All Episodes
Previous Next
July 4, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:33
July 4, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I am about to blow a gasket in it.
Have you got another cable?
Because I'm getting static and dirt noise in this thing.
We'll change it at the break.
If I can make through this segment, well, I'll blow in my stack.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
Why would you think, Mr. Sterdley, that I wouldn't talk about that?
And why would you think I wouldn't be upset about that story in the American Spectator?
Because you just think that I've just brushed this stuff off and it doesn't bother me.
And there's a story in the American Spectator today with Democrat staffers quoted how they're aiming at me to shut me up with the fairness doctrine.
We'll get to that.
We've got a lot to do here today on the EIB network.
Rush Limbaugh back at you.
Nobel Peace Prize nominee here, ladies and gentlemen, behind the golden EIB microphone.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, is 800-282-2882.
The email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Did my good deed of the week yesterday.
I was out playing golf.
Pardon me, my friends.
Static on my audio line here.
We'll get it fixed.
I'll do my best to professionally ignore it.
But it's going to be difficult because every time I move, it happens.
At any rate, playing golf yesterday morning in a course down here that's closing for the summer.
Always closes Mother's Day as the last seminole.
And I, well, shot a hell of a round.
I shot an 85, so 4243, but I was plus five on the par threes.
If I could have just pardon the par threes, I would have shot an 80.
I mean, if, if, you know, if is for children.
Anyway, as we're heading up to the 16th, after our drives in the 16, it's a little dogleg right.
We're heading up.
And all of a sudden, as I'm walking up, I see something that looks huge in the middle of fairway with a bird prancing around.
I get it closer, and it's turtle, a pretty big turtle.
Not a sea turtle, but it's a pretty big turtle.
And this bird is just harassing this turtle like you can't believe.
And my caddy said, oh, you know what's going on there?
That turtle's heading for the sand trap.
She's going to lay her eggs.
And the bird knows it.
And the bird's just waiting to get the eggs.
I said, well, this ain't going to happen when I'm out here.
So I went over and picked up this turtle and took it back over to the creek because the turtle had turned around.
It was aiming for the sand trap.
It really was.
But when it turned away from the sand trap, started heading back to where the little stream or creek is in the rough.
So we figured, okay, turtle figured out here that the bird wants its eggs and is going to wait to lay them.
And the turtle was just laboring.
You've seen turtles is laboring.
And the bird finally flew off when the turtle turned around.
So I went and picked the turtle up, took it back to within a foot of the creek.
And, you know, it got scared.
Its head was bopping in, and it was not a snapper turtle.
It had a bottlenose, bottlenose.
It looked like a, its nose looked like nasal spray.
You know, one of those bottles of nasal spray?
Something.
But anyway, it was a good deed.
I picked up that turtle and we took it over there and I hope that it laid its eggs somewhere.
And doing this in broad daylight, folks, so there was plenty of light out there.
Normally these turtles do this at night to prevent other animals and beasts like birds getting in there and doing.
Yeah, you can say that.
You can say I interfered with nature.
But I didn't interfere with nature because I am nature.
I'm as much a part of nature as a stupid bird when it was a crow.
The hell with those things.
You know, those things, so if people ride golf carts, if you get at the halfway house and you put some cookies or snacks in there, then you get out of the cart to go puck, those damn things come steal your cookies out of the cart.
And then if they find something in there, they start cawing like crazy.
All the buddies show up and you're in the birds.
It's like an Alfred Hitchcock movie.
So I got no love lost for those crows.
Scavengers, you know, just sitting around waiting for the disadvantaged to get weak.
That's why I interceded.
I am nature.
I'm as much a part of nature as they were.
Okay, ladies and gentlemen, an al-Qaeda front group that claims it has captured American soldiers warned the United States today to stop searching for them and suggested that it attack the U.S. convoy as revenge for the rape and murder of a local teenager last year.
Well, that will make sure and play well in the drive-by media.
U.S. military also said for the first time it believes the three missing soldiers were abducted by al-Qaeda-linked militants after an attack that included three roadside bombs.
My question is, how in the world could this possibly happen?
After all we have done in this country to demonstrate how guilty we are and how badly we feel about what went on at Abu Ghraib and what went on at Club Gitmo.
I mean, prayer rugs, Korans, prayers five times a day, special meals.
We were told by the Ted Kennedys and the Diane Feinsteins of the world that if we just treat these people nicer, then they will treat our prisoners.
Now they've captured three of our soldiers and are threatening us.
They're warning us that we had better stop searching for them because if we search for them, then all hell will really break loose.
Now, the argument was, the argument was that if we didn't ban torture, which wasn't torture, the al-Qaeda types would torture our troops.
So we had to go even further and we gave enemy combatants terrorists.
We gave them Geneva Convention protections.
Remember that?
Gave them Geneva Convention protections when they don't qualify for it.
So now I am stunned that these abductions could possibly have happened.
I'm sure these three soldiers, if they are in fact being held by al-Qaeda types, are getting the kind of treatment every bit as wonderful as those at Club Gitmo.
New Bibles, three square meals a day, toilets that face the right direction, interviews with the Red Cross, access to the Rosie O'Donnell show, whatever it is they want.
I'm sure that they're getting it because the Democrats at the left told us that we had to change our evil ways in the way we were dealing with our prisoners, enemy combatants, guests.
Because if we didn't, then there would be hell to pay.
So I'm sure when this little misunderstanding is finished, and I'm sure when the guys are back home, we'll hear about how wonderfully they were treated.
And we will hear that it was precisely because of how we have changed our evil ways that they were treated well in the first place.
We'll keep a sharp eye on that story, ladies and gentlemen, in a minute.
If we have any details to report, then I'll pass them on.
I got a fascinating letter today.
Sitting here minding my own business, bothering no one, which is usually the case when you're doing a show prep.
The letter's dated, it's from Congress of the United States.
It's dated April 12th, 2007.
This is how long it takes mail to get to me, by the way, folks.
This is May 14th.
Mr. Rush Limbaugh, Washington Speakers Bureau, Alexandria, Virginia.
That's the first thing that caught my eye because I'm not registered with the Washington Speakers Bureau.
I don't need an agent or a bureau to get me invitations to do speeches.
I don't know.
Obviously, my name's there.
Here's the letter.
Dear Rush, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives Committee on House Administration and the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, we would like to invite you to speak at the 2007 Summer Intern Lecture Series.
The Summer Intern Lecture Series is held for college students and recent graduates who work as congressional interns in Capitol Hill offices during the summer months.
It provides an educational opportunity for interns to hear prominent members of government speak about their personal experiences in public service, as well as important issues facing our nation and the world today.
The series runs from June the 6th through August the 11th of this year.
We look forward to including you in this summer series.
Please contact and give me two names and numbers here to get a hold of for more information or to schedule a date and time for your participation.
Thank you for your kind consideration of this invitation.
Sincerely, yours, Dianne Feinstein.
I have a letter here, right here, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm holding it up so people on the ditto cam can see it.
And it's going to be, I PDF'd a copy of it up to Coco Jr. at rushlimbaugh.com.
It's also signed by Congresswoman Juanita Melinder-McDonald, who's chairman of the Committee on House Administration.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration in the United States Senate.
I got to think, why would they, I mean, they are trying to shut me down.
We'll get to this story here in just a second.
The American Spectator Day, the Prowler column, there are numerous Democrats on Capitol Hill quoted as saying they know they'll never shut me up, but they want to make it as hard as possible.
Pelosi is going to reintroduce the fairness doctrine in the next six months because Air America failed.
Liberals can't get a toehold on the radio, and so they want to shut us up.
It's nothing new, but they're just very bold here when they're speaking for attribution.
Well, they're being quoted, but anonymously.
We don't know who the Democrats are saying this.
So while they're trying to shut me up, while the effort is ongoing to reimpose the fairness doctrine, I get this letter from Senator Feinstein asking me to come up as a prominent member of government to speak to some interns this summer on Capitol Hill.
And I was thinking about this.
It might be fun to accept that.
Why?
Why are they inviting me?
Possibly because of my nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.
I could go up there and I could talk to these interns about what it's like to be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize.
I could go up there, I could defend the Bill of Rights, including the right to bear arms.
My remarks to the interns could support the aggressive interrogation of detainees at Club Guitmo to ensure the protection of the free world.
I could tell the interns that we all must have a vested interest in human life because life is all we've got.
I mean, if we basically give them an anti-abortion mention, I mean, more abortions kill people.
More humans are killed from abortion in this country than AK-47s.
I could mention my freedom agenda, talk about the problems of ethics in defense contracting.
There's a number of things that I could speak to these interns about and warn them about what happens to them if they get transferred to White House duty with certain people in office.
There's any number of things.
You realize what a golden opportunity this would be for me to have access to these young skulls full of mush and to go up there and just give them our agenda here, folks, the things that we talk about each and every day.
What a hoot that that would be.
After the speech, after my remarks are over, I'm going to anoint these interns.
I'm going to call them Russia Lanties.
They'll be unleashed on Capitol Hill to go spread the word.
Nobody else will tell them the things I will tell them.
So I'm going to ponder this invitation.
I'm going to think about going talking to the interns.
I'm going to remind them that this may be one of the last chances they'll ever have to hear me because even though I've been invited to come up and talk to you, Democrats in this body are at this moment plotting to zip my lips.
We'll be back in just a second.
Continue with all the rest of today's program after this.
Hi, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
I guess I ought to mention this because to not mention it would arouse suspicion.
After our program on Friday, especially the last hour that there's so much in that program, the phone call from Marie and then Dr. Martha from St. Louis asking me to put down on a piece of paper my list of attributes of the ideal.
I got more email on that.
And I was sort of surprised by some of it, only because none of it was bad.
I mean, none of it was negative, but a lot of it, Rush, it was so good to hear you finally open up about yourself.
We don't get to hear much about you personally.
You don't?
That's what kind of surprised me.
Anyway, everybody was just not everybody, but just tons and tons of emails from people on that.
I'm glad you all enjoyed it.
It was a little embarrassing for me at times, but I want you to know at the end of the day, I thought it was fabulous fun too.
And it's one of those things.
That's what Open Line Friday is for.
It just evolved that way.
And that's why we always look forward to.
Oh, speaking of a program note, not going to be here tomorrow, a special invitation I've had extended to me, and I'm going to take advantage of it tomorrow.
I'll be back on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.
I'll be in New York for those three days.
How many of you saw over the weekend this picture on the Drudge page about gasoline?
Four bucks all over them.
Did you see it?
Do you know what?
It was a misleading picture.
It was designed.
If you didn't know the details of the story, you would get the whole wrong idea about it.
It's a picture of this guy in San Francisco that we told you about last week who's fed up with shell because he's not making any money.
He's all big-time gasoline, an oil company guy that owns this station in San Francisco, and he's raised the price to $4.53 on his high-test gasoline just right across the street.
It's $375 and $387.
They didn't give you the picture right across the street over the weekend.
They've now done it.
But it was an effort to totally mislead people.
If he didn't know the story about this poor guy who's upset with Shell oil because they're running independents and others out of business, he just raised the price because they're closing him down at the end of the month anyway.
So I think he raised the price so he wouldn't have any customers.
So people wouldn't go to his gas station because right across the street and around the corner, it was as much as 80 cents a gallon cheaper.
And if you were caught in by this trap or caught up by it, I wanted to pass this on to you because you had been had.
Let me find this American spectator.
Oh, oh, try this, ladies.
Times online today, UK Times Online.
Shock as Sarkozy Wu is anti-U.S. left-winger, the new president of France.
Remember how after he won, everybody was going gaga?
He's America's best friend.
He's going to talk about reformatting the 35-hour work week.
He's going to promote incentives and free market economics and so forth.
Well, the story says this.
Nicolas Sarkozy, the right-wing reformer who becomes French president on Wednesday, upset both the United States and his opponents yesterday by offering the job of foreign minister to a socialist veteran with anti-American credentials.
Hubert Vedrine, 59, a former senior aide to the late President Mitterrand, he served as foreign minister from 1997 to 2002, was considering the proposal yesterday.
Now, the prospect of this guy running foreign policy has infuriated the beleaguered socialists and amazed the diplomatic world because he's the architect of a doctrine for containing what he called the abusive streamroller of American power.
His views on the hyperpower, the term that he coined in the 1990s, would appear to conflict with Sarkozy's pro-Atlantic views.
Sarkozy approached this guy and other figures from the left as part of his scheme to forge a slimmed-down government that will be politically inclusive and not limited to his Gaullist union for a popular movement.
Now, what's wrong with this?
Does anybody, when you hear the story, does it ring any bells?
Does it seem like, oh my God, we've been through this before?
This sort of like reminded me of the George W. Bush new tone after Bush was inaugurated in 2001 and after the horrible Florida aftermath.
Well, after the French election, we had riots all over the place and the socialists are out there burning cars.
And Sarkozy was getting threats and this kind of thing.
And yet, what we have here is this guy appointing an anti-American as his foreign minister.
May as well be another Dominique de Villepin, only worse.
And what's he trying to do?
He's trying to appease the people who lost.
He's trying to appease the left.
And the left is not going to accept this.
The left is not going to accept a non-leftist trying to appease them.
They want power.
They want control.
I'll tell you, I'm getting, I don't know anything about this Sarkozy guy.
And after all, we are talking about France.
And so there's a caveat to everything.
If it weren't for France, we would not have won the Revolutionary War.
And ever since then, they've been on a downward spin.
They've declined.
I mean, that's a long time ago, folks.
I mean, when the French were reliable.
And they've been going downhill ever since.
So we get this new guy elected, and all of us, he goes out just like the Republicans in Congress.
Well, let's make friends with the Democrats.
Well, in France, let's make friends with the socialists.
They lost.
They're tearing down the country.
They're burning it up.
They're exploding cars.
We got to have a new tone.
It just, it never works.
And I just, you know, it puzzles me why it is with so much experience behind our belts that, under our belts rather, that leaders don't ever learn this lesson about being able to appease liberals or leftists or socialists by being nice to them, by giving them a position or two in the cabinet.
It just doesn't work.
It never has and it never will because it's a blood war to them.
They don't want to like us.
And that's also the case in France as well.
History repeats itself.
We'll be right back.
What do you mean, going to have a good time?
We are having a good time.
Rushlin bought talent on loan from God.
Are you having a tough time in there?
Because the look on your face is one of sheer agony.
I'm looking at Snerdley in there.
Well, here we are at 800-282-2882.
Let me grab Diane here in South San Francisco because they'll set up the spectator story that Snerdley is so agitated about.
Hi, Diane.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
You just said it.
The reason they'll never stop you is because you're having a good time telling the truth.
Well, that's not how the fairness doctrine works.
The fairness doctrine doesn't go after the truth.
The fairness doctrine does not.
Do you know how the fairness doctrine works?
I remember the fairness doctrine, yes.
All right.
Well, not to put you on the spot, but I'm going to just use your call as a teaching opportunity here.
What, as you recall it, is the fairness doctrine?
What does it do?
Well, somebody would, everyone would get equal time to respond.
Oh, wow.
Equal time law is entirely different than the fairness doctrine.
Well, you're warm.
You're warm.
But provided equal opportunity for airtime.
Here's how it, yeah, and here's how at the local level.
Now, I'm on 612 radio stations.
So what would happen if the fairness doctrine ever was enacted, and the Congress, they may pass it, but Bush will never sign it.
That's why it's really going to depend on whether they win the White House in November of 08.
But let's say, just for the sake of discussion here, that the fairness doctrine is re-implemented.
That will be a signal to the left to mobilize and demand that everything that it said on this program and others like it be balanced with an alternative point of view.
I'm too conservative, so if I criticize liberals or criticize a piece of legislation or criticize a politician, representatives will call the local station and demand time on this program, my program, to respond.
And it's not equal time, but it's just a giant hassle.
And what will happen, have you ever wondered why there was no so-called controversial program before programming before 1987, other than between midnight and 6 when nobody's listening on balance, why there was no controversial programming?
Because it wasn't worth the hassle.
Local management at radio stations will simply cancel programs like this because it's not worth the hassle to let every complainer have access to the airwaves, and that's what would happen.
It would happen by the millions.
It would happen in droves because this is a coordinated plan.
It's a coordinated stunt.
And at the same time, they're doing that, if they grant all this time, if I'm forced to grant time or the local stations are forced to cut portions of this program so that whoever's been offended can respond, then this program ceases to be what it is.
It is a pernicious thing, and it is being done for one reason, and that is to silence conservatives.
It's a pure Stalinist tactic.
They're not interested in debate because they can't win the debate in the arena of ideas.
They want to discredit or silence or shut people like me up, and they have wanted to for the last 19 years.
May I say one reason they want to shut you up?
Because you have the most well-researched source of retrospective news, as I call it.
You tell us what they said last week, last month, last year, as far as their lives go back in comparison to what they're saying today, because what they say today is what they've always said for political gain.
Well, exactly.
However the wind blows.
I'm glad you mentioned that because one of the things that I'm most proud of on this program is the historical context in which we place most everything that's discussed on this program, historical context, that puts things happening today in a more understandable light.
And they can't beat the show.
They've tried, I don't know how many people, I've lost count of the numbers.
They've tried whole networks.
They can't even put a dent.
I mean, It's been striking the failure after failure after failure.
And so they're leftists.
It's just like political correctness.
That's nothing more than censorship.
They just, these people don't want to hear what challenges their worldview.
They don't want to hear what they can't or won't argue with.
And they don't want you to either.
Now, here's the American Spectator story.
And again, it's in their prowler column.
According to two members of the House Democrat caucus, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have informed them that they're going to aggressively pursue reinstatement of the fairness doctrine over the next six months.
In January, Democrat presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich announced that he was going to pursue the fairness doctrine through his government reform subcommittee.
His announcement was greeted with silence, but now Pelosi's move things to the front burner.
Much of the doctrine regulated through the FCC was largely dumped in 1987.
Other parts of it related to personal attack and political editorial.
Those two rules remained in place until 2000.
The personal attack rule required anyone attacked over the airwaves to be notified beforehand and given an opportunity to respond.
If I may pause.
All you have to do is criticize a Democrat, and they think they've been attacked.
They can attack Bush all they want.
They can lie about Bush, say some of the most demeaning, outrageous things.
They're just being patriotic.
Why?
They're just practicing dissent.
Any criticism of Democrats is considered the politics of personal destruction.
Vile, personal attacks.
They've just, they've set the language up this way.
That was finally gotten rid of in 2000.
Now, the decision to press for reestablishment of the fairness doctrine now seems to have developed for two reasons.
And here's a quote from one of the two sources that the American Spectator has.
These are elected members of Congress.
These are elected Democrats.
First, we're doing this because we failed on the radio airwaves of Air America.
No one wanted to listen.
This is a senior advisor to Pelosi.
By the way, this is not an elected Democrat.
This is a senior advisor to Pelosi speaking on the record with anonymity to the American Spectator.
Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans, and we've had to find a way to limit it.
Second, it looks like the Republicans are going to have somebody in the presidential race who has access to media in ways our people don't want.
So we want to make sure the GOP has no advantages going into 2008.
What is this?
Access to media in ways our folks don't.
Oh, I guess that's like their candidates do not want to have their debates on Fox.
That would be an example of that.
Republicans are going to have someone in the presidential race who has access to media in ways.
This is what's laughable about this.
Every Democrat can look at the way Obama gets kid glove treatment in the big drive-by media.
Look at the way Hillary Rodham Clinton gets kid glove treatment.
They all do.
The idea that the drive-by media doesn't count for them is ludicrous, and they know it does.
They don't want any opposition.
They don't look at balance as fairness.
No, no, that's not fair.
When there is criticism of them, fairness has gone out the window.
Fairness isn't allowed.
Criticism isn't allowed.
These people have been fed up with it.
And of course, all this is the result of them blaming people like me for their defeats.
They're not responsible.
Of course not.
The American people are too stupid to understand how dangerous liberals and socialists are.
If it weren't for people like me, why the American people would love Democrats by the 80 to 90%?
They would love socialism and they would love leftists.
But people like me have come along and poisoned your mind and created among you a marching army of mind-numbed robots getting orders from me each and every day before you go out and live your lives.
Which is, frankly, the exact thing they're doing with their constituents.
But this is a pernicious, pernicious threat.
Now, that last comment, by the way, the Republicans are going to have somebody in a presidential race who has access to media in ways our folks know.
They talk about Fred Thompson.
And Fred Thompson stars in Law and Order and has other acting roles, television and movies.
And he looks like he's gearing up for a presidential run.
Now, according to another Democrat leadership aide, Nancy Pelosi and her team are focused on several targets in this fairness doctrine fight, including Rush Limbaugh and the Salem Radio Network.
In fact, Dennis Kucinich's staff has begun investigating the Salem Radio Network that's one of the fastest growing in the country.
Okay, well, Bill Bennett's on Salem and Medved, Michael Medved is on Salem.
A government reform committee staffer said, yeah, the Democrats are identifying senior employees, their political activities, and their political giving.
They have some Christian hosts on the Salem network, too, and that's why they're being targeted.
I mean, distrust.
That's why they're being targeted because they're Christians, because they've got some evangelistic type people on staff and on the air.
Salem is a big target, says the government reform committee staffer, but the big one is going to be Limbaugh.
We know we can't shut him up, but we want to make life a bit more difficult for him.
Now, I want to.
I'm a big kid.
Don't worry about my effect on me on this because this is not the first time they've been talking about it.
I just want you in this vast and great audience to understand at the bottom what this is all about.
This is elected officials of government attempting to silence a few citizens who have access to microphones.
The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the right to free speech, this sort of thing.
They'll do this under the guise, well, these are the public airwaves.
We have a common public trust on the public airways.
We balance fairness and all that.
It's not about that.
They don't care to get their side on.
They own the traditional drive-by media.
They just want to shut me and other people up.
I do get kind of worn out talking about this.
This movement has been called the flush-rush movement, the hush-rush movement.
It's been around since, well, actually the early 90s when this program took off, it's gone nowhere because the Democrats haven't been in a position of power to do anything about it.
And Clinton didn't touch it when he was president because he didn't have a Republican House of Representatives from 1995 on.
Now they've got the House, now they've got the Senate, slim margins, and if they get the White House, that's when they're going to try this.
I actually, I don't ever think it's going to succeed.
The American people, you, and the audiences of the targets, me, are too sophisticated now.
You understand and are well-versed on what the attempt is, and you're not going to put up with it.
And it'll be fascinating if they try, because it will be crystal clear to one and all just exactly what they fear and how they deal with it.
They're afraid to come into the arena of ideas and debate these things.
They just have to either try to destroy or discredit or silence the people who say things they would rather not hear.
Be right back, folks.
Sit tight.
All right, I can't go any further without apologizing.
I have to apologize, folks.
If I could turn back the clock 50 minutes and start over, I would do it.
But you can't do that.
I have had a bunch of little nagging distractions in this hour that I should have dealt with before the program.
Well, some of them I couldn't deal with before the program because they didn't happen until after the program started.
But I figure you may have not been able to tell the difference.
After all, I'm a highly trained broadcast specialist.
And the idea of a highly trained broadcast specialist, where I'm having a good day or bad day, you should not be able to tell.
But I figure you've gotten about 80% of my mind in this hour.
And I've been stuttering and hem hoeing around and so forth.
And I apologize.
And it won't happen again.
It won't happen again in today's show.
I promise you that.
Well, I'll only use half my brain, the other half tied behind my back to make it fair.
Yes, you're always still ahead.
I mean, me at 50% is better than anybody else out there at 2,000.
I understand all that, but still, my objective here is to give you to meet and surpass your expectations every day, and I have not done it in this hour.
And for that, I apologize.
It is strange.
I ask snardly, with all of these attempts to hush me up since 1988, why is this one bothering you so much?
Anyway, one of the reasons it bothers me is because I know it doesn't bother you.
You just let this stuff roll off, and this one ought to bother you because the House Democrats are waging war on Rush Limbaugh, and they're now doing it being quoted in the media.
They are waging war on you.
Meanwhile, they give Al-Qaeda a pass.
They have tried to secure defeat in Iraq.
They're doing everything they can to ignore genuine threats to the country and now focusing full energy on you.
And it ought to make you livid.
And I said, I don't have time to get livid.
This stuff, they don't understand.
Every time they do this, they put their foot in the trick.
Aren't you scared by big government coming?
Well, I'd rather it not be happening, but I don't plan to lose this.
And I'm not going to go sit in the cower and start, leave me alone.
Bring it on, guys.
You've tried everything you can think of to take me out, and we're bigger and better than ever.
You guys ought to just take it somewhere.
You won the last election.
You won the last election, but that's not enough.
No, no, no, no.
They just can't stand the same.
I can't impress upon you enough, folks.
As far as they're concerned, there is no other point of view.
There is no need for fairness.
There is no need to debate.
What they are is it, and everybody else is just a freak.
Here's Jack in Cape Coral, Florida.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hey, Rush.
Been listening to you for 20 years.
It's an honor.
Thank you, sir.
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
Question.
I mean, yeah, my question is on that Fairness Act we were just talking about.
Yeah.
Would it be beneficial for the conservatives by giving them a chance to air their side on liberal TV programs?
This about.
Oh, no, no.
Those are news programs.
They're exempt.
Oh.
Oh.
Those are programs run by journalists.
No, the news programs are exempt.
Just radio.
It's a radio doctrine.
The fairness doctrine applies only to radio, and especially as the Democrats re-implement it, I'm sure they'll tweak it and make that point.
In addition, however, I should say something.
In addition to the fact that they're trying to silence here and then it won't work, my theory is it won't work because the audience, now the American people are too sophisticated and not going to put up with it.
There are, there are a few liberal talk shows out there, and they don't have strikingly huge audiences, but they're still out there.
They have some that say they're national on like 25 or 30 stations, yip, yip, yip, yip, yahoo.
And there's some in local markets.
If the fairness doctrine's implemented, conservative groups can harass those stations and demand every time those liberals say something that they get a fair shot.
And I wouldn't be surprised if these liberals that have shows who think they're much bigger than they are, but still have shows actually join forces against the Democrats because they don't want themselves silenced either.
It will not just be a one-way street if this happens.
But the liberal government guys, the Democrats would be glad to sacrifice a liberal radio because it's so insignificant.
Back in a second.
All right, first hour is in the can.
Again, I apologize if it's been less than what you expected.
It won't happen again.
We've got to take a brief time out here.
Come back and kick it up again when we get back.
So sit tight.
You won't know.
▲
Export Selection