All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 3, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:39
October 3, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 247 Podcast.
Hi, folks, and greetings to you.
Welcome.
Great to be back with you.
Here it is actually Wednesday today.
I thought yesterday was Wednesday.
Week moving along even faster than I thought, but today is Wednesday.
It's the middle of the week.
And we've got three hours of broadcast excellence straight ahead for you.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-288-2, and the email address is rush at EIB net.com.
There are certain elements of the media that just will not drop.
The uh the phony soldier smear that is going on out there.
So we are forced to continue, uh, not really forced, because this is uh it's an opportunity to continue to discuss this.
Um today, all over television, after posting on the internet yesterday was the mad bomber of Bosnia.
Uh that would be General Wesley Clark, known affectionately here as Ashley Wilkes.
And General Clark is lying through his teeth today.
His impetus, purpose for going on television is to get me taken off of Armed Forces Radio.
On MSNBC this morning, uh General Clark said that I have a long history of disrespect and criticism of uniformed military personnel.
A long history.
Uh this is Kafka esque.
Uh they have taken the Hillary Clinton front group, Media Matters for America, have taken two of my words.
Phony soldiers, and used hundreds and thousands of words now to manipulate it into a smear.
They are even saying I selectively edited a minute and a half from my show transcript to hide some nefarious thing.
Uh hid nothing.
The edit was simply for substance and brevity.
Uh what happened was I was talking to this caller, Mike, who uh uh we discussed the phony soldier thing, and he wanted to go talk about the uh uh weapons of mass destruction.
And he starts talking while he's talking, if you can, and you people watching on Diddleham saw this, you know, I'm waving in to Mr. Snerdriam saying, I'm uh and I'm on the IFB, I'm talking to him.
Nobody else can hear me because it mutes my microphone going out.
I said, Print out the phony soldier commentary for me that we did yesterday, print it out.
So you're printing it out, and the caller is vamping and going on.
I'm reaching back to the printer.
I grabbed the update, say, look, I don't want to talk about weapons of mass destruction, Mike.
It's moot right now.
It doesn't have any relation.
We're there.
This is this is about something much more.
Then I read the commentary.
The minute 37 was simply vamping to pick up the commentary off the printer for Mr. Snerdley's computer in the other room.
So now I am also hiding from you truthful in their minds, evidence that I have referred to all of these soldiers who disagree uh with the war as phony soldiers, which was never uttered, was never said.
I'll tell you what's happening here.
Bill Bennett uh put this uh well to me in an email today.
He said, We've reached a new day when anything said, no matter how violently torn from context, is presented as however one wishes and accepted as fact by the interpreter.
It's the death of meaning.
And I'll tell you what else this is.
This is a reflection on the thinking and tactics that'll be employed with the full weight and power of the federal government should Hillary Clinton become president, because all of these people that uh working at these front groups that she has founded along with George Soros are going to end up being in her administration, and they are going to be rewarded with high government positions, from where they can unleash investigations on people that they want to deal with one way or the other.
And so what we have here is a dry run, sort of a rehearsal for if she wins, the uh the little people at Media Matters for America, and John Podesta will be back as chief of staff at what the Center for American Progress.
All these different think tanks and organizations she set up.
Uh these are little schools for people to learn how to conduct investigations on people that uh Mrs. Clinton doesn't want to deal with.
So that's what's happening here.
This is also a great example for the uh campaign 2008 playbook.
Now, uh back to General Clark.
Here, we have a couple sound bites from General Clark uh from the uh let's see, did it today show today?
Actually, what we're gonna do here, two, three, and four.
Uh, Mike, here is Wesley Clark, Meredith Vieira talking to him.
Says you started this email campaign to get Limbo off the Armed Forces Radio.
It's a drastic step.
Why do you think it's necessary?
His comments just cross the line.
I think there's a lot of people serving in Iraq, a lot of veterans who've served, a lot of veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, who have thoughts about the war that aren't necessarily in agreement with President Bush.
That's their right as American citizens.
It doesn't mean they weren't great soldiers.
And it doesn't mean that I have ever criticized them as soldiers.
I've never criticized them as phony or anything else.
Never, never, never, never.
General Clark.
Not only is there no long history of me showing disrespect and criticism for uniform military personnel.
You know, th I I tell you what, the another thing going on here is you've got all these watchdogs, but who examines them for honesty and credibility?
Who examines why is it that the watchdogs are simply accepted as infallible instantly after they publish something?
Uh I I think that uh uh it's because they're all liberals on the other side of this.
Uh it's amazing what people who really wanted to learn about this could learn if you just visit my website or even better, listen to the program.
Rather these little excerpts of it they're playing on tele.
I still get really surreal.
Uh when they play the excerpt, I'm talking to caller and I say, yeah, phony soldiers.
From that, we've got this.
We've got denunciations on the House floor.
Or on the on the House floor, we've got a condemnation letter sent by uh Senator Reed and a denunciation on the Senate floor?
From two words.
In fact, some of the drive-by's are getting a little upset now that uh that that I'm occupying so much attention.
All morning long on MSNBC.
They've been asking uh guests, what is why why are we focusing on Limbaugh here in the move on?
Look at we won out of Iraq, and why isn't the Congress doing anything about it?
And that's the crux of this.
Congress can't get us out of Iraq if we've got 72 percent or whatever the number is of people in the country saying they want the war to end.
How come a Democrats can't pull it off?
They're trying to distract from their own failures.
They're trying to distract from lying and deceiving their own believers, their own kook lunatic fringe.
That's all they're doing is trying to muddy the waters so people don't understand uh uh what what's going on?
They're just feeding them red meat because they can't follow through on their commitments and their promises.
So people are starting to wonder, and it's in the drive-by-s it's a little jealousy.
You have to understand this.
That most everybody else that drive by media would love to be censored on these four of the Senate.
They would love that kind of attention.
They'd love to be able to stir things up like what?
People don't believe that?
You think people don't believe that?
Oh, Mr. Snurdley is telling me that you people mostly won't believe that oh, you know.
Do you realize I'm getting emails from people, so would you quit hogging the limelight?
You know, I got a book out this week, and you're distracting from it.
How come you always do this?
How come I can't get this kind of a I'm telling you the drive-bys would love this kind of thing.
They would love to be sent.
They love being on Nixon's enemies list, for example.
It's the same thing.
So uh, yeah, you you uh you must believe by the way.
Uh Dingy Harry sent his letter.
He asked all these senators to sign the letter to Clear Channels chairman, chief executive officer, and asked him to uh force me to apologize and to admit that I had said something so over the top.
Uh he got 41 senators to sign it.
Not even all the Democrats, no Republicans signed it.
Uh now some people say Senate condemns Limbo.
Bottom line, it's another dingy hairy failure.
It's another dingy hairy defeat.
He could not even get all the Democrats to sign the letter, folks.
Forty-one out of a hundred senators is all that sign it, and no Republicans.
So he sends the letter to the chairman and the CEO of Clear Channel who responded to it.
Page and a half.
It's on our website if you want to read it.
And basically, uh well, just read it.
It basically says, look, Senator, we believe in the First Amendment here, and uh we're not we're not gonna impose uh Mr. Limbaugh has said what he meant, and uh that's it.
Uh and I think they sent the letter uh trying to just uh Reed sent it out so fast trying to put this behind them.
Uh So it's an it's a it's a huge defeat and failure for Harry Reed.
Uh MSNBC reported this morning that uh their Capitol Hill correspondent reported that the House Democrat resolution has been put on the back burner because the Republicans have a competing resolution uh ready to go if the House Democrats offer theirs.
So they may be in retreat up on Capitol Hill.
They're not in retreat at Media Matters for America.
They're still over there trying to gin this up for a bunch of host of reasons.
I've got a couple more sound bites that I want to play for you.
First from Wesley Clark and then Ted Coppel.
Here's the second bite from uh today's show today.
Meredith Vieira says, Well, what response have you been getting to your email campaign to get limbaugh off of armed forces radio?
It's a good response.
We've had 15,000 people come back and sign up on the website.
There are a lot of people out there who see this as an important issue where Congress should set the tone in condemning this kind of uh rhetoric, which disparages our men and women in uniform.
Uh they got more votes to condemn move on.org in the Senate than they got to condemn me.
Uh this just frosts them.
It just frosts them.
And General Clark here, Ashley Wilkes was asked, why why why should Congress be refereeing?
Well, we got to have the other side represented here.
If we're going to condemn MoveOn.org, we got to condemn Limbaugh, because Limbaugh has a long history of disrespecting and abusing uniformed military personnel.
And they're throwing their hand.
Well, what is this what Congress does?
Referees, disputes?
Why in the world don't we just get out of Iraq?
Well, I think we should get out of Iraq, obviously, but we need civil discourse in this co it's it's just funny to watch these make total blithering idiots of themselves.
Ted Koppel on the Today Show, following Ashley Wilkes, the mad bomber of Bosnia.
Matt Wauer talked to him and said, uh, I watched you smiling as we were just discussing this Rush Limbaugh thing, and with all due respect to the general and to Rush Limbaugh and the members of Congress, is this really in your opinion what Americans want their senators to be talking about on the floor of the U.S. Senate?
No, let's let's have them focus on something really important.
It's ridiculous.
I cannot understand.
I mean, this is not the first time Rush Limbaugh has said controversial things or foolish things.
Certainly not the first time I've said foolish things, but if if that's the best that the U.S. Senate can find to debate and discuss, God help us.
Putting it in perspective.
Now, General Clark, let's talk about him just a second here before we go to the break, the mad bomber of Bosnia.
Is this the same Wesley Clark who did nothing to try to prevent the mass murder of 800,000 Rwandans?
Is this the same Wesley Clark who was in a position?
He was in a position to insist the Clinton administration and the United Nations send help to that region to try to stop the mass murder of 800,000 Rwandans?
Is this the same Wesley Clark who has never had to answer for his indifference to that genocide and worse, in the face of this genocide in a public investigation, is never had to answer for it?
Is this the same Wesley Clark who was once a Republican?
Who supported President Bush but then changed party so he could run for president and then attack President Bush?
Is this the same Wesley Clark who could not muster any popular support for his hilarious run for the presidency?
You see, this is why the mad bomber of Bosnia can't read a transcript or listen to an audio and speak truthfully about them.
He's no longer a general.
He's just another in the long line of liberal hacks.
Ladies and gentlemen, now, General Clark, we all appreciate your service in the military, but what you're doing now has nothing to do with your service.
It has to do with your decision to play mud ball with the left.
I don't know about you, uh, Mr. Clark.
I go to bed at night.
I go to bed at night with zero problems.
How do you sleep, sir?
How do you and the rest of the Clinton administration sleep knowing you did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda?
Well, the president followed through on his promise and vetoed.
The um well, he be told that the children's health care bill, the uh state children's health insurance program, known here as the Bullship program.
Vetoed it today as promised.
Uh the uh AP refers to it as a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded the uh health care insurance for the children.
You know, this this is this is uh it is a true stealth plan uh to institute the whole concept of socialized medicine throughout society.
If you go back to 93 and you look at Hillary's health care plan back then, one of the strategies was do everything for the children because nobody's going to vote against children.
Nobody is going to oppose the children.
And the nobody is suggesting the program be cut.
The program's ten years old.
Something I think a lot of people don't understand about this is we're just up for renewal.
And what the Democrats want to do is include all kinds of people who in no way meet the definition of poor or children.
And the President said, nope, we're going to expand the program to handle those who are poor, but we're not going to go any further.
We're not going to waste taxpayers' dollars.
And he knows what's going on.
So on cue, the Democrats took the floor of the House this morning during one-minute speeches.
We have the reliable Jan Shikowski, Democrat Illinois, Peter DeFazio, Democrat Oregon, Rom Emanuel, Illinois, Alison Schwartz, Democrat Pennsylvania, William Lacey Clay from Missouri, all crying about Bush's veto.
The President just vetoed the children's health insurance program.
Let's be perfectly clear.
The President is refusing to spend seven billion dollars a year on children's health while insisting on ten billion dollars a month in Iraq.
He's gonna cast the first veto of his presidency, his target, ten million low-income kids.
Nearly one million children will create a very long line in America's emergency rooms.
The emergency rooms are President Bush's answer to America's health care crisis.
The President's veto makes it clear that health care for America's children simply is not his priority.
President Bush just vetoed this bipartisan legislation.
The President's opposition to this bill puts him squarely in the minority.
Well, then override it.
They've got override uh uh protection in the Senate, but they don't in the House.
So what's going to happen here is they have to go back to the drawing board and coming up uh come up with a bill that the president will sign.
There will be an expansion of the program.
It will cover poor children, it's just not going to cover kids up to the age of twenty-five.
Uh it's not going to cover, you know, income.
Well, the states can do this if they if they want to.
I think ten or eleven states uh have.
And the Democrats are going to go out there and try to pressure 15 Republicans to change their votes in order to get veto-proof majority on this.
Uh and and they're going to lobby them, they're going to put pressure on them to get them to change their votes.
Uh and we know how that works.
Now, the Democrats and Liberals cannot get me to change my mind.
They can't get me to change or buckle to them, but elected Republicans sometimes are a little different.
Especially when you put children in the bill.
Uh so we'll have to wait and see what happens.
Now, the Politico notes uh a 1993 memo from Hillary Clinton's health care task force proposed using children as a mechanism in order to take control of health care delivery for all Americans.
The Politico is a website that uh was started up by a couple of guys who used to work at the Washington Post.
Back in 1993, according to an internal White House staff memo, then First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's staff saw federal coverage of children as a precursor to universal coverage.
In a section of the memo titled Kids First, Clinton's staff laid out backup plans in the event the universal coverage idea failed.
One of the key options was creating a state-run health plan for children who didn't qualify for Medicaid but were uninsured.
Well, that idea sounds a lot like the current S Chip program, which was eventually created by the Republican Congress in 1997.
Under this approach, the Clinton memo says health care for reform is phased in by population beginning with children.
Kids first, really a precursor to the new system.
It is intended to be freestanding and administratively simple, with states given broad flexibility in its design so it can be easily folded into existing or future Program structures.
So this document that the politico has uncovered tells the world exactly what Mrs. Clinton's plan is.
There are people out there calling the S chip expansion and a renewal a Trojan horse.
It's exactly what it is.
It is nothing more than a trick.
It is a precursor.
It's designed to get this country to a full-fledged government-run socialized health care system.
And the hook is to do it for the children.
The president vetoed it today.
Look at all of this stuff works together.
The the uh the smear of me, the and this is telling you this and giving you this and giving this wide birth and loud amplification is precisely why me, people like me, uh, are considered dire threats to Mrs. Clinton's future plans.
Uh so it's all rolled in together to try to keep uh people from standing in her way on her way to her coronation.
Pumping up the volume.
Turn it up 800 decibels, ladies and gentlemen, and that's how loud.
What are you guys laughing about in there?
What?
Uh-huh.
Oh, well, he probably he Brian has got a Rush Limbaugh shirt and nobody else.
He probably had it made.
He was probably pretty creative, probably spent his own money to go out and have it made.
Did you ever think of doing that?
If you wanted a Rush Limbaugh shirt that you don't like in the prize closet, did you ever think about going spending your own money?
What does it cost?
20 bucks.
We're in the middle of a firefight here, and you guys are distracted by where Brian got his shirt.
I cannot believe this.
I want to go back.
I want to stay on the mad bomber of Bosnia for a moment, ladies and gentlemen, and that is General Wesley Clark.
Do you remember uh Michael Moore called George W. Bush a deserter?
And Wesley Clark stood up for Michael Moore's right to say that.
Uh, and this uh is a this is a newsmax story, January 22nd, 2004, during uh General Clark's ill-fated run at the Democratic presidential uh candidacy.
In a response that could turn out to be General Clark's worst blunder yet, and that's tough call because there were so many of them.
The presidential hopeful said his supporter, firebrand filmmaker and propagandist Michael Moore, had a right to call President Bush a military deserter.
We have the audio sound bites.
It was a debate in Manchester, New Hampshire.
January 22nd, 2004, Peter Jennings said, General Clark, a lot of people say that uh don't you well, it's really a simple question about knowing a man by his friends.
The other day you had a rally here, and one of the men who stood up to endorse you, the controversial filmmaker Michael Moore, you said you were delighted with him.
At one point, Mr. Moore said in front of you that President Bush saying he'd he'd like to see you, the general President Bush, who he called a deserter.
Now that's a reckless charge, not supported by the facts, and I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him and whether or not you think it would have been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so.
Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this.
But to me, it wasn't material.
This election is going to be about the future, Peter, and what we have to do is pull this country together.
And I'm delighted to have the support of a man like Michael Moore, of a great American leader like Senator George McGovern, and a people from Texas like Charlie Stenholm and former Secretary of the Navy, John Dalton.
We've got support from across the breadth of the Democratic Party, because I believe this party is united.
All right.
We got to the point of it.
Uh so General Clark, fully supportive of someone's free speech rights to call the president of the United States a deserter, which is a lie.
It's this old National Guard story, folks, that they had to cook up forged documents to try to convince people was accurate.
And by the way, that Dan Ratherforged document story may as well come out of media matters.
It may as well.
That's the kind of stuff that's happening now.
Accused people of doing things they didn't do, accuse people of saying things they didn't say, accusing people of meaning things they didn't mean.
Liberals have not yet won the right to define meaning from the words people say.
And they have appropriated that right for themselves, and it's not gonna stand, folks.
And so here is a giant hypocrite, General Clark, who sat around and did nothing during an a genocide of 800,000 Rwandans, the mad bomber of Bosnia, fully in support of Michael Moore's right to lie, under the context and the pretext of the First Amendment.
And yet General Clark's all over television yesterday and today suggesting that I need to be taken off of Armed Forces Radio because I have a long history of disrespect and criticism for the brave men and women in the United States military.
No more ridiculous, worthless, totally untrue charge could be made.
But he is making it.
Now, Peter Jennings, after the answer that you just heard from the mad bomber of Bosnia, said uh let me let me ask you about something you mentioned then, because this this question and answer which you and Mr. Moore was involved in, you've had a chance to look at the facts.
You still feel comfortable with the fact that somebody should be standing up in your presence and calling the president of the United States a deserter.
To be honest with you, I did not look at the facts, Peter.
I you know that's Michael Moore's opinion.
He's entitled to say that.
I've seen he's not the only person who said that.
I've not followed up on those facts, and uh frankly, it's not relevant to me and why I'm in this campaign.
Down the tubes went in General Clark's campaign.
He really was never a serious candidate in that race, but uh this finished it off.
So there he is admitting the facts don't matter to him.
He didn't look at the facts.
No, this guy can say what he wants when it comes to me.
Didn't look at the facts.
He's out there making an absolute blithering fool of himself, doesn't even know it.
I really think in his case, he doesn't know it.
I think he's that dense.
I think he is that lazy.
I think he is just he's he's uh he's become a political hack now, trying to get noticed, speech fees, this sort of stuff, getting all the accolades from the kook lunatic fringe out there that loves these kind of guys.
Here he is admitting in 2004 the facts didn't matter, free speech is all that mattered.
But now, in my case, free speech doesn't matter, as well as the facts not mattering.
Thank you, General Clark.
You people on the left are making this too easy.
To the phones we go.
This is Tom in uh in South Holland, Illinois.
Tom, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Russia's a pleasure to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
You know, I've been sitting here listening to this stuff for the last few days about you, but what really made me mad a little while ago is you're talking about Jan taking the uh floor of the house.
Everybody Jan Shikowski, is she your Congress babe?
Uh uh in Illinois here.
Yeah.
Yeah, I think so.
I know she's from Illinois, but she in your district.
Uh no.
You're lucky.
But uh we can't hold you accountable for the fact that she's in Congress.
So you don't need to apologize.
Oh, that's right.
And then uh what I'd like to get off my chest is that uh I I'm so t tired of the uh Democrats like her taking the floor and wanting to make things perfectly clear when I would like them to make it perfectly honest for a change instead of clear as they see it.
And I believe in my own heart that this bill that was forced on President Bush, knowing he would uh veto it, was he was set up.
And what really makes me irritated about the fact that he was set up to veto it so they could slam him, is now they're using children as shields in their fight against Bush as you would use a child as a shield against uh a murdering uh shooter.
Well, that's nothing new.
They've been using the children for a long time.
They've been using the children.
You know, congressional hearings, they bring up these poor kids uh to be paraded in front of media.
Have they no shame?
They bring up the elderly, uh they bring up all their activists that use the pictures.
Uh nothing's out of bounds with them, isn't it?
They are not look at Tom, they are not about truth.
No, they're not.
You nailed it.
They are about power.
Keep it up, Russia.
This is not I I in fact, folks, I'm I'm gonna say something that might surprise you a bit.
I'm I'm beginning to consider the possibility that the Democrats have just moved beyond ideology in terms of what propels them.
And by that I mean I don't think that it's just liberalism that's propelling them.
Uh there is something further and more disastrous and more dangerous going on, and I think they're they're they're just that they've become Stalinist like.
What we're seeing here from Wesley Clark, Media Matters for America, all the Democrats on the uh floor of the House and Senate, denouncing me a private citizen.
This is not just liberalism.
It's Stalinist.
The power of the state, using the power of the state to intimidate citizens.
I have I have mentioned to you, I don't know how many times, and I want, and I've asked you to conduct this experiment.
When you are with a group of people at a party, I don't care where it is, even your friends, and maybe some in the group you don't know, but most of the people you do.
Notice how how scared everybody is to say anything for fear of making others uncomfortable, or for fear of being offending somebody, or for fear of being ripped to shreds for making somebody uncomfortable or offending them.
We are allowing ourselves to be shut up by virtue of political correctness, not willing to offend anybody and so forth.
And you just you try this test.
And if you really want to try the test, the next time you're one of your situations like this, don't hold back.
Say what you really think about something and gauge the reaction.
I guarantee you that you are going to stand alone, you're going to stand out, and people are going to go, how can you say that?
What do you mean?
My mouth opened, a tongue moved, and syllables came out.
That's how I said it.
It's what I think.
No, I don't mean that.
I bet how can you say that?
Because it's what I think.
So few people are willing or unwilling to tell anybody else what they really think because they are scared.
Now, right now they're just scared of controversy.
They're scared of other people not liking them, they're scared of other people being offended, they're scared of other people criticizing them.
But in a lot of places in the world, this same fear exists, but it's fear of the state.
That's why I heartily recommended last week.
You go out and rent the movie Other People's Lives, or the lives of others.
Lives of others, it is.
Won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film.
It's it's just folks, it is a gray and depressing movie.
It ends on a warm note.
Uh don't watch it with your kids.
It's an R-rated movie, and it's it's got some sex in it, which is totally unrelated to the story.
They just put it in there for the art aspect of it.
Just watch it.
It is an accurate portrayal and depiction of what life was like in East Germany before the wall fell.
I'm not suggesting we live in East Germany, don't miss it.
I'm saying this is the kind of thing that can happen over time while people aren't even aware of it.
Shutting up and not telling people what you think, and you think it's virtuous.
We've been led to believe it's virtuous not to offend anybody.
We've been led to believe it's virtuous not to cause controversy.
Everybody wants to get along.
Don't make waves, don't make so the result of this is fear shuts people up, and they think it's virtue at the same time, which is asinine.
You don't think that Harry Reid's trying to shut me up?
You don't think Harry Reid is trying to intimidate the company that syndicates this program, shut me up and denounce me?
You don't think the Democrats in the House, you don't think that that's what this is about, and to show everybody else what can happen to them next if they succeed?
And that's why I'm fighting this.
I am not going to cower in fear of anybody in government.
I'm not going to cower in fear of people of state, and I'm not going to cower in fear, especially when I'm being smeared and lied about in terms of what I said and what I thought.
Now they're even questioning what was in my mind when I said phony soldiers.
What were you thinking when you said that?
And they are interpreting it for everybody, so they're granting themselves the power to interpret my thoughts and rework my words, two words they've turned into hundreds or thousands of words.
And we have now something more than liberalism going on.
I'm not saying that liberalism isn't there.
Liberalism's a central component to all this, but what's happening here is Stalinist.
Fear of the state, people shutting up, fear of other people when you've got, you have the state, be it the federal government, or the state government, or your local government can even get involved, in using that power to tell you what you can and can't say, and where you can and can't say it, and what you can and can't eat, and where you can and can't eat it.
They may not be issuing direct orders, they're trying to make you feel guilty about driving what you drive, eating What you eat.
It's all designed to control your behavior using fear of punishment if you disobey.
And that's who today's liberals are.
That's who today's Democrat Party is.
They are not about truth.
They don't want to have to deal with the truth because the truth to them is whatever they say it is.
Hour to hour, day to day, week to week.
And the truth is going to be whatever they want it to be and whatever benefits them.
So when they say in the House, well, let me make this clear.
What they're saying is, this is how I want you to think of this.
They're not interested in truth.
If they were interested in truth, and if they engaged in attempted truthful discussions, they would lose in landslides.
They cannot be honest about who they are.
This is serious stuff, folks.
It may appear to be a game, and I know the way I deal with these things sometimes is to have fun with it.
But I'm telling you, uh you put Mrs. Clinton in the White House, and every damn one of these little minions and all these little organizations of hers that are out trying to destroy her enemies right now are going to be given high government positions to do their investigations and their seek and destroy missions from high government positions.
And make no mistake, this is the bunch that had 500 FBI files during their eight years.
Make no mistake that that's what's happening here.
You can choose to believe it or ignore it's tough to face.
It is.
It is.
It portends real problem.
Look, I'm way long here.
This next segment's gonna be real short.
I apologize in advance.
But when I'm on a roll like that, folks, it's not worth stopping.
Hi, welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh here and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network uh to the phones, Berea, Ohio.
This is Al.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
I appreciate it.
Hello.
Uh pleasure to speak with you, Rush.
Thank you.
Well, we're talking about who supports the troops.
I think it would show by the troops supporting them.
And if I recall you went over there and the troops took you on planes and took you everywhere, and they ate with you.
And the media reported when Hillary went over there, about a half dozen people had a meal with her.
Now, how many is about a half dozen?
You know, I'd forgotten that, and my memory may be a little foggy on this.
I think she was there just prior to my arrival.
I'd have to check my reports from Afghanistan on my website, but I think she was there before my I remember the first night we got into uh Kabul, uh, went into one of the bases over there and had dinner with everybody.
I mean, as many people that were free to have dinner.
And I think one of them told me that Mrs. Clinton had just been there and uh only met with six or so people.
It was a photo op visit.
In fact, it's interesting that you call now, Al.
You just you remember me talking about this?
Oh, absolutely.
Okay.
Um I got I just got an email from Jeffrey Mull, who was one of the C-130 pilots from I think the Texas National Guard that was flying me all over the place in Afghanistan.
He says, Rush, with regard to the real attacks from phony critics and everything else is being said about phony soldiers, and you support for the troops.
I have never been more honored to fly anyone in a C-130 as I was when we had the privilege of flying with you during your trip to Afghanistan in 2005.
Your commitment and support of the troops is without reproach.
Thanks again for your support for the troops and service to this country.
He's now with Lockheed Martin, but I think he was with the uh the Texas Air Guard.
Um, and uh I they let me sit up front, you know, in the uh in the jump seat up there in the cockpit in the C-130, the Herc, as they call it.
And that was uh the rest of the party was back in a cargo hold.
But I was the VIP up in the um in the front.
I said, This is the way it should be.
The State Department of people should be in the cargo hold, and I should be up here in the cockpit.
Um I'd never been obviously in a C 130 before, but I remember Jeffrey uh taking pictures.
He's showing me family pictures of his, his wife and daughters, his children.
And I made it a point.
Every one of these guys, I asked, Why are you here?
I mean, and he was on his like his second tour, I believe.
Why are you here?
This is what I'm doing to protect my family.
I mean, this is this is what I want to do.
He was in the guard, the Texas Air National Guard.
So I've I letter that he sends here makes my uh makes my heart melt.
I've I got notes in Vince Flynn today.
I'm hearing from all kinds of military personnel that uh that I've met over the course of the well, because Snarly said, Why don't you read some more?
It's too self serving.
I I I Yes, it's too so.
I'll try to post them on the website.
I gotta I gotta take a break.
Be back after this.
All right, the first hour is in the can, ladies and gentlemen.
I just got a reply from Jeffrey Mull that I want to share with you in the next hour.
And a Republican presidential candidate has issued a statement on his website uh in support of my support for the troops and expressing uh regret over the condemnation of me in the U.S. Congress.
▲
Export Selection