All Episodes
Previous Next
May 31, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:19
May 31, 2013, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you very much for that, sir.
Yes, it is Douglas Urbansky, Doug Arbansky here filling in for Rush Limbaugh, who will be back on Wednesday.
Mark Stein will be here on Monday and Tuesday.
Thank you so much for being with us here.
Being with us here on what is known as Open Line Friday.
Live from the left post at our satellite studios in Los Angeles.
It's open line Friday.
It is the day where when Rush is here, he takes the biggest risk in broadcasting.
It's today he takes the other biggest risk, which is having a Hollywood motion picture producer fill in for him.
But I'm delighted to be here, delighted to talk to you.
So your calls are welcome at 1800-282-2882 on any topic.
Including, I don't if you want to talk about the movie business.
That's fine by me.
A lot of people call me after the show, bizarrely enough, and uh we try and deal with it.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome back.
Hour two of the amazing and widely listened to Rush Limbaugh show.
The IRS scandal is a story that we cannot get away from.
It is every place, and by the way, if this story starts to fade from memory, I think we should still scream about it.
I think you should still make sure this is an enormous story.
Because I know of no such scandal like it in my life.
The possibilities of having a police-like state that is unanswerable to the people.
Yes, they give all of the show.
The president says I'm shocked they're doing that.
People have got to stop doing that.
People will be no special prosecutor, of course.
People are going to stop doing that.
My spy in Washington, D.C., who's very connected to this information, very high up person connected, I can't even allude to who it is.
Tells me that at the end of the day, what we may get here is some new voter bill of rights.
Maybe one or two people go to jail.
But that's basically it.
A little bit of adjustments around the margin to make the story go away, to keep things as they are, to keep the status quo happy.
We had a story from Power Line.
John Hendraker.
He's reported that the IRS was harassing, that it was discriminating pro-Israel charities as well.
And in particular, they got very specific about who and how they harassed.
They were harassing those that supported settlements in Judea and Samaria.
So that means if you're if you are attacking pro-Israel charities, that means you're anti-Israel.
Now you go back.
Was this not a charge that has been leveled at this administration over and over again over the years, and now you've got hard proof about it?
And if you take it a step further, would you not say that there is an not only an anti-Israel, but an anti-Semitic aspect?
Because by the way, you you you cannot separate one from the other.
You just can't.
I mean, I think the scandal that is that most Democrats believe, and this is the real scandal that's unsaid.
Most Democrats believe that harassing groups they dislike is perfectly fine.
It may, in fact, between them when they're alone amongst each other, be called exemplary behavior.
When that woman, Lois Lerner, was testifying, or excuse me, not testifying, taking the fifth.
There were people behind her smiling, nodding in agreement.
There's one woman sitting behind her who applauds.
Yeah, I think that big scandal here is that most Democrats think that harassing groups they dislike is great.
Exemplary behavior.
I mean, what good is is is it to have a little bit of power if you you can't crush your enemies?
I mean, how dare someone have thoughts?
Someone advocate policies that are different from Obama's, that are different from the regime.
Obama going after pro-Israel charities?
Who would have thunk such a thing?
Who would have thunk?
I mean, did Obama or someone acting at his direction order the IRS to crack down on organizations that disagree with his Middle East policies?
Of course they did.
That's the pattern.
That is the pattern.
Go after those, in fact, with the aim to disroy those who disagree.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's what's done by other types of countries.
I don't want to use a dramatic word here, but it's done by other types of leaders.
I'm wondering if there was any similar scrutiny applied to pro-Palestinian groups.
I love to find one example of that.
You got examples now of the administration targeting pro-life groups for IRS scrutiny.
All groups, all individuals whose ideas don't line up with Obama's ideology, and that of Axelrod and that of Jarrett.
They're all targets.
Now, to think how many decades that such heavy-handedness has been in the making for the right time.
And this has been in the making for a long time, is very scary.
Because they view this as the right time for socialist America.
The liberals in the administration, in the regulatory agencies, in the so-called lifetime career civil servant positions.
They feel that this is their moment.
The green light has come from the White House.
Go for it.
Go for it is the message.
And what are they doing?
They are going for it.
They're going for it.
They're not holding back.
Now I've alluded to the fact that as this unravels, my spies tell me that we may see that individuals have been targeted.
Fabulous story from McClatchy newspapers.
And it does deal with individuals who have been targeted.
And I'm going to walk you through this a little bit because the story is so crucial that you hear.
Military veteran Mark Drabik of Nebraska is...
He became active and he started donating to conservative causes.
And then he, and he's a veteran.
He's no longer in the military.
And then he finds out that the IRS starts challenging his donations.
So we've been thinking all about groups applying for tax status that have been examined with very, very intrusive and bizarre and inappropriate harassing questions.
But the tax agency, and they've been doing this use they we've learned they use the words Tea Party, Patriot, conservative.
But as this moves along, we're discovering that the government, the United States government, may have been looking at not only a broader list of conservative groups, but also individuals.
And you're going to hear more and more people start coming forward as well on both sides of the story, from the IRS side as it unravels, and also individuals.
It's bound to happen.
Now you get these former IRS leaders, they go out there and they apologize.
They say, well, it was inappropriate scrutiny.
We shouldn't have done this.
But notably, they do not tell us who developed the criteria, how the criteria was developed, when it was developed, how they extended to groups associated with so conservative causes that didn't have the words Tea Party or Patriot in their names.
So the Congress investigation goes on.
There are federal lawsuits that now are going to go forward.
And as this thing goes on and starts unraveling, it's going to reveal more and more and more about the scope, the intent, the inappropriate treatment of conservative groups.
Now this is going to go, as I said a moment ago, to individuals.
Individuals.
We have the retired veteran.
I mentioned his name a little while ago.
We have a group down in where are they here?
I don't know in Iowa.
Sue Martinek of Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Listen to this one.
She's got a group.
And it's an organization that is a pro-life organization.
They got a call from the IRS from somebody by the name of Miss Richards, it is reported.
Told Miss Martinek by phone in early 2009 that the group's application had been approved.
Miss Richards, however, added a condition.
She wanted the board members, prior to approval, to first sign a letter promising that they would not pick it in front of Planned Parented Offices, Planned Parenthood Offices.
Now can you imagine you get a call from an IRS agent telling you, well, you're approved.
Just one little thing.
We want to make sure that um that you sign a paper saying that you won't pick it Planned Parenthood.
And they were very surprised, of course, at this.
They were very surprised.
So they contacted the Thomas Moore Society, which is a public interest group that provides free legal help on conservative hot and button issues.
They saw the IRS request, uh uh, for obviously for what it was, which was to abandon the First Amendment rights.
Now, this is a group, by the way, that is not about picketing.
They go to Planned Parenthood, they go there and they pray.
Now, ironically, do I have to tell you that Planned Parenthood already enjoys the type of tax exempt status that this group was seeking.
And the story goes on.
It goes on.
The story is similar for a group called Christian Voices for Life of Fort Bend County, another anti-abortion group in in suburban Houston.
The IRS asks them about their plans.
They want to know about their protest plans.
The IRS asks them for copies of grants, copies of contracts.
They were shocked that their application wasn't immediately accepted.
In March 2011, an IRS employee in El Monte, California asks, they get a letter from someone who clearly doesn't have very good use of the of grammar, and the letter wants to know whether the group protested in front of medical facilities.
This is too for IRS information.
Where do you protest?
How do you do it?
To whom do you do it with?
Individuals are being targeted right left.
I got a few more I'll tell you about when we come back.
It's Duggar Basky filling in for Rush Limba.
We'll be right back.
Dugarbaske here filling in for Rush Limbaugh on open line fight.
I'm going to grab some of your phone calls in a few moments here.
But I was telling you about retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Mark Drabeck.
This man gives his life, military career, distinguished career, becomes a veteran, retires in 2009, takes a civilian job, and he decides now I can become politically active.
I can express my beliefs openly, and he and he starts writing to elected officials, and he starts participating in conservative marches.
And he attends a National Tea Party events, donates to conservative talk show host Glenn Beck's 912 movement.
Then all of a sudden, an audit letter arrives from the IRS.
And the IRS wants to question him about his church donations, about deductions for family care.
He has the stress of caring for his 19-year-old autistic son, and he had claimed these deductions for about a decade, no complaint ever.
Now, of course, as these scandals erupt, people like this who fit this profile start to wonder if their support of conservative causes is what's what's causing this.
Now, the kicker here, before I go to the call is this.
He did contribute to these causes.
He did go to marches.
He did all those things.
He ends up, he ends up losing a hearing and has to pay $20,000.
He loses an IRS appeal on the matter, and he's entitled to a second appeal.
Now get this part.
The person who handles the second appeal is the very same person who rejected the first appeal.
Right?
This is if I say is this if this is Kafka-esque, does that go over everyone's head the low information voter?
I suppose it does.
Let's go to the cause.
I promised you that I would grab a few calls.
Brian in Manchester, Connecticut, welcome to the Russian Limbaugh Show.
How are you today, sir?
Very good.
Thanks for taking my call, Doug.
Um when the IRS scandal broke, the news media compartmentalized it.
They used that word targeted.
And um they probably did it so that they could kill it off.
And I I don't really think that's the right word.
They should have used profiled.
And they should have used the word discriminated against an election fraud.
Because most of the people that I've talked to don't think that targeting was a bad thing.
They didn't understand what it meant.
You know, you're making a great point, Brian.
The reporter story that broke on the FBI looking at their phone records saying, I don't I think that the story would have gotten buried by now.
But the reporters were upset, so of course they turned to other things that they could point to at the White House.
Well, you're making the point, Brian, that it's a great point.
The word profile is such a hot button activist word that it doesn't really have the drama that that targeting has, does it?
No, it doesn't.
Although no one wants to be targeted, you certainly have been taught and including the low information voters have been taught that you don't want to be profiled either, especially you don't want to be profiled.
But I think as it moves forward, I think we need to change the verbiage because I'm still running into people talk about it.
They don't understand that targeting is a bad thing.
Yes.
Well, also you're making the other point, which is that the left is really good at and love controlling the language whenever they can in these things.
And they they will always try and miss sell something on what you know, this is what they do when they when they talk about the budget and taxation.
They say uh they say in terms of budget and taxation, they say um you know we we can't afford the tax cuts.
And when you stop and think about what that means, it's a really sickening way of saying that that we can't afford to let you keep more of your money.
So they they love controlling the language, is that right, Brian?
Anything else you want to add there, sir?
Just real quick, I think that um the results of this that we should be talking about election fraud, and that President Clinton um when he didn't want to answer something, he tried to embarrass us.
And President Obama is trying to do the same thing.
When he doesn't want to talk about something or things didn't go his way, he says, Oh, that was shameful.
Congress was shameful on that.
Yeah, the Congress is my obstacle, Fox is against me, Rush is against me, it's shameful.
Do you notice this other little trend, Brian, where they're the attempt is really to treat people who are seeing scandals in Benghazi in the tax matter and the IRS matter.
The attempt here is to treat them almost the same way they treated people who are in the birther movement.
Have you noticed that?
Right, right.
Like you're a little crazy if you think there's a scandal there.
I think that the general populace doesn't understand what's actually going on.
And I think we need to equate.
If this had been a Republican president that had done it, those words would have come into play much quicker.
Yeah, I made that point yesterday.
If this had been a Republican administration, we we would um we would be going.
Brian, thank you so much for calling the Rush Limbaugh Show.
He's right.
The left will choose the language, choose the way they want it framed, and it will always be in a way that promotes their cause and that downplays the other cause.
I have one more little anecdote I'm gonna tell you about someone else who was targeted.
Let's use the word profile as Brian says.
And that was this group I started mentioning a little while ago in Fort Bend County, anti-abortion group in suburban Houston.
Um they apply for their ex tax exempt status.
They get contacted by the IRS, and the guy from the IRS in El Monte, California, 2011, writes to them, in your educational program, do you education on both sides of the issue in your program?
This is the exact words, the the poor grammar.
And the Thomas Moore Society has that.
Now the IRS, ladies and gentlemen, has not answered who authored, who authorized these questions.
Clearly, this is all inappropriate.
Individuals being targeted.
I mean, we've probably heard um what we've heard so far is probably just the tip of the iceberg.
My hunches that there are a number of even more sinister abuses of IRS power, governmental power that we have not yet heard of, and that will be coming to light.
I'm I'm I'm certain of it.
I mean, the the the Obama characters who keep defending this stuff, try they'll keep continuing to try to keep the Tea Party and other conservatives from getting tax exempt status before the 2014 midterms.
You watch, it continues.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is Doug Darbaske filling in on open line Friday, one eight hundred two eight two eight eight two is the number.
Yesterday I mentioned to you that when you had some Tea Party polite calm demonstrations outside the IRS offices, there were homeland security people there to monitor them.
I mean, in my day and age, if there was a demonstration, you'd get a couple of bored local cops who'd be standing there.
I mean, this all this whole thing at the end of the day gets very connected to Obamacare or nationalized health insurance, whatever you want to call it.
The left, the progressive left, they needed, they had to.
They've been wanting health care for years.
They needed to institute their nationalized insurance plan, which was going to give them access to all of our medical records, and force force, force you to pay into their system.
You bet they handed it over to the IRS, making the IRS the most powerful weapon in the country.
The secret police, the Stasi, answerable to no one.
A law enforcement agency, don't you know?
The IRS is not a lot of um polite accountants sitting in a room.
I'm going to tell you something.
I've got a lot of email from people uh telling me their story, what happened to them with the IRS.
And the story always goes something like this.
I got a letter from the IRS a year or two ago, declared I failed to declare something on my income tax return that was rather small, but I had done this and that, I converted a Roth, I did this, I did that.
Ladies and gentlemen, you can't pay attention to all of the rules in the tax code.
They make no sense by design.
They are designed so that you can't follow them so that the situation remains deliberately unfollowable.
We have in California, by the way, health care is kicking in here in California.
There's a huge shock that us Californians are in store for.
The increase.
Obamacare's insurance has increased the individual health insurance premiums by 64 to 146%.
That all came about.
This is all being reported in Forbes magazine.
That came about last week.
The state of California claimed its version of Obama's health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums.
When, in fact, when you looked at it, the premiums went up by 64 to 146%.
I promised I would grab another call.
Sabatino in Naples, Florida.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Show, sir.
How are you today, sir?
I'm very good, thank you.
Considering how are you, Doug?
Well, considering, yeah.
What do you mean considering what's going on in the nation is what I'm uh referring to.
Hard to stay upbeat.
Yeah.
I've got actually uh three points to make, but they're all on the same subject.
Uh I want to articulate this the best I can.
Uh getting back to the low information voters, um all the conservative movements uh in in in the nation are what's that saying, sort of singing to the choir, uh and trying desperately to get through to these uh so-called low information voters.
And and what I think is happening, and uh the suggestion I'd like to make is to to simplify the message.
Uh they they think that the Republicans are the enemy, and under the premise that uh they're gonna lose their stuff, um if we can get to them to let them know that just the opposite applies, they're gonna lose their stuff because of the debt that's running up that's gonna come due, and the well is gonna go dry.
Whereas that if a good Republican Congress is in there, they um fix the debt, so to speak, um, they'll get to keep their stuff.
And that that's a good starting point.
And the other uh point I wanted to make is we've got to get to them in a mass.
Now, there's not a whole lot of listeners you got, and there's not a whole lot of people that are uh in the conservative movements like the Heritage Foundation, the Tea Party, uh, and so on.
Um all they care about is you know uh getting their free stuff, their flat screen TVs and watching the Kardashians.
Well, with that in mind is maybe focus on, like I said, simplifying the message that the opposite applies, that the Republicans are not going to take away your stuff.
The stuff's gonna run dry if things keep going the way they're going.
And and to reach the masses of them and to, you know, grasping at just one example, like maybe use the example of a uh a credit card limit.
And once you hit that limit, now you're done.
That that's what's gonna happen to them.
Whereas Sabatino, Sabatino, I want to I want to jump in here.
I hear everything you're saying.
I want I hear everything you're saying, but I want to I want to jump in.
You make a very good point about stuff and people being afraid they're gonna lose their stuff.
But I think that one of the reasons you're seeing the enormity of these poll numbers saying they want a special prosecutor appointed is because on some level it resonates with people, the idea of losing their freedom, their privacy, a secret police force.
I think from the time that you're born, uh the earliest recollections you have is IRS bad, IRS bad, taxation bad.
Um and I think that this resonates the also with people, the idea that you will lose your freedom, that a very, very out of control group who are uh a division of law enforcement with handcuffs and guns and cells and on the ability to confiscate.
I think that this really becomes the tipping point as long as we keep shouting about it.
Right.
Right.
Yeah, well, you you make an excellent point, too.
I mean, they they're getting that.
They're obviously getting that because uh the conservative movement is not seventy-six percent.
Well we know that.
So there are a majority of them listening.
That's my that's my point exactly.
Yeah, and um uh my point is we could add to that by by the suggestion that I made.
I mean, you know, they're like I said, they're just interested in in in watching the Kardashians.
Hey, let me ask you a question there, Sabatino.
Instead of telling them we're not gonna take away their stuff, why don't we just give them some stuff?
Well, you could do that too.
You know, just uh you could promise them that too.
Uh the medium, the the mainstream media's got them so convinced that we're the enemy that we we gotta we gotta simplify it so that they can understand.
But don't you understand, Sabatino, that even if we started giving away them giving stuff away to them, that the mainstream media that you refer to, the drive-by's would somehow see a dastardly plot and have us somehow be portrayed as bad for giving them stuff.
Well, they're gonna portray us as bad no matter what.
That's my point.
There's no there's no winning.
You're saying on the ground, give them a flat screen and a and a telephone or a computer or something.
An iPad.
Well, I do think that the that the big lesson of privacy, though, and the IRS keep talking about the IRS, keep talking about secret police, keep talking about Stasi, keep talking about changing the tax code, because ladies and gentlemen, and Sabatino, thank you so much for calling the Rush Limbo show, that's where it's at.
Yes, I think even the low information voters do understand that.
Because the the the poll numbers are telling us investigate this one.
Yeah, we have to define what we need.
This probably, if we look into the strata of low information voters, there's probably a whole different variety of different levels of low information voters.
So are we gonna concern ourselves with the low information voters who do not vote?
That's the first question.
Or are we gonna concern ourselves with the low information voters that do vote?
I tell you something, if you're talking about the people who do vote, the IRS becomes a sort of across the board uh reference point that people know about that people don't like, and that people are afraid of much more to come here.
Doug Rebanski filling in for Rush Limbaugh would be right back.
Doug Rebaske here, welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh Show, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm filling in for Rush.
He'll be back soon.
That'll be on Wednesday.
Mark Stride will be here on Monday and Tuesday.
It's open line Friday, as you know.
Uh I have made the vow that I will continue to try and take calls.
I got plenty to say.
There's an awful lot to say today, but I do want to go to some of your calls and um Demi in Gathersburg, Maryland has been holding for an awfully long time.
Demi, I promise I'd go to your call.
How are you?
Hi, I'm doing well.
Good thanks.
What's on your mind?
Good.
First of all, it's been great to hear you filling in for Rush.
We love Rush, but I love when you fill in as well.
Oh, you are incredibly kind.
Uh thank you.
You probably get me in trouble for the compliment.
Thank you so much.
Oh no.
Okay.
Um well my comment is about the NBC news article that came out today.
It's been on the top of the judge report today.
Um about the Marines in um Afghanistan who are not going to be receiving um one of their hot meals for the day.
It's just kind of infuriating to me, especially since my tax dollars um already supply hot meals to even children in elementary schools who the government decides need them needs them.
Um but we can't seem to supply enough for our troops.
Um it's pretty upsetting to me.
Yeah, do you have a horse in this race?
Do you have somebody you know who's affected by this?
You know, not immediate family, but definitely friends who've been over there and are currently over there um fighting.
Um so it you know, I sleep well at night and we all sleep well at night knowing they're over there protecting our freedoms.
It sounds like a cliche, but it's very truthful.
Um when it comes to morale for these guys and they're tough guys, they're not whiners.
Um, you know, I want to give them everything they want and need.
You know, uh the the funny thing about that NBC story you're talking about.
And this the story that the story that Demi is talking about.
This isn't Demi Moore, by the way, is it?
No, it is not.
All right.
Um the the the story that Demi is talking about has to do with the fact that Marines in Afghanistan at at Camp Leatherneck, I think it is, yes, are losing one of their daily hot meals, and that starts this coming Saturday or last Saturday.
And as far as I could tell, there was no real reason given for this, was there?
Well, the the um Lieutenant Colonel who was quoted in the article said it was for austerity.
Um if we need budget cuts, that doesn't seem to me to be one of the mo more necessary things to cut, though, to be honest.
Yeah, well, I see even Marines are on the record here saying, you know, now I go for an entire shift of six and a half hours without a meal.
And he says this one Marine says there's a hundred other places where we could where we could cut.
And this meal I is this not the midnight breakfast meal we're talking about.
They did say it was the midnight meal, and then it would be they would still be receiving meal.
It would be replaced with an MRE.
Not very comparable in my opinion, but what is MRE?
What does that mean?
Um those are meals ready to eat from my understanding, so they're in the Oh, it sounds sounds delicious, doesn't it?
Yeah, really good.
Sounds sounds delicious.
Mm-hmm.
Reminds me of a flight I took the other day.
Okay, so so they're cutting out basically a hot meal.
Exactly.
To Marines at midnight, and there was another aspect to this as as I've recall from the piece, which was that the that the Marines both shifts apparently met at the same time, and it was the only time of the whole day when everyone was together having a meal.
Is that correct?
Right.
And uh you know, it's not just about having a hot meal when they're away from home, it's about exactly that.
That they this is the time when they can convene with each other.
Um that's a real morale booster that's you say something to me.
Demi, I keep quizzing you about this, and you seem to know all the answers.
I don't know why are you so messed up in this.
Uh, okay.
No, you seem to you're very, very good.
Look, it's another one of those i i think stressful times are what?
Yeah.
I mean it's just another one of those head scratchingly baffling things, cutting out a hot meal for our Marines.
By the way, we're not even talking about that many Marines, I don't think, at this place.
Well, the article is specifically about that camp.
You know, I'm not pretend to know um Yeah, and I didn't see any numbers listed.
I didn't see any numbers listed in that article.
Um the only number I saw listed that was that three thirty thousand U.S. service men are gonna be leaving Afghanistan.
I saw no other numbers.
Very bizarre, almost punitive.
Well, um look, Demi, it's open line Friday, and I'm delighted you brought this to our attention.
Is there anything else you want to raise while we're having our little private chat here?
Thanks.
Um no, I've enjoyed it.
I I felt very passionate upset about it, so you're the one I wanted to call.
I wish like there is more I can do to be honest.
Well, I'm still dying, I'm I'm still trying to get the reason you're so passionate.
But anyway, Demi Good thing to be passionate about.
Are you following the rest of the plot about the IRS and taxes as well as the uh hot meals?
You know, I wish I I knew more about that, but I I do not.
I'm just as excited as you are, though.
I can serve nonprofit, and so that's absolutely close to my heart as well.
But look, Demi, on a day where we have the IRS investigating people, we do need someone to be keeping watch over hot meals for the Marines, and that's you.
So I'll do my thanks so much to me for calling the Rush Limbaugh show.
Thank you so much.
Appreciate the call.
Stugger Banski, ladies and gentlemen, filling in for rush.
Did you see this?
Did you see this?
There's a DNC, Democrat National Committee's communications director.
Have you seen this one?
He is this guy's name is Brad Woodhouse.
And Mr. Woodhouse, who really should be fired, he tweeted something.
As you all know, Mr. Holder, the uh attorney general, has asked for, now apparently had a meeting with the press that's going to be a closed door meeting.
Many members of the press did not go because it was going to be an off-the-record meeting, where yesterday the word to use to describe the meeting was he was going to give guidelines for how they should report certain stories and a number of news organizations, as you know, declined to go.
This guy, Mr. Brad Woodhouse, the Democrat National Committee's communications director, he says that news organizations that refused holders off-the-record meeting forfeit their right to gripe about it.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, uh do I need, do you and I need yet another loud-mouthed, obnoxious Democrat political hack telling you what you should be allowed to gripe about or not?
And I'm trying to adopt his own tone, obviously.
They would be screaming.
They would be in hysteria if this was a Republican attorney general, especially one if they had done such heinous, lawless, reckless acts.
You know, when you lose the integrity of the office of the attorney general, this is this should be the this should be the beacon of integrity of a nation and of an administration.
So this guy, Mr. Woodhouse, he says, well, if you if if you're a news organization and you refuse Holders' offer, you forfeit your right to gripe.
You should forfeit your right to gripe.
Once again, the left is confronted with that pesky little thing known as the First Amendment.
That little pesky thing always gets in the way.
None that's not surprising from this bunch at all, is it?
Well, I got something to tell you, Mr. Woodhouse.
You don't have final say.
That's all.
All liberals need to honestly ask themselves, ask yourself the following question.
What if John Ashcroft had given guns to Mexican mafia?
What if John Ashcroft had allowed the IRS to target political opponents?
What if George W. Bush had had the IRS target political opponents?
What if John Ashcroft and George Bush had illegally spied on journalists from AP, from Fox?
What if they had ordered drone stykes on America drone strikes on American citizens?
Liberals, if you want to be honest, ask yourself those questions.
It's Dugger Bansky filling in for Rush.
We've got to take a short break, we'll be right back.
You know, it is rich, is it not, ladies and gentlemen?
It's Dugger Bansky, by the way, back here filling in for Rush today.
It is rich, is it not, to have the attorney general wanting summoning the press to go have a quote, off-the-record conversation with him, and off-the-record conversation to discuss the freedom of the press?
And off the record, it makes no sense.
An off-the-record conversation to discuss the freedom of the press, that's guaranteed in the first amendment.
Kind of a very odd uh odd choice, don't you think?
I I frankly think it is uh in intolerable.
It is unacceptable that the Department of Justice should even request such a meeting.
I mean, the meeting is to discuss the First Amendment, but it's off the record.
The IRS commissar did nothing wrong but pleaded the fifth.
It was a video that caused the attack in Benghazi, but in fact it was um it was uh it was terrorists.
Department of Justice says that caps be that taps on the phone of reporters be kept secret so they can continue for years.
I mean, where on earth do we keep going with all this stuff?
▲
Export Selection