All Episodes
Previous Next
June 5, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:33
June 5, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, welcome back folks.
Nice to have you with us.
Rush Limbaugh and the EIB network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, the largest free education institution known to exist in the free or oppressed worlds.
There are no grades.
There are no graduates.
There are no degrees.
The learning never stops.
Here's the phone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Well, recently we reported the news to you that the Hollywood actor Danny Glover had been given nearly $18 million by Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez to make an anti-American, anti-Western imperialist movie about some slave guy down in Haiti or somewhere down there.
And Glover's all excited about it.
Two stories here about Danny Glover in the news.
Democrat president, hopeful, presidential hopeful John Edwards, the Brick Girl, will return to South Carolina this week, his home state, as he and actor Danny Glover hold campaign events in Florence and Lee counties.
The Brick Girl is a Seneca South Carolina native.
We'll be joined by Glover as the two speak to the Florence County Democrat Party from 11.30 a.m. to 1 p.m. tomorrow.
They'll take a walking tour of Bishopville, South Carolina, along with a couple of state representatives.
So the Brick Girl is going to be fraternizing with a communist sympathizer.
And he thinks this is a good idea in South Carolina?
Wow.
And then this from about Glover himself.
I'm not sure what the website here is, but Venezuelan filmmakers have written a letter to Danny Glover asking he reconsider using Venezuela's funds for his movie.
As you know, he got that $18 million commitment from Hugo Chavez for his biopic Toussant.
With all due respect, we feel you're taking part in an unethical venture, the letter reads.
The filmmakers go on to say that $18 million could easily finance 36 Venezuelan movies.
They point out that the proceeds, which the Venezuelan Congress said came from a recent bond sale with Argentina, were assigned to Glover's project and others without the benefit of any competition.
He's a regular visitor to Venezuela, as is Glover, or is Glover.
He's among a number of high-profile U.S. supporters of Chavez, who include the crooners Harry Belafonte and the Princeton University scholar Cornell West.
What in the world would Edwards want to go to South Carolina fraternize with a communist sympathizer for?
You got me.
We'll see how it works out.
This takes me to Bernard Shaw.
It is reported in the Chicago Sun-Times today by Robert Fedder or Feeder, I'm not sure how he pronounces it, that for two decades until his retirement in 2001, Bernard Shaw was the front and center face of CNN.
As one of its original anchors, the Chicago native Bernard Shaw set the tone for serious, insightful journalism on TV's first 24-hour cable news operation.
So it pains him deeply to see what has become of the proud brand he helped create.
Asked what he now thinks of CNN, Shaw told Channel 11 in Chicago's John Calloway, well, I try not to.
I'm very, very disappointed with the way the news management at my favorite network has gone.
CNN has fine women and men working there.
Lou Dobbs, one of the leaders there.
Unfortunately, Fox News is the ratings leader on the cable side of the business.
And what Fox puts on the air is not news.
What Fox does, he said, it's commentary and personal analysis.
You guys have to get over it and understand that you are wrong about this.
You ever watched Fox in a Daytime?
Absurd.
Calling himself very straight-laced and very old-fashioned, Bernard Shaw said: when anchors are reporting the news, they should report the news and allow the viewers at home to decide what they think about issues.
I don't want to hear an anchor's personal opinion about anything.
Just report the news.
Telling you, they live in a different world.
They just live.
It's an alternative universe.
He says that CNN continues to ape many of the on-air mannerisms of the Fox News Network, and I don't like that.
CNN is aping many of the on-air mannerisms of the Fox News Network.
It's the Fox News channel, by the way, Bernard.
You know, this story is an old story, but I'll repeat it again in light of Bernard Shaw's upset, being upset with the supposed opinion that makes its way into the Fox News channel.
Remember the first Gulf Wall, and a bombing started, and Bernard Shaw was, I think, was John Holloman, the late John Holloman.
They were in the Al-Rashid Hotel.
And the bombing started, and they hid under the desks in a room, and they finally got out of there.
They got back home.
And somebody, CIA Defense Department, wanted to debrief them.
And Bernard Shaw refused.
I'm not going to tell you what I saw over there.
My journalistic principles will not allow me to choose sides in this conflict.
I said, well, that's cool.
I mean, you're an American, right?
And the freedom granted to you to do what you're doing comes from this country.
You want to choose sides?
You want to help your country win here?
Remember, at the same time, there was some bombed-out building in the Iraqi Saddam out there.
It's this cheap little painted white sign with red paint on it.
It said, Baby Milk Factory.
And of course, the drive-bys fell for that.
They started beating up on the United States for bombing a baby milk factory.
But they don't put their opinions in anything, do they?
You won't find any opinion on CNN.
You won't find any opinion on PMS NBC.
You won't find any opinion on ABC, CBS, NBC, will you?
You won't find any opinion for their news anchors, will you?
You won't find any opinion in the way they select stories that will air and the way they eliminate.
So you won't find any opinion, will you?
Oh, no, no, no, no.
Straight down.
Well, maybe he's upset because they are putting opinions in there now, he thinks.
At any rate, you know, I first became aware of the next crisis in American culture some months ago.
I was watching some show on ESP, and the subject was, why aren't there more blacks playing Major League Baseball?
In fact, why are there fewer blacks playing Major League Baseball?
And the answer is mainly, well, basketball is a more popular game with young African-American kids football and so forth.
And it's been a topic that's generated a lot of interest within certain elements of the professional sports community.
Well, somebody went and asked Gary Sheffield, who's a very outspoken guy.
He's played with a number of teams at Dodgers, the Braves, the Yankees.
He's now with the Detroit Tigers.
And they asked Sheffield about that.
Why do you think that so few blacks are playing Major League Baseball?
It's in GQ magazine.
And he said, well, I called this years ago.
What I called is that you're going to see more blackfaces, but there ain't no English coming out.
It's about being able to tell Latin players what to do, being able to control them.
Where I'm from, you can't control us.
You might get a guy to do it that way for a while because he wants to benefit, but in the end, he's going to go back to being who he is.
And that's a person that you're going to talk to with respect.
You're going to talk to like a man.
These are the things my race demands.
So if you're equally good as this Latin player, guess who's going to get sent home?
The black guy.
I know a lot of players that are home now that can outplay a lot of these Latin guys.
So basically what he's saying is that the owners in Major League Baseball and the managers, the executives can control these Latins, but can't control the proud blacks.
And that's why, I mean, you got, that's what he says.
You still see faces of color out there, but they're Latin.
Now, Eddie Perez, who's a former teammate of Sheffield's with the Atlanta Braves, now their bullpen coach, said, you know, that's going to hurt a lot of people.
I don't know if he'll be suspended, but somebody needs to say something.
And Perez dismissed Sheffield's theory.
I don't think we're taking anybody's food off the table.
We're just putting food on the table for us.
They're paying Latin players lots of money, but it's not because they like us.
It's because we're doing good.
When we play, we play hard.
You don't hear too many Latin players talk a lot of trash.
So Major League Baseball says that Gary Sheffield's recent comments haven't hit the radar screen.
Well, they haven't hit the radar screen, meaning they haven't, they have now, but they hadn't till this show.
But several people associated with the game have taken notice.
Major League Baseball vice president for PR Richard Levin gave no indication baseball's considering disciplining Sheffield.
Why?
Say what he wants.
Why would this warrant a suspension?
It's just his opinion for crying out loud.
Why in the world should this warrant a suspension?
If he thinks that the Latins are easily moldable and controllable and so forth, and that blacks, if that's what he believes, why is this worth this?
Why is everything somebody says these days worthy of a suspension?
It's words.
Me, of all people, ask that exactly right.
I'm telling you what, I think everybody's getting hypersensitive about this.
Isn't it enough to say Sheffield's an idiot or you agree with him?
You know, what's the point?
But let the owners deal with this.
I mean, let it be dealt with however.
But to suspend the guy for saying this is nothing.
This is, I mean, it sounds outrageous to a lot of people, but if you know Gary Sheffield, I mean, he's like reading a 23rd Psalm on this compared to some other things he said.
We'll take a brief time.
I'll be back after this, folks.
Stay with us.
How are you?
Great to have you back, ladies and gentlemen.
El Rushbo on the hot seat each and every day.
Which is fine, Annette, because I'm in charge of the thermostat there.
Carl in Kansas City, Missouri.
Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Hello.
Rush, good afternoon, sir.
I'm sorry, but I've got to call you on something, my friend.
Yeah.
You are constantly telling us that words mean things.
Yes.
And you just gave Sheffield a pass by saying they're just words.
I didn't give him a pass.
I said, what's the point of suspending him?
I'm all for criticizing what he said, and I'm all for beating it into the ground if it's wrong.
But this constant, incessant, we're going to suspend you.
We're going to take you off the air.
We're getting out of control with this.
Well, I don't think that's necessarily out of control.
We can control our politicians with our votes, but you can't control someone who is not elected.
They're being paid by a private industry.
So why can't a private industry try and control him with a suspension?
Well, that's his point, Sheffield.
You're not going to control him no matter what you do.
Well, somebody's going to be able to do it.
If you want to talk about this, I'll be glad to talk about it today.
Here's what's wrong with this.
What's wrong with it is the whole subject.
If blacks are not playing Major League Baseball, it's because they're choosing to do something else.
Now, to sit there and blame America for this is where this is headed is something that is wrong.
There's plenty of opportunity for blacks to play Major League Baseball if they want to.
But the way this is being set up, and the last ESPN show that I saw, which doesn't surprise me, of course, it's something wrong with America.
And the implication was, or the inference that I drew was, that we are returning to our racist past.
And it all happened to coincide with this big anniversary of Jackie Robinson.
This is not an accident that this happens.
So, of course, GQ Magazine goes out and finds a motormouth to ask about this, knowing they're going to get a quote machine answer.
And they did.
What's happening here is that the sports media, which is every bit as liberal as any other media, is trying to drum up America's racist.
America hasn't learned.
We're reverting as though blacks are being shut out of baseball.
They have no choice.
They can't play, which is absurd.
They're just choosing to do other things.
It's called Michael Jordan and the NBA, and it's called football, and it's called all number of, there's any number of things that they apparently would rather do.
And, you know, these sports seasons come earlier in the school year than baseball does.
And they're sitting around.
If they're not two sports guys, they choose one of those two to get active early.
But to blame this on the owners, to blame this on the game, to say that the owners can more easily control the Latin players, sure, that's absolutely silly, but it's not worth a suspension over.
It's worth ridicule, but it's not worth a suspension over.
That's all I was saying.
I'll work with that.
All right, well, fine.
Another caller salvaged by the host.
But look at folks.
What the FCC just came out is some ruling.
A second U.S. District Court of Appeals came out with a ruling that said incidental, that's not the word, but incidental obscenity on the air is fine.
It's not something that you can be fine for.
It's reacting to Bono.
Bono was receiving some award at some music that he got up there, cigarette dangling from his mouth, then the F-bomb started coming out.
And of course, the FCC is upset because they think that some control has been taken away from them by the court.
But I can't believe that we've gotten to the point where we wanted to suspend everybody for something that they say, which, you know, Eddie Perez got a chance to respond to it.
ESPN reported what he said.
We're talking about it here.
GQ got their quote.
Yes, words mean things, but if a white player had said that, if John Rocker would have said it, I know there's a double standard, but look at how many times do I have to explain this?
I'm breathing deeply to gather my emotions.
It's not about fairness, and you know damn well, unless fairness is defined as the following.
Fairness is blacks are a minority.
They are besieged.
They are discriminated against.
They are the children of slavery.
You know the drill.
And so they're held to a different standard.
They're allowed.
Well, hell, it's been said that blacks cannot be racist because they don't have the power to implement the racism that they might be, feel, or utter.
And so there's a different standard.
Look at Congressman William Jefferson versus Scooter Libby.
Congressman William Jefferson versus Tom DeLay.
We went through this early in the program.
They're all concerned there what Jefferson's indictment might mean for the Democratic Party.
They're not worried it'll hurt it.
Oh, God, what can we do to salvage our party?
They're not concerned that he might be embarrassing them or making them all look bad.
There's just a different standard on this.
Of course, John Rocker couldn't say this, nor could anyone.
Well, it depends on what they said.
But Sheffield is also known for these kinds of statements.
He's a very, very, very proud man.
And he's said what he said.
But I'm not giving him a pass on it.
I'm just saying this suspension stuff is getting out of hand.
Joe in New York City, welcome to the EIB Network.
How are you?
Megger Future Top Tax Bracket Dittos.
Thank you, sir.
I wanted to talk about the religious forum, quote, quote-unquote, religious forum on CNN.
That was a socialist forum disguised as religion.
Anytime that they talk about religion, they always pull the feed the poor quotes out of the Bible.
But what I wanted to talk about was it seems to me that liberals always use religion as sort of something like a faucet that they can turn off and on depending on any kind of policy that they want to push forward.
And the question that I have that never seems to get asked at any of these forums is: if you're not going to use religion as a criteria, what are you going to use?
Are you going to use education?
As a criteria for policymaking, you mean?
Yeah, for policymaking, yes.
Well, see, that's where liberals get stuck because no, they're not.
They're not going to use religion and they're going to use personal morality because it might offend somebody, and they're not going to impose that.
Look, this is not even driven by politics.
This is driven by polling data.
This is driven by focus groups.
Democrats are constantly finding out what their weaknesses are.
It's hit them again that they're weak in the areas of God, faith, religion, values, and this sort of thing.
So voila, here comes CNN with this little forum for them to go out and try to reach out to people who are expressing doubts about them in this particular area.
Sure.
All based on polls, of course.
Rush, we all know polls are for strippers and liberals.
That's about it.
It's never a reflection on society.
Yeah, polls are for strippers and liberals, which one in the same, probably.
Yeah, for the most part, yes.
Yeah, that reminds me, you know, they're getting all over Fred Thompson's wife because she's a babe.
Yeah, I've seen pictures of her.
She is.
She's a babe.
And so there's people out there talking about, do you think she's ever danced a poll?
You know, and look at, oh, I kid you not.
I was going to do the story yesterday and get to it, but they're ripping Fred Thompson because he's not a good-looking guy.
He's 65 years old.
What's he doing with this good-looking 40-year-old babe?
What's it?
There's something not right about this.
Look, the liberals, they're envious as hell of our women, folks.
Everybody knows this.
It's one of the best-kept secrets going on in politics today.
Ha, welcome back.
Great to have you.
El Rushball on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
All right, we went back to the audio archives here, folks, because if you want to know what the left and what Democrats really think of God in politics, we have three sound bites for you.
November 5th of 2003 and also December 7th of 2003.
On two separate occasions, Howard Dean, a presidential candidate at the time, and this is a montage of things he said about those days, said this.
We have got to stop having our elections in the South based on guns, God, and gays.
Why can't we talk about jobs, health care, and education, which is what we all have in common, instead of allowing the Republicans to consistently divide us by talking about guns, God, gays, and all this controversial social stuff that we're not going to come to an agreement on?
Yep, yep, yep.
Yeah.
Why do we have to have God gets in the mix here and messes everything up?
Oh, all of a sudden now the Democrats think that they have to show you that they believe in God.
Here's John F. Kerry, who served in Vietnam February 28, 2004.
Channel 2 in New York.
It's a debate.
Actually, it's CBS, it's the network, Democrat presidential debate with Dan Rather.
Elizabeth Bumiller of the New York Times says to John Kerry, President Bush has said that freedom and fear have always been at war.
God is not neutral between them.
He's made clear in his speeches he feels God is on America's side.
Is God on America's side?
God will, look, I think I believe in God, but I don't believe the way President Bush does in invoking it all the time in that way.
I think it is pro.
Well, we pray that God is on our side, and we pray hard, and God has been on our side through most of our existence.
Yeah, well, you sounded like you just agreed with President Bush there.
Yeah, God has been on our side through most of our existence.
That was a great follow-up opportunity.
When was God not on our side?
Senator Kerry, Vietnam, when you were there, when was God not been on our side?
Another question, montage of Kerry talking about God from a debate October 13th, 2004 in Tempe, Arizona.
We're all God's children.
They felt God had made them.
I believe that choice is between a woman, God.
As I said, I grew up a Catholic.
I was an altar boy.
There's a great passage of the Bible.
But I know this.
God's work must truly be our own.
He just said that freedom is a gift from the Almighty.
Everything is a gift from the Almighty.
And as I measure the words of the Bible, the greatest commandments are love the Lord your God and with faith in God.
And God bless the United States of America.
I'm sorry, folks.
It just doesn't sound like there's a whole lot of conviction behind any of this.
It sounds like, okay, let me start talking and see if I wander into a substantive thought here by accident.
Sounds like a roll of the dice with the syllables.
It just doesn't sound like there's a whole lot of conviction.
Let me, oh, before we get to the immigration stack, from Hampton, Virginia, Democrat presidential hopeful Barack Obama said today that the Bush administration has done nothing to defuse a quote-unquote quiet riot among blacks that threatens to erupt.
just as riots in Los Angeles did 15 years ago.
The first-term Illinois senator said that with black people from New Orleans and the Gulf Coast still displaced 20 months after Hurricane Katrina, frustration and resentment are building explosively as they did before the 1992 riots.
And of course, this cannot be helped any by the fact that now Congressman William Jefferson Democrat Louisiana has been indicted.
All the hurricane did was pull back the curtain for all the world to see how incompetent almost all Democrats.
No, he didn't say that.
I'm adding that.
Obama's attack on Bush got an ovation from the nearly 8,000 people gathered in Hampton University's convocation center, particularly when he denounced the Iraq war and noted that he had opposed it from the outset.
He said this administration was colorblind in its incompetence, but the poverty and the hopelessness was there long before the hurricane.
So Obama's is a quiet riot out there, waiting to erupt.
It's Bush's fault, just like the riots in south central Los Angeles 15 years ago.
So is this court of like stoking of Quiet riot, Mr. Obama, that's going on out there is immigration.
You may be trying, he may be trying to manufacture a quiet riot here to prove that he's down for the struggle, which is, I think, what this is.
But the quiet riot is immigration.
I sat down with somebody the other day, somebody that's not particularly politically inclined one way or the other, but still informed and intelligent, very, very established professional career, and had no idea about the details of the immigration bill that's winding its way through the Senate.
When I told this person, the person was appalled, asked me what I was so worked up about this for.
And, you know, when I told him about legalization, when I told him that there would be one business day for a background check, that there would be eight years of chain migration allowed, that the border fence would be cut in half, he was stunned.
He had no clue.
And by the way, this is why people from the administration and the Democrat Party and the media do not want to address the specifics of this bill and instead talk in generalities and throw names around like nativist.
No, they don't want to poll it actually.
They don't want to poll it accurately.
By the way, that's another thing.
They're trying to appeal to a motion about this on the basis of compassion and we can't do anything else.
This is the best we can do and all of that.
We had this Washington Post poll that said on Monday that all these senators had gone out home for the Memorial Day recess and they found less and less resistance.
Well, I was really surprised.
It was so exciting.
You're going to come back here and get the bill done this week.
And then late yesterday afternoon, USA Today, Gallup puts out a poll.
And it ain't good, folks.
As the Senate prepares to vote on a landmark immigration bill, USA Today Gallup poll finds that Americans who have an opinion about it are overwhelmingly opposed by nearly three to one.
Those who have a view say that they are against the compromise.
58% of those surveyed, though, said they don't know enough about the legislation to favor or oppose it.
The polling sample was 1,007 adults from Friday, last Friday through Sunday.
And if you go deep into the internals, what you find out of the people who are informed about this on the Republican side, they are dramatically opposed to this.
There hasn't been any cooling off of this.
And it's exactly as I fretted last week.
The administration is risking the solidarity of its base, not just on this, but on such things as national security and the war in Iraq.
But this guy that I spoke to, he would be one of the 58% in this poll.
Not any problem with it.
Don't know anything about it.
And there's a reason why he doesn't know anything about it is because the details are not being presented to him in the news sources that he seeks to access in whatever limited time he spends accessing news.
If you want to find out how this is affecting people, guess who is showing up in fourth place in a couple of presidential polls?
One of them being the Rasmussen poll.
Senator McCain has plummeted to fourth place.
Giuliani's down a little bit.
Thompson's in second place.
And McCain has fallen to fourth place.
And the only reason I want to mention this poll to you is because somebody's feeling the wrath of a lot of Yahoo Republicans on this amnesty bill, and it is Senator McCain.
There are a lot of people saying, what the hell are we doing?
Turning over the future of the country to a couple old gray-haired men, Ted Kennedy, who hadn't been right about this in 42 years.
And I'll tell you something.
You look at the details of this and you find out, David Frumm had a great point today at National Review Online.
We've all been trying to explain to ourselves, trying to understand what has happened to all these Republicans in the Senate who are going along with this.
And it just looks like they've been snookered.
It may not be any more complicated than that.
There could be some extenuating circumstances from person to person.
But you know the thing, what I mention to people who don't know anything about this, the one thing that shocks them the most, and it's hard to say that there is one thing because they're shocked by a lot of it.
But one of the things that seems to be appealing to people who are not terribly informed about this is the notion that there's a fine and they got to go back home and they got to come back and they get to the end of the line.
And people, Rush, what's wrong with that?
I said, do you realize that none of them will have to do that?
If they don't seek citizenship, they don't have to do any of that.
There is no fine.
There are no back taxes and there is no moving to the end of the line.
And they say, what do you mean?
Well, just because they're made legal doesn't mean they're on the path to citizenship.
It's two different things.
And the moment the president signs this bill, they are legal.
And that's all most of them care about.
Citizenship, if they're going to have to pay a fine, back taxes, and go back home and get the end of the line, you think they're going to do that after they're here and they're already made legal?
And you ought to see their eyes pop open when I mention this to them.
They don't know that.
The news has been full of this notion that's a $5,000 fine.
We're going to get even with these people.
They pay their back tax.
They're going to move to the back of the line.
Ah, that's fair.
None of that is going to happen.
Except for those who opt for the citizenship route.
And in the ABC Washington Post poll, what are the silly questions?
Number 19, it is.
On another subject, would you support or oppose a program giving illegal immigrants, now living in the U.S., the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements?
52% support that.
44% oppose it.
4% have no opinion.
Do you realize the question is bogus?
The question is absolutely, it is incompetent.
It is so bogus.
Whoever wrote the poll either doesn't know the details of the bill or does and wanted to pose a dishonest question to get an answer that they could then write their story to suggest that most Americans are cool with this.
There are no fines or other requirements for illegals to get Z visas.
This is the top secret part of the bill that the media isn't leaking.
You do not have to pay a fine to live here legally.
You will not have to go to the back of the line to live here legally.
This question is as unprofessional, uninformed, and incompetent as any you will find in a major poll because it presents a premise that is not true.
Now, I don't know if whoever wrote the poll even knows.
Couldn't even hazard a guess.
I mean, in the old days, you would assume that somebody in the drive-by media writing polling questions would be informed enough to get the details of the question right.
But these days, with as much bias and prejudice as there is, I'm not so sure that this wasn't done on purpose.
Would you support or oppose a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the U.S. the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements?
They're never going to have to do that to stay here legally.
Only if they choose citizenship.
And finally, Congressional Budget Office.
In fact, I had two stories.
Let me take a break.
Two stories on this.
A great illustration of the disparity and the different worldview that different people in the media have.
Back after this.
All right, the Congressional Budget Office has scored the bill.
The CBO, the official arm of Congress.
And the Senate immigration bill will cut annual illegal immigration by just 25%.
They say the bill's new guest worker program could lead to at least 500,000 more illegal aliens within a decade.
We'll multiply that by four because these people never get it right.
And they furthermore say that many people would remain here.
The illegals remain illegal after their Z visas expired.
They just stay because there's no enforcement mechanism to kick them out.
There's no incentive to do anything other than open the borders and bring these people in.
Chain migration, a whole business.
John Kyle, the top Republican in the negotiations, yesterday laid out killer amendments that he said will break the grand bargain and cause him to oppose the bill.
They are these, creating a separate employer-sponsored system of up to 300,000 new green cards, giving temporary workers a path to citizenship, and changing the dates or definitions to allow broader family migration.
He said if any of those passed, quote, I certainly would not support the legislation.
I would do everything I can to get it defeated.
It is our contention, oh, that's going to happen without any amendments.
Now, the Boston Globe today has a story on the CBO scoring of the immigration bill.
And the only thing they point out is, hey, guess what?
It's going to be a net gain to the Social Security Trust Fund of $26 billion.
They don't talk about any of the problems a CBO identified, or they don't emphasize them.
Two totally different ways.
And that's not true either.
It's going to be a net loss on the balance of, well, the transfer payments.
But the whole reason for doing this is to expand the government and increase the transfer of wealth.
Illegal bill gripes are flooding Republican offices.
Peter King says he's getting the most calls since the Dubai ports deal.
Now, we've had stories like in the Washington Post on Sunday, hey, Rush, back off.
You know what?
Americans out there are coming to like the bill.
Senators say they're not hearing from as many constituents out there.
Oh, not so.
What we know is that the National Republican Committee, Republican National Committee, is having fire workers at the phone banks because their solicitations are down.
The state parties all across the country, state party organizations that are taking the right position on this are raking in the cash like you can't believe.
And they're getting heat out there.
They still are.
That Washington Post story yesterday from their poll to the analysis was as bogus as the New York Times putting the JFK terror plot on page 30 on Sunday.
Aaron in Chico, California.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Rush Megas here, Nevada Club, Gitmo Ditto's, my friend.
Thank you, sir.
Yeah, I needed a call about that very topic we just talked about, or talked about as far as William Jefferson and how the media just pretty much covers for them.
And I had to pick up the paper this morning to look at this, where it does not mention one time his name, along with his party affiliation, let alone does it mention that he's caught on tape accepting the bribe.
And last night on CNN's Lou Dawes report, when they talked about it, they mentioned him as the congressman the whole time, never really bothering with party affiliation.
And it's a matter of if this was any Republican, you would see Republican Congressman so-and-so and so-and-so about 30-plus times.
That's right.
The word Republican would show up five times for every mention of the guy's name.
I did find an AP story that did mention that Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana, is a Democrat, but a lot of them didn't identify the party.
New York Times, I don't think, identified his party.
I mean, it's amazing.
Who do they think they're fooling?
How dumb do they think we are?
Back in just a second, my friends, to close it out.
Oh, Wowie Zowie, another hot show in the can, folks.
Ready and raring to go already for tomorrow's big broadcast.
People ask me, well, what are you going to talk about tomorrow?
I don't know until tomorrow gets here.
I don't know until the show starts I'm going to talk about.
All I know is it's going to be great, and you're going to love it along with me.
So we'll do it tomorrow.
Look forward to it.
▲
Export Selection