All Episodes
Previous Next
May 10, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:40
May 10, 2007, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I do.
I think I'm the one that needs Secret Service protection.
All this talk about Obama and his presidential candidates for crying out loud, I'm the one that needs it.
And you got the UK Guardian and the BBC misreporting all of this Barack the Magic Negro song stuff.
And in Baltimore today, our 50,000-watt flamethrower radio station there, WCBM, puts billboards up of me all over town, and one of them was defaced today.
Somebody went in there and poured paint all over the lower half of my face.
And you know who reported?
By the way, greetings and welcome.
It's Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
Great to have you with us.
Three hours of Broadcast Excellence straight ahead.
It was some guy from the Public Works Department, a guy named Robert Murrow, a spokesman for the Baltimore Department of Public Works, saw the vandalized billboard as he's driving into work this morning on I-83, and he called the Baltimore sun.
He called the newspaper to report it.
So the newspaper sends a photographer out there, get pictures of it, and they've been running stories.
This guy's boss at the Department of Public Works has now chastised Mr. Murrow for endorsing vandalism, because Murrow said it did his heart good.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, it looks great.
They threw gobs of paint on Limbaugh's face.
Looks great.
Did my heart good to see the vandalized billboard?
And so the guy's boss said, well, hey, big problem here.
You can't go out there and endorse vandalism like this guy did.
He's been spoken to about it.
I'm just waiting for all of the cable news networks.
They're probably at this moment sending video crews to Baltimore.
And they're going to be roundtable discussions later on what's happening to the civility in Arsis.
And I will be blamed for defacing my own billboard.
Whoever did it will be made a hero.
You just know that they're scrambling now to get video of this before the billboard's fixed.
The general manager of WCBM, Bob Pettit, said they're going to fix it this afternoon or fix it sometime today.
He said it's tough to be number one people to face billboards all the time.
Yeah, that's true, but it doesn't make the news when it happens.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, Mitt Romney, very upset.
Romney said yesterday that comments by the Reverend Sharpton about Mr. Romney and his Republican presidential candidacy was proof that bigotry still exists in some corners.
Romney, as you know, is a Mormon, was campaigning in Iowa when reporters asked his reaction to what the Reverend Sharpton said Monday during a debate on atheism and religious belief.
What Sharpton said was, as for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don't worry about that.
That's a temporary situation.
That comment in an exchange with the atheist author Christopher Hitchens drew some criticism.
Sharpton refused to back down in a phone interview Wednesday, saying he had not implied that Mormons did not believe in God.
I mean, you can judge for yourself what he said.
As for the Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway.
So how can this be about anybody but Mitt Romney?
How can it be about all Republicans, which is one of Sharpton's defenses here?
In a statement released by his office, the Reverend Sharpton said in response to Hitchens, I predicted that believers, not atheists, would vote against the candidate, in this case, Mr. Romney, for political, not religious reasons.
In no way did I attack Mormons or the Mormon church when I responded to other believers, not atheists.
In a phone interview with the New York Times, Sharpton said that unlike many conservative Protestants and Roman Catholics, he believes that Mormons are Christians, but he also said Romney should be pressed about his church's history and beliefs.
Sharpton, going on offense here, says, I believe if any religion preaches supremacy or unequalness, they are not true believers in God.
That's what he said.
And we got, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, the Justice Brothers are clients of ours.
They are sponsors, and they went, I mean, they were in a mad dash.
They were in a hurry and sent us this commercial to run during their purchase time today.
So there you shaping up to me.
There you have it.
The Justice Brothers, their official response to Sharpton's controversy with Mitt Romney and Mormons.
By the way, we checked, and those of you watching today on the Ditto Cam know full well that what was that?
Something spit the cue there.
Justice Brothers commercial trying to run itself again.
It has a mind of its own, the Justice Brothers commercial.
Anyway, our Ditto Cam was not vandalized today, as those of you who are watching on the Ditto Cam can plainly see no paint has been thrown on the bottom half of the screen.
By the way, folks, I got to tell you, you know, yesterday I mentioned my friend's new product, Dr. Tillet Suits, and I was afraid of this.
You've caused the product to be backordered now at Williams Sonoma.
You can't get it until the 15th of May.
A lot of people got it yesterday, but so many of you went out there and wanted to try.
And you'll be happy with Dr. Tillet Suits.
It's a great little product that enhances every one of your recipes and makes great, bloody Virgin Marys to boot.
But anyway, I just want to, we went to the Williams Sonoma site.
We even called them because we wanted to get pictures of the product and put it up there so you could see it.
And they said, well, we're backordered to May 15th.
Thank you, Mr. Limbel.
By the way, you're going to take, we got a case of it here, so we're going to, have you taken the pictures yet to send up to the website?
What were you doing all morning?
You were sitting there all morning.
You had all this time to take pictures of the Dr. Tillet Suits bottles.
No, he better not have been drinking Bloody Marys.
If there's any vodka in here, I want to know about it.
Is there any vodka in here?
By the way, our morning update yesterday, in which do I know these people?
Do I know these or do I not know these?
Our morning update yesterday suggested various positions that Democrats need to take regarding the Fort Dix 6 if they are to be consistent.
And one of the things that I suggested was we need to find out who this store clerk is.
Democrats need to expose this guy.
This is the real criminal here, the informant.
And by golly, by gosh, the New York Times has a story today on the informant and who is he and how we can't trust informants and this sort of thing.
Oh, let's take a brief time out.
I'll come back.
I'll share with you again the morning update.
Then we'll go to the New York Times story right after this.
Hey!
Hey, hey, I didn't look, I didn't order this.
What do you mean it won't stop?
What do you mean you can't stop it?
It's playing itself.
you telling me it's playing itself?
I've never heard of this before.
What do you mean it won't stop?
Look, look.
We're going to have to do something about this.
It tried to play itself in the last segment and it did play itself.
I don't believe this.
Okay, de-gaus the thing.
Just degaus the Kamara.
Oh, they got something in the computer system here that makes it fire on its own.
Greetings.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh and the EIB network.
Here is yesterday's, well, this morning's morning update.
If Democrats were consistent, they would defend the six foreign-born Muslims under arrest for planning a slaughter at Fort Dix.
The plot was exposed by a video store clerk asked to duplicate a DVD showing the Fort Dix six losing weapons and grenades and calling for jihad.
Four are from the former Yugoslavia.
One's from Jordan, the other from Turkey.
Three are in the country illegally.
Two have green cards.
One is an American citizen.
That's what I said in the update.
First, Democrats, Democrats I know, ought to expose the store clerk who was obviously helping the Bush administration illegally spy domestically and put this guy in jail.
And then the Democrats that I know would leak the clerk's name to the New York Times.
And if they did, you could count on the fact that that information would be published.
Well, lo and behold, the role of an FBI informer draws praise as well as questions about legitimacy.
Is the headline in the New York Times, do we know these people or do we know these people?
It was August 2006 when one of the young Muslim men accused of plotting to kill soldiers at Fort Dix first broached the idea according to authorities.
Talking to an informer who was secretly taping the exchange, the young man said that he thought he could round up six or seven other men willing to take part and that a rocket-propelled grenade might be the most effective weapon, the authorities said.
And he had one more notion.
He wanted the informer to lead the attack, according to a federal complaint.
I am at your services, the young man is quoted as telling the informer who had presented himself as an Egyptian with a military background.
Moving forward in the story, since 9-11, law enforcement officials have praised the work of such informers, saying that they have been doing exactly what they should be doing, gaining access to the world of a possible threat, playing along to see just how far suspects were willing to go, and allowing the authorities to act before the potential terrorists did.
In the case of the men arrested this week, the authorities have been emphatic.
The men were prepared to kill and to die in the effort, and the informer was vital to preventing any loss of life.
As the case goes forward, the role of the main informer will almost surely be contested.
Over the years, informers in terror cases have become the focus of efforts by defense lawyers and others to call into question the legitimacy of the investigation.
Well, later on in the update, I suggest that Democrats and Democrats that I know would prosecute the authorities who arrested the Fort Dix six.
Not only did investigators racially profile fine upstanding members of the community, they questioned their immigration status, which is nobody's business.
And then the Democrats that I know would demand that these wannabe terrorists, especially the undocumented ones, be accorded every protection granted U.S. citizens.
They shouldn't be banished to Club Gittmore or be classified as enemy combatants.
In fact, they ought to be released in their own recognizance, lest our evil military torture them.
And they should be given lawyers.
They should be given access to every constitutional right that U.S. citizens have.
And here's the New York Times essentially calling for it.
As the case goes forward, the role of the main informer will almost surely be contested.
Over the years, informers in terror cases have become the focus of efforts by defense lawyers and others to call into question the legitimacy of the investigation.
And certainly the work of informers can sometimes seem murky.
In one instance, the informer who was the main witness in a major terror financing case in Brooklyn almost didn't make it to the witness stand after he set himself afire in front of the White House to protest his compensation by his FBI handlers.
In the criminal complaint they filed against the six men in New Jersey, the Fort Dick Six, federal prosecutors took the step of including information about an earlier problem involving their main informer.
Prosecutors acknowledged that the informer, who months before he became involved in a Fort Dicks case, had misled investigators in order to protect a friend.
Whoa, we used a man of questionable character to save lives.
That's how you translate that.
The New York Times is distressed.
We've used somebody of questionable character as an informant to save lives.
The prosecutors have put out only snippets of conversations rather than the entire context of conversations, said Rocco Ciperoni, who represents another of the six, Mohammed Ibrahim Schneer.
On some occasions, the informer appears to have played a slightly more provocative role.
Anyway, they go on and on and on.
This is about discrediting the informer, discrediting the use of informants, playing up the role the defense lawyers for the Fort Dick Six are going to have.
I just wanted to point it out to you because yesterday, I predicted it.
Right here in today's morning update.
Speaking of the New York Times, get this.
This is from yesterday's New York Times coverage of the Fort Dick Six Jihad.
For all the suspects' talk of holy war and martyrdom, investigators said there's little indication that they were devout or even practicing Muslims.
Leaders at nearby Muslim houses of worship said they had never seen the suspects, and they were troubled to learn that they had tried to use faith as a justification for their plan.
Oh, see, they were not.
They weren't Muslims.
Nobody knew them as Muslims.
No, no, no, no.
They're just a ragtag bunch.
And of course, as we pointed out yesterday, it's not the membership in the group that matters.
It's the ideology that they carry forward.
And we did a yeoman's job yesterday of providing information to you about how the white al-Qaeda groups from the Kosovo area have infiltrated the...
Hell, they were brought here by the Clinton administration in huge numbers back in 1999.
Anyway, all that's on the website yesterday.
I don't want to repeat all of that.
So yesterday's New York Times, investigators said little indication they were devout or even practicing Muslims.
Here's today's New York Times coverage of the Fort Dick Six.
In big immigrant family religion-guided three held in Fort Dix plot, the three Duca brothers, Eljiver, Shane, and Drayton, not only prayed here at Philadelphia at the Al-Aqsa Islamic Center, but also recently began repairing its roof.
Oh, they care.
The work came naturally to them as members of a large family of ethnic Albanian immigrants who own more than a dozen roofing companies in New York and New Jersey.
They fixed the roof free of charge, encouraged by their imam to do good deeds.
One congregant said the men were storing up credit for the afterlife.
Afterlife credits now.
You go out and buy afterlife credit.
Yesterday's New York Times said that they have little indication that they were devout or even practicing Muslims.
See, that's the template.
But now, no, no, no, no.
I mean, they prayed at the Al-Aqsa Islamic Center.
They were repairing the roof.
Big immigrant family, religion guided three of the Fort Dix six.
The job remains half finished, the roof repair, after the brothers and three other Muslim men were taken into custody this week, charged with plotting a terrorist.
Oh, you mean the mosque's roof is now not finished because these three guys have been apprehended because of a squirrely informant?
Their arrests reverberated through the extended Duka dynasty from southern New Jersey to the village of Debar in Macedonia, the family's ancestral home.
It's fine to be a religion man, said Murat Duka, 55, distant relative of the defendants.
But if you get too much to the religion, you get out of your mind and you do stupid things.
Well, yes, see, yesterday they weren't devout.
Now, they're huge.
That's the New York Times and the way they are sifting and shifting and dancing.
A lot of other stories about this today.
AP, one of the six Muslim men suspected of plotting the massacre at Fort Dix, had bomb recipes in his car.
I want to know who planted them.
That's what I want to know.
Who set this guy up?
He also referred to Osama bin Laden as Uncle Benny.
Wait a second.
We were told yesterday that these guys were not tied to bin Laden.
You know, if the Democrats I know would demand an apology to Osama bin Laden, his name has been mismerged here.
There are no ties.
The New York Times tells us and the rest of the drive-by tell us that there are no connections between the Fort Dix six and Osama bin Laden and his name's being dragged through the mud here.
Bin Laden is owed an apology and maybe from the United States of America as well, just like we need to apologize to all other Muslim nations and ask for their forgiveness.
How are we ever going to become friends with these people if we continue to do things like Uncle Benny?
What an absolutely disrespectful way to refer to one of the greatest minds in the Muslim world, Uncle Benny.
This country should apologize.
Or it may be too late.
There is no gonna about it.
We are having a good time.
That's what we do.
You're the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I, of course, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling Maha Rushi here at the distinguished and highly acclaimed Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
This is Alan in Richmond, Virginia.
Hi, Alan.
Great to have you with us today on the program.
Thanks, Rush, undergraduate of the EIB.
And I'm going to need some depends if you don't stop playing all those clips.
And I'm only 40 because it's just too funny.
But my question in regards to the Reverend Sharpton is, if he's the authority on God and who goes to heaven, why can't I just be the authority on NAPI?
I mean, the double standard is just ridiculous.
What's it going to take to stop this nonsense?
I really don't know.
I think it's only going to get worse.
I mean, the trends are that it's definitely getting worse.
And I can tell you why it's getting worse, but I don't know what's going to stop it other than people refusing to be bullied by it.
Look at what has happened here.
You can attack the president all you want.
The Democrats can do everything in the world they can, and their allies and their buddies can go out and say the most outrageous defamatory things about the president and other Republicans for that matter.
You can attack the president all you want, regardless of the threats made against him.
Same with the vice president.
Same with Clarence Thomas.
Same with just the list is endless.
Obama, Barack Obama, makes a ridiculous mistake saying 10,000 people killed in Kansas, but that's okay.
He's tired.
He was simply tired.
But Bush, the president of the United States with all the world's problems on his shoulders, not just tired from a presidential campaign, makes a mistake, and he is an idiot.
And of course, they sweep Obama's mistake under the rug.
In fact, you know, the CBS, one of their websites, Alan, has restricted all Obama comments.
Can't comment on Obama.
It was getting too out of hand.
It was after this 10,000 dead in Kansas.
Of course, the 10,000 dead in Kansas is politicizing a tornado.
That comment was purely politicizing a tornado to advance the Democrat Party agenda.
And the real scary thing about the video of Obama making that comment is those people in the audience in Richmond, Virginia, nodding their heads in agreement.
As for Sharpton, for decades, he has been spewing racism, anti-Semitic venom.
Now he's out there smearing Mormons, and he's treated as a civil rights leader.
CBS executives meet with him.
NBC execs listen to him.
And he decides who lives and dies.
He's the chief of police of speech in this country, apparently.
Now, you ask, when is this going to end?
One of two things is going to happen here.
And I don't know which, but it may be both, actually.
This is only going to get worse.
You have to understand that this is being done by design and on purpose.
The purpose of all of this is to squelch free speech on the right.
And I'm going to tell you when this started.
Well, it's hard to peg when it started because liberals have always been this way.
I mean, they're the inventors, the creators of political correctness, multiculturalism.
They are single-handedly responsible for the trepidation and fear that ordinary Americans feel when they simply want to open their mouths and say something anywhere about anything.
Everybody's just scared to death now for fear they're going to be labeled and targeted, fired, what have you.
And so it's working.
It has a chilling effect.
People, you know, they'll tell jokes in their own homes and do whatever, but outside, you've got to be very careful.
You know, you got all these camera phones out there, and you never know when somebody's going to take a picture of you doing something and where it's going to end up.
But I think the modern intensity of this can be traced to the Democrats losing the Congress in 1994.
You have to remember, and this is a psychological study, they owned Washington for 40 years, in and out of having the presidency.
When you have the House of Representatives, you own the town.
I mean, that's where spending bills originate, regardless what the White House wants.
And for many of those 40 years, they dominated the Senate as well.
But regardless what the status was with their White House fortunes, the fact is when you run the House for 40 years, you become almost like royalty in your own mind.
You think of yourself as monarchs.
All of a sudden, they lost it.
And folks, I can't emphasize enough the impact that had on them.
That threw them for a whole bunch of loops, a whole bunch of 180-degree loops.
Well, now they've got it back, and they are damned if they're ever going to lose it again.
It ain't going to happen.
They are not going to let a 1994 happen again.
They've also lost their monopoly in the drive-by media.
And they lost that a few years before the Democrats lost the House.
And so the media has now thrown it all away, and they've chosen sides.
The Drive-By Media is on the agenda page, and they make no bones.
They just won't admit it, but they are.
They're there.
They make no attempt to cover their alliances.
They make no attempt to cover their desired outcomes.
They still claim their objective, but they're no longer trying to really hide the nuts and bolts of their work.
And all of this is because these two entities, the Democrat Party and the Drive-By Media, have lost dominance.
They have lost these massive monopolies.
And they are enraged.
And you come forward to Florida 2000 and you throw that in the mix.
They still think the election was stolen from them.
And they still think that Bush allowed 9-11 to happen in order to give him something serious to do in his presidency.
35% of Democrats think that.
Scary, but they do.
And so they've always been intolerant.
That's why they invented political correctness.
It's why they invented feminism.
It's why they've done all of these isms that are designed to get factions of America at war with one another, men versus women, black versus white, union versus non-union, you name it.
The liberals are the architects of all this.
They want constant chaos and tumult.
Now, the situation we find ourselves in now is that since they've won that election in November, they're feeling newly empowered, flexing their muscles.
And they're not going to put up with things they don't want to hear, folks.
They're just not going to put up with it.
They're going to do everything they can to silence it.
They don't care to debate because as far as liberals are concerned, there is no debate.
Liberalism is the one and only answer, and there's no reason to debate.
People who aren't liberal are just cockroaches.
They're idiots.
They're kooks.
They're freaks.
And they don't deign to grant any kind of authenticity or intelligence to anybody who's not a liberal.
So they become arrogant and condescending, and they're treating everybody like they've treated average Americans all these years, and that is looked down on them and think they're incompetent and incapable.
But they know that what we say is a threat because they know that in their hearts, they know what they're doing.
They are denying an alternative to what they think because their ideas can't stand the test of a side-by-side comparison with ours.
And so they are trying to silence anybody on the right who offers those ideas in particularly in an effective way.
And they're doing everything they can to discredit and to destroy the people who do articulate those ideas.
They don't want to put up with it.
And so where's this going to stop?
It's getting absurd.
It really, my first reaction when the Sharpton thing happened, and everybody, here we get, everybody blowing up.
Look at what's happening to us.
And then this billboard on Rush Street in Chicago that said, the tagline was get a divorce.
But what was the, it was a harmless.
What was it?
Life's too short, get a divorce.
Oh, there was hell to paper.
All kinds of people getting all bit out of shape about it because there were some scantily clad women.
What's happened to us?
We become so paranoid and so sensitive.
Are our feelings exposed outside our skin?
Can nobody deal with anything anymore?
You know, Alan, you asked me when's this going to stop.
When Sharpton made his comments to Christopher Hitchens in that debate, it seems like half the news these days is who's offended by what somebody else said.
And it's either going to keep going and get worse to the point that the people who are offended feel empowered because they're going to be able to shut down things they don't want to hear, or it's going to reach the point of utter absurdity and people are going to stand up and say, enough of this.
That's not offensive.
And even if it is, grow up.
We are not going to sit here and let the offended determine who can say and do what.
But that's where we're headed.
So, and you look at Sharpton and Obama.
I mean, Sharpton, he's going to get a total pass.
He issues this statement.
Okay, Al Spoke.
Joe Biden and call Obama clean and articulate.
Oh, you know, that's just bites.
Sometimes he loses control of his mouth.
Good old Joe.
Or you can have Biden once again talking about 7-Elevens in his state of Delaware and how you better learn how to speak an Indian dialect when you go into one because that's the only people that work there.
Oh, that's just Joe.
You let a conservative Republican say anything like what Sharpton said or Obama.
If George Bush or somebody said, hey, did you see that death toll out there in Kansas?
Greenberg said, 10,000 people, it would still be the front page headline about what an idiot the Republican who said that was.
But they sweep it under the rug for Obama because then this is another factor.
Obama and Sharpton and practically everybody else in the Democrat Party is a minority.
Women are minorities.
African Americans are minorities.
Labor unions are minorities.
The illegal immigrant coalition, that's their minorities, on and on and on.
And so as minorities, you have to understand in the liberal worldview, they're powerless.
And so Sharpton can say all these outrageous things, but he doesn't have any power to enforce it on anybody.
He's just a preacher.
He just is an African American trying to overcome such long odds with the civil rights struggle.
We have to allow these people some headway.
Plus, in something that's a stark difference between those guys and us, they will not eat their own.
They will not throw their own down the river overboard or off the bus.
They rally the wagons, circle the wagons around them, and they protect each other.
Republicans, of course, will go out there and they'll throw Gonzalez overboard and they'll throw Rumsfeld overboard and they'll join the chorus to get rid of whoever the Democrats want us to get rid of, all because they think that's virtuous.
And in the process, they do not understand the nature and terms of the literal war that we are in.
But I'll tell you something, folks.
It's a real war.
And when these people have success in stifling speech, you know, it's, and they're having a lot of success, and they're doing it without a whole lot of speech cops.
And I'm not talking about speech uttered by people like me or others in the microphones and cameras.
I'm talking about you.
Ask yourselves, how many times a day do you want to say something and you stop?
I better not say that.
Somebody might misunderstand.
I might get.
You are censoring yourselves because the offended out there have the power over you.
And especially if your boss happens to be one of the offended, then you are really censoring yourselves.
I don't know where this is going to end.
It doesn't look good as far as I'm concerned.
But that's what little part I play in this.
That's why I am not going to back down on any of this.
And I am not going to look the other way at it.
And I'm not going to be silenced or shut up.
And neither should you.
Anyway, I'm a little long here.
Let's take a break.
We'll do that.
Be back after this and continue.
Stay with us.
Let me give you another example of the left circling the wagons to protect their own and how the drive-by media is in on the Democrat Party agenda.
This week's Newsweek magazine cover story is on political courage.
And their headline is, Wanted a New Truman.
Evan Thomas is one of the writers of the Newsweek cover story.
And he acknowledges John McCain as having political courage based on his time in the Hanoi Hilton.
He says all the candidates will use their life stories to show a sense of moral purpose.
And then he gets to Hillary Clinton.
Now, what do you think, from the standpoint of Newsweek magazine, the Drive-By Media, what do you think Hillary Clinton's display of moral purpose was?
Well, excuse me.
Let me read to you what Evan Thomas wrote.
Hillary Clinton had a stark moral choice, whether to stay with her husband when President Clinton's philandering with Monica Lewinsky was exposed.
Her decision to stand by him could not have been easy.
So I guess the moral courage of Hillary Clinton was displayed by not condemning her husband's adultery, but tolerating it and thus maintaining political viability for their party.
That is how, folks, everything, if you want to understand liberals like I do, and I know many of you would love to be able to do it as well as I do, you have to look at every aspect of liberalism through their prism of politics.
You can't look at, they don't look at morality the same way you and I do.
They don't look at any cultural issue the same way you and I do.
Hillary Clinton, in the latest news week, is applauded for moral courage because she held the party together.
She could have destroyed the Democrat Party if she would have condemned morally her husband's adultery.
But she didn't.
She hung in there, and her moral courage allowed the Democrat Party to thrive and prosper in their minds.
That's their version of morality.
Their moral plays have political outcomes.
And if the political outcome's good for the Democrat Party, good for liberalism, then it's moral.
If it isn't, it's immoral.
That's why you and I, to them, are immoral.
We don't advance their agenda.
And if you, I'm serious, if you want to understand them, it is how you have to look at what they make.
They're very good at covering it up.
Well, we care about people.
We want people to get out of poverty or what have you.
It's the exact opposite of that.
Everything has a political prism, and the view of whether or not it's good, bad, moral, or immoral is whether or not it advances that agenda, pure and simple.
This is Mark and Lawrence, Kansas.
Nice to have you, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Well, thanks, Rush.
Been listening to 17-year dittos.
Thank you, sir very much.
Appreciate you.
My 16-year-old daughter will name her first child Reagan, and a lot of that's due to you.
So I wanted to call with what you're talking about.
Wait a second.
Why is her first son not being named?
Rush.
Well, you know, maybe.
I'm just kidding with them.
Just kidding.
The second one, maybe.
With this New York Times story on the informants, it sounds to me like they're trying to work up their own version of the anti-stitch campaign.
Well, yeah, they are.
But again, it's more than that.
They are trying to discredit the government in the war on terror.
They are trying to say that the use of informants isn't trustworthy.
This guy's got a sordid past.
Does he have an axe to grind?
And they say, and by the way, he's lied on previous occasions, and so he's tainted.
And read some of these stories.
Why, these are just good Muslims are building their roof at their mosque.
And here comes this informant and this video guy who turned in the video that they want to duplicate it and so forth.
No, no, no.
The purpose of the New York Times is to advance the liberal agenda.
And the liberal agenda today includes defeat in the war on terror and defeat in Iraq.
And the liberal agenda today is we fear and face no threat from Muslims.
Bush is the threat.
Bush is what made the Muslims mad.
That's, you have to look it, folks.
Don't try it.
I'll do it.
I'll explain all this to you.
Maybe you could try to exercise your brain, but don't worry.
You count on me to explain all this to you.
How about this headline, Gore supporters reunite, comma, nothing happens?
New York Observer.
It's break time, folks.
Head to the bathroom if you need to.
▲
Export Selection