, they're gunning for you.
Next, they say, no, they've been gunning for me for I don't know how long, and they've, you know, they've fired some pretty big shots, still here.
And there's a reason for it, and that is you.
I mean, the connection, the bond of loyalty we have with this audience, and you listen every day, and there are 22 million of you.
You know what's said here and how it's said and what isn't said.
And so you are easily able to recognize when a bunch of BS is going down.
You're able to recognize the attacks that are taken out of context and so forth.
And that you don't get squeamish and you don't say, oh, gosh, I can't support this anymore.
I can't listen to this.
Because you know, because you listen every day that the attacks on this program are not rooted in any fact or truth, but rather out of context innuendo on any number of things.
And for that, I can never fully repay everybody the thank you that I have will have to be sufficient.
But that's one of the reasons why the real power of this program, aside from my brain, is you.
ABC News is now saying 29 are dead at Virginia Tech, and the death toll is expected to rise.
The suspect is dead as well.
One thing I saw when I had a chance to glance at the screen was the shooter was there looking for his girlfriend.
Couldn't find her.
He's lining everybody up and opening fire.
Senseless.
At this point, nobody can make any sense of this.
It is utterly shocking.
So we'll have to wait.
Find out what it was that was behind this.
Back to the audio soundbites.
Pat Schroeder on weekend today on Saturday, Lester Holt interviewed her.
And, of course, the subject was Imos.
And Lester Holt said, where has the outrage been all these years?
Well, the outrage, it's been, I'll tell you what, we've really been tempered.
For many years, there was Rush Lumbaugh used to always call me a feminazi.
I never thought that was funny.
I thought that was horrible.
But, you know, if you said anything about it, people said, oh, those women, they have no sense of humor.
Get over it.
Laugh it off.
You know, what's the laugh off about being called a Nazi?
I don't think it's funny.
Well, speaking of that, Ms. Schroeder, I mean, how many of people on your side of the aisle call George W. Bush that every day?
You've got media figures out there doing a Sieg Heil salute on MSNBC.
And NBC doesn't find anything wrong with that.
Yeah, go do the Sieg Heil salute every night as an attempt to lampoon right-wingers and so forth.
I don't know.
Did I ever name her?
Was she a feminazi?
Was she, I don't recall.
When I came up at the term, there were 12 or 13 feminazis.
And all these women out there thought I was talking about all of them.
And I don't remember if she was in the original list.
She could well have been.
I do remember laughing at her over a number of things.
Like when she fell for the speech, the line I gave in the speech at GOPAC.
You know, the Democrats is a 95 budget deal.
The Democrats are out there saying that Republicans want people to starve, the kids to starve in school.
And they're out there saying that it's getting so bad for senior citizens, they got to choose now between dog food and medicine.
Yeah, and I went out there and I said at GOPAC, I said, well, you know, I just want to greet all of you fellow budget cutters here at GOPAC.
I'm with you.
I just want you to know I'm sensitive to this.
And I went out and bought my mom a brand new can opener for the dog food she's going to eat.
So Pat Schroeder, this is a classic, by the way, a classic illustration.
Somebody told her what I said without the context.
And of course, they don't have any sense of humor on the lip.
Nowhere do they laugh or smile.
None of them are happy about anything and can't laugh.
So she goes to the floor of the House of Representatives and tells this story as though I was dead serious about it.
But I guess the PS designs, you know, she ran for the, or thought about running for the Democratic presidential nomination at some point.
Early 90s, what was it, 92?
It had to be 92 because it wasn't 96 and it wasn't 88.
No, wait, it might have been 88.
Might have been 88.
Yes, it could very well have been 88.
Now, I've been following Pat Schroeder as a struggling and striving young talk show host of the future.
And I never saw anything about her husband.
She never talked about her husband.
The media never talked about her husband.
I knew it was Mrs. Pat Schroeder, but her husband was a non-factor.
And then one day she went to the base of the Rockies to announce that she was not going to seek the presidential nomination of her party after all.
And there was this mystery guy standing next to her.
I'd never seen this guy before.
And when she announced that she was not going to seek the nomination, she started crying.
And she said she concluded she couldn't win.
And then the tears came.
I just, I can't win.
And then she fell into the arms of this guy and started crying on his shoulder, who I later learned was her husband Jim.
And this was the first time, yeah, feminazis didn't do that.
So I don't know that she was ever an original feminist, but I don't, that's the first time I'd ever seen her husband.
And what did she, this was, and in fact, I know this, this might have been 84.
Because I was, no, I, it did, well, but I remember talking about this in Sacramento, and I didn't leave there until 1988 in July.
I don't remember when it was.
It's really not relevant.
It was in one of those spans.
But I do remember that that video was all over television.
And feminists were not happy because she had turned to the arms of a man in a time of suffering, distress, and discomfort, and she's crying and so forth.
This was setting the movement back, which, of course, just inspired me to play the video and the audio of it all the more.
We got one more from Pat Schroeder, again with Lester Holt interviewing her on the weekend today show on NBC Saturday.
Holt says, we keep having a conversation.
Are we changing, though, as a culture?
Part of it, what we're seeing in Iraq, we're seeing in Iraq the Shiites and the Sunnis fighting tremendously, and they've gotten to realize diverse democracy is a difficult thing to do.
We really can't allow people to stereotype and attack other folks on public airways and do things like that.
Because that's the kind of, you breed all sorts of hatred and things that way.
It's just not a good thing to do.
And so I think maybe we're having a pullback from this meanness where we really thought meanness was cute and somehow it was masculine or something.
I don't know.
But let's hope there's a real pullback on that.
Did I know I heard that, right?
Because I followed it on the transcript.
And she's out there saying that something that's 1,200 years old, the Shias and the Sunnis hating each other's guts, is because of Imus and because of the coarseness of the culture in this country.
Public airwave?
What public airwaves in Iraq?
Part of it's we're seeing it in Iraq.
They're stupid.
They're just playing.
She's wandering in vain here for any cogent thought.
She was speaking without knowing where she was going.
And I'm sure when she finished this, she thought that she had really hit the nail on the head.
It had really been brilliant.
All she's done here is illustrate her ignorance of the situation between the Shiites and the Sunnis.
They've hated each other long before we got over there.
They've hated each other for decades, centuries, for crying out loud.
But now all of a sudden it's because the American culture is coarsened by people on the public airwaves.
I'm telling you, folks, this is about getting rid of people on the public airwaves that liberals don't want to listen to and they don't want anybody else to hear as well.
Ron and Corpus Christi, Texas, I'm glad you waited, sir.
You're next on the EIB network.
Yes, hello, Rush.
Hello.
I just wanted to mention David Brock, who is the president of Media Matters.
He put out a statement on last Wednesday on the 11th.
And in part of the statement, he said, more Americans are coming to understand the damage done by major news organizations providing a platform for bigoted commentary and other conservative misinformation.
And so he's hinting that Imus is saying that Imus is a conservative.
So then the LA Times on the 13th, I'm listening to.
That's exactly right.
I was going to remind you, if you hadn't said it, the L.A. Times picked up exactly what they wrote at Media Matters about Imus being a conservative.
And the L.A. Times in an editorial called Imus conservative.
Now, what do you think?
That's it.
Here's a guy supports John Kerry, is opposed to the war.
His primary guests are all these liberal media elites.
And all of a sudden, Imus had to turn out to be a conservative.
And he's not a conservative.
And the L.A. Times, who's the editors out there, well, I don't know.
Imus probably doesn't have an L.A. station anymore.
But for crying out loud, if they're news people, I got to be more informed than that.
But no, no, no, no.
Their little supply source, Media Matters for America, arm of the Democrat Party, George Soros-funded taxing foundation going on calling Imus a conservative, and they may just run with it.
Yes.
What was your next point?
I was going to say that, okay, after the LA Times did their article, then Media Matters put up a response.
And they tried to say that Imus was a conservative.
They were answering the L.A. Times trying to prove a point.
And the way they did the column was, he's a conservative, therefore he's a bad guy.
He ought to be taken off the air just because he's a conservative.
But the points they were making were ludicrous.
He's not a conservative.
Everybody knows that.
Wait a minute.
Are you telling me that what happened was Media Matters first writes of Imos as a conservative?
The L.A. Times then picks that up and also calls him a conservative.
They called him a liberal.
And then so Media Matters put out a response saying, no, Imos is a conservative.
He's just a bad guy.
Well, okay.
I missed one of the three steps because I could have sworn the L.A. Times called him conservative after Media Matters did.
I know, I read it.
I don't have the article in front of me, but Brock was disagreeing with him being termed a liberal.
I read that article.
I read the statement in front of me.
I read the other two.
I don't have a printout of the other two.
I have a printout of Brock's original statement.
Well, whatever.
They had to switch into high gear to do the CYA out there.
But I think what Media Matters and Brock are going to do, like you said, they're going to use Imos as a vehicle to try to take out other conservative media.
That's right.
There's no question about that.
It's like Sharpton and Jackson are going after rap music.
That's to give them street cred when they come back after a while because they don't want to cause a backlash.
I mean, it's going to be a while before they zero in.
Well, I know he's got his list ready, Mr. Sterdley.
Sharpton's got his list ready, but they're going to give it some time.
They don't want to create a backlash.
They'll go after rap music that make a show of going after rap music, give them street cred.
And then the Media Matters type says, hey, what is this?
Allegations that we're out here trying to target conservatives.
Look at Imos.
He was liberal.
We don't care.
Yeah, we'll find all the other liberal hate speech on that website they chronicle.
You won't.
Thanks for the call out there, Ron.
We've got to be back after this.
Stay with us.
Hey, we're back.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network at 800-282-2882.
See, here's the thing.
This is the way this is all shaping up out there.
You can't criticize people on the radio.
You can't do it.
You can't attack them.
You can't defend yourself.
You can't defend others who are attacked by the damage.
You can't do this on radio.
You can do it on the floor of Congress.
You can go to the floor of Congress, the floor of the House, floor of the Senate.
You can say some of the most despicable things about people, as Tom Harkin has about me or his fellow senators or whatever.
You can do that all day long, and nobody, no, no, can't.
We're not going to stop that.
Congressional hearings, how about how they try to destroy the character and the careers of judicial nominees at the Senate Judiciary?
You can do that all day long, and Media Matters won't care.
And the drive-by, in fact, they'll love it.
They love it.
This is cool.
And then these senators are written up as great heroes for daring to tell the truth about these despicable conservatives who want to take over the court and deny you women the right to choose or whatever other fear tactic they lie about.
TV news hit jobs.
Television news can do a hit job and destroy anybody they want.
The New York Times can do a hit job and destroy anybody they want.
But you can't do this on radio because they're going to come after you.
You do this on radio.
Conservatives do this in the alternative media.
Now, I'm going to tell you what the objective is out there, folks, in case some of you are all entertained by this.
Understand that this is a Democrat Party drive-by media Clinton image machine or Clinton machine agenda, and it is to suppress and kill conservative information, which it labels misinformation.
Conservative information, by definition, according to the template of the Drive-By Media and the Media Matters of the world, is misinformation.
But they will say that their purpose is to eliminate conservative information because it's misinformation.
Because there's a template, and the template is conservatives are racist, and as such, they have to be banned.
Of course, in the culture, we can't put up with this.
They've got to be banned from cable.
They've got to be banned from Fox News.
They've got to be banned from radio.
Conservatives are also liars.
That's another template that conservatives are liars.
They've got to be snuffed out.
And this is the purpose of the Drive-By Media, the Democrat Party, and the Clintons, who are funding with their supporters all these watchdog efforts.
This is Stalinist, folks.
This is an attack on certain kinds of information that is protected by a template which says all conservative information is misinformation.
It is reported by liars and racists.
And that's the foundation under which they all proceed.
And they're all in on it.
And that is what is happening.
It's, you know, it's a general rule.
They would love to do this, but we're gearing up for this election.
And if you don't think that in the drive-by media and the Democrat Party, if you don't think 2008 is all about the Clintons got back in the White House, you've got another thing coming.
I'm going to tell you today, I'm going to sit here and I'm going to tell you, as we sit here today, there is an 80% chance that Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States.
If you look at the way things are falling out right now, they're trying to take out Rudy Giuliani.
Guess what?
Rudy's a draft dodger.
Now, did you see this story over the weekend?
Well, you know, Clinton was a draft dodger, so they got Rudy.
Rudy's a draft dodge.
Whatever was said about Clinton, they're going after it.
Rudy's a draft dodger.
Rudy's philander or whatever it is.
They're doing everything they can to take Rudy out.
Everybody says, well, what about Obama?
What about Obama?
Folks, if you are the, and I know there are stories out there how the Clintons are worried about Obama and not just on this fundraising stuff, but his godlike status to the godless and so forth.
If you're the Clinton machine and your single competitor is somebody with less than two years experience in these foxholes, do you really think they are worried about Barack Obama?
If you have fallen for the notion that the Clinton machine is sort of upside down and discombobulated and doesn't quite know what's going on here, you are falling for more myths from the media, which is designed to make it look like she has real competition so that she can overcome obstacles rather than being this candidate of inevitability, which she is.
So they're trying to make it look like she's got a serious challenge and she's up to it and she can handle it.
But I'm telling you, I know the Clinton machine.
If you think they are seriously worried about somebody with as little experience as Obama has in these kinds of things, then you're falling, you're being sucked in for all this.
There is an 80% chance this woman's going to be next president.
As things sit here today, I mean, in politics, everything can change.
And it can change on a moment's notice.
But all of these attacks And all of this, this budding attempt, and it's not new, it's just intensifying now, to discredit conservative information as misinformation reported by liars and racists is about destroying the credibility of anybody who has anything in opposition to say to the Clintons and their quest to be re-ensconceded in the White House.
That's what all this is about.
It's also about making sure that if Mrs. Clinton wins and so forth, that there won't be an alternative media.
Hello, fairness doctrine.
Hello, all of these things to just squelch it.
They don't want to hear it.
They want to go back to their monopoly days.
And that's what this is all about.
So when you keep talking about this in the context of Imus, it's so much more about things having nothing to do with IMUS than you would possibly believe.
In fact, don't get distracted when you think about this by putting it in the context of Imus.
Because if it was about Imus, it'd be over, wouldn't it?
And it is not, is it?
ABC now says 32 dead at Virginia Tech.
And there were two periods of shooting, and they kept classes open, apparently.
But it's just total confusion here as to what this is all about.
They'll be back and continue.
▲
Export Selection