All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 20, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:50
February 20, 2014, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
This might be one of those days.
It might be it already is one of those days.
It just depends on whether or not I can muster all the professionalism at my disposal and forget it.
It's one of those days where no matter what anybody says to me, I know they're lying.
Insulting my intelligence.
I know it, it's one of those days where no matter what it is.
Anyway, don't those days happen to you every f fidget f fibbing, fudging, uh afraid to tell you the real truth about something.
Doesn't matter what it is.
Anyway, I'm gonna forget it now that I've mentioned it.
That's the half of therapy.
Just mentioning it, letting the liars know that you know they're lying.
That's gotten me fired twice, by the way.
Greetings, folks, 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
I need I want to I want to start today with this story that the regime is going to put monitors in American news organization newsrooms.
As I had a fascinating discussion with two or three people here asking what they thought of the and without fail, without exception, everybody I asked about this said without the slightest hesitation or doubt that the media will rise up in righteous indignation and opposition and will not put up with this.
The media, New York Times, NBC News, CBS, Washington Post, you name it, they will not tolerate.
They will draw a red line like Obama drew in Syria and is drawing again in Ukraine.
And they will not allow regime monitors in there.
Now here is the here's here's the story.
And there's there is a report out there now that the FCC has backed off on this.
And I haven't got much detail on that.
But it's actually an FCC directory, and it's it's a it you when you when you I've got some audio sound bites, this I'm not gonna play them because it would it would take me away from the point I want to make, but there are people that are asking other experts when they've done segments on this.
Does Obama know about this?
Who's doing this?
These are conservative media does Obama know about it?
You think the FCC is doing this on their own?
You know, all of this extreme outrageous stuff, like when known communists end up being hired in the regime.
People does Obama know?
How'd they sneak that guy by Obama?
What do you mean does Obama know?
These people are doing things that they know he wants done.
He puts like-minded fellow travelers in there.
The idea that all of these extremists are having to sneak things by Obama to get them done.
This is my point.
We're five years into the regime, and there are still learned people on our side who cannot believe that Obama personally would either do something like this or tolerate something like this.
Another thing, will journalism schools across the fruited plain, stand up in righteous opposition to this.
Here are the details.
If this is the first you are hearing of this, the Federal Communications Commission is poised to place government monitors in newsrooms across the country in an absurdly, I'm reading from redstate.com, Matthew Clark.
It's the best summary of the details.
The regime is poised to place government monitors in newsrooms across the country in an absurdly draconian attempt to intimidate and Control the media.
Now, before you dismiss this assertion as utterly preposterous, this bombshell of an accusation comes from an actual FCC commissioner.
So the first thought that somebody has, oh, come on, they wouldn't do this.
Who are you kidding?
What conspiracy kook has put this forward?
And Mr. Clark is no, no, no, no.
This comes from an FCC commissioner himself.
The commissioner is Ajit Pai, AJ I T P P A I. And this commissioner has revealed a brand new regime program that he says he fears could be used in pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.
And the commissioner spoke to the Wall Street Journal and said this.
Last May, the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country with its multi-market study of critical information needs or the CIN, critical information needs, the FCC plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors, and station owners about how they decide which stories to run.
A field test in Columbia, South Carolina, scheduled to begin this spring.
Now the purpose of the multi-market study of critical information needs, according to the FCC is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about quote the process by which stories are selected,
close quote, and how often stations cover critical information needs, along with perceived station bias and perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.
That's from the commissioner, the FCC, explaining why the regime wants monitors in radio and TV newsrooms to make sure that they're not biased or to catalog the bias to make sure that they are serving the minority populations and to determine how they decide what and what not to report.
Now sit tight, hang on.
The FCC is now expanding the bounds of regulatory powers to include newspapers, which it has absolutely no authority over.
Newspapers, when the first amendment was written, there was no radio and TV, obviously.
So it was newspapers, pamphlets, it was the printed word.
And there's literally no federal regulation of newspapers.
And the only reason there is a broadcasting is because this notion that the airwaves are public and the government issues licenses to broadcasters, granting them permission to use those airwaves.
But still in the news division of those broadcast outlets, the First Amendment applies.
But never, never has the it doesn't apply to cable, for example, because cable's not over the air.
The FCC has no authority over what's on cable, even though they try to assert it, but it's not over the air.
So there is no public interest there.
Same thing with newspapers.
Newspapers are totally off limits.
And yet, the commissioner, the FCC says that they're now expanding the bounds of their regulatory powers to include newspapers in this new government monitoring program.
The FCC has apparently already selected eight categories of critical information that it believes local newscasters ought to cover, should cover.
You heard right, the regime has developed a formula of what it believes a free press should cover, and it is going to send government monitors into newsrooms across the fruited plain to stand over the shoulders of the press as they make these editorial decisions.
Every major repressive regime of the modern era has begun with an attempt to control and intimidate the press.
Not really.
That's second, very close second.
But if you want to know the truth, every major repressive regime of the modern era has begun with universal health care.
That's the first thing Hitler did.
That's partly how you get the media on your side is championing issues all of them support, then you go get total control over them.
But health care is the first thing, because that is direct control, total control over everybody in your country.
So it's health care they go after first, repressive regimes.
It's not the media.
And just as it is elsewhere in the world, health care here, and now they're going for the media.
Now imagine a government monitor telling Fox News it needed to cover stories the same way MSNBC or Al Jazeera does.
Now, before now, wait a second.
Just this hang on.
I know what you're doing out there.
I know I believe me, I have empathy.
I know exactly how you're reacting, what you're thinking, and what you're shouting at the radio.
I'll get to all that in just a second.
But if some of you who think that there's no way that this is this the media is going to rise up in indignation, righteous opposition.
They're not going to put up with this.
I want to give you an alternative way of looking at this.
And if you think that something like this isn't possible, I want to explain and illustrate for you and give you an example of where it is happening, not in the media, however.
Well, not technically in the media.
But I can give you a flat-out current right now example of the Department of Justice putting a monitor inside a company, demanding that this guy have access to every executive to talk to them any time he wants and to make judgments and report back to a judge on what he sees going on in this company
every day.
It's happening at Apple, Incorporated.
But I'm going to take a break now.
Because I know I know, I know this is some of you think this is a rush.
You know, it's never going to happen.
Others of you are saying, oh, well, I know what the reaction is.
I'll take a break.
And of course, this will not be complete till I tell you what I think.
Now, Snergley's in it, there's no way.
There's literally no way the press is going to put up with this.
No way.
And I just, before you think that, before you automatically, reflexively think that the press ain't going to put up with this.
I want to give you an alternative way of looking at this.
And I want to ask you a question.
Is there anything that the regime has done or is doing to anybody that has the media upset.
And there is.
One small little thing.
The regime is restricting access.
The media is upset that they don't have to.
It's minor, you know, just tiny irrelevant stuff.
But that's it.
They're not upset at anything the regime's doing.
They're not upset of what they were doing at the Tea Party, IRS.
Nothing.
They don't find one thing the regime is doing worthy of reporting on.
They certainly do not suspect the regime.
They are not at all concerned with the power the regime is amassing, not as they would be if this were a Republican regime.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back.
This is just a tip of the iceberg today, folks, but it was what I wanted to start With sit tight, don't go away.
Now, folks, this FCC story where they want to put monitors in American newsrooms is not actually new.
This story has been kicking around the internet since it was first proposed, almost a year ago, was proposed in May of 2013.
But it wasn't until one of the commissioners of the FCC, Agit Pie, wrote the op-ed for the Wall Street Journal ten days ago.
And it was only yesterday that that op-ed was noticed, even though it was ten days ago.
And because a commissioner has actually now written an op-ed warning of what the government wants to do.
Everybody is now highly attuned to it.
Now, at first, the ostensible purpose of the study, putting monitors in newsrooms, was theoretically to help the FCC figure out how to lower entry barriers for minorities in broadcasting.
That's what they said.
They want to put monitors in there.
Find out what stories are being chosen, why they're being chosen, what stories aren't being chosen.
Somehow this was going to lead to the acquisition of more data, helping the government figure out how to get more minorities owning broadcast outlets.
However, the question and the whole proposition show that it was much more intrusive than that.
It was that was just a cover.
That was just actually that the avowed purpose.
Well, yeah, we want to investigate minority ownership and see what we can do about it.
That's a way to get a ready to lay down.
Who's going to oppose that?
Oh, is that all you want to do?
Oh, okay.
So the regime wants to see to it, do everything they can to get more minorities and oh, fine.
No, and that's how it's designed.
It's designed to just shut everybody up and deflect everybody's attention.
Now, after the op-ed, Mr. Pye wrote in the Wall Street Journal, AdWeck of all places, posted an article claiming that the FCC has suspended it.
The story now is from AdWeek of all places.
Well, no, I got nothing else.
Adweek, but I mean, if of all the there wasn't one here's here's my point.
Not one major media newsroom, news division, stood up and said a thing about this.
This op-ed's been out there for ten days and nobody said anything.
Anyway, AdWeek says that it has been suspended.
They've stopped it.
They're not going to go forward.
But that's the only place.
I haven't seen any confirmation of it.
Just ad week.
But I would say it's like everything else that this regime does.
If they've actually suspended this study, and and the study, again, is the placing of government monitors in newsrooms to observe what's going on.
If it actually has been suspended, it's just temporary.
They're going to do this.
They've tipped their hand.
They want to do this.
They are going to do it.
It's clear the regime thought they could get away with doing this this time.
Hugo Chavez used to do things like this all the time.
Now, here's the question.
Let's let's just go hypothetically here.
Let's say that Ed Week did not discover the study has been suspended.
Let's say it's going to go forward.
At some point they're going to try it.
Will major American media organizations stand up and righteously indignantly oppose this.
And I can make the case that I don't think they would.
Most people think instinctively, reflexively, most people think the media is not going to put up with something like that.
No way.
You're going to have a government monitor in my newsroom, and you're going to be, you're going to be quote-unquote monitoring the stories I choose to cover and the stories I don't want to cover, And you are going to be cataloging what you think is my bias.
No way, pal.
But I can see where, given the current circumstances that exist today, they wouldn't oppose it.
In fact, I could make the case to you that they would welcome it.
I explained this to Snerdley today, he could not believe me.
He did not believe that I was being serious.
Sure, you're joking.
He said, No, I can make I can make the case where journalism schools will not oppose it, but instead will support it.
And I'll bet I could make the case to you, given current circumstances.
I think the media might look at it as an opportunity to get even closer to Obama.
I think some might look at it as a way of impressing Obama.
Remember, Obama's the king.
They all serve the guy.
They're all in the same team.
These aren't really journalists, they're just Democrats assigned there.
I'm going to go a step further, and I'm going to tell you that I think.
Well, let me pull back a little bit.
I'm going to tell I wouldn't be surprised if journalism professors at University of Missouri Journalism School, Columbia School of Journalism, whatever the, you know, hot Trot Kennedy School, whatever Harvard, wherever you find a journalism school, I wouldn't be surprised if it was professors who gave the government this idea.
Folks, this this I'm telling if you just do not if if you don't think, if you don't think that that's entirely possible, you are not paying attention to what's going on.
There is no journalism anymore.
There is an agenda that is put forward each day, the soap opera, whatever you want to call it, the purpose of the media in New York and Washington is to advance the Democrat Party agenda.
In the pop culture media, in the sports media, in the so-called news media, there isn't any news.
And all I'm telling you is that I can see, I'm not going to go out on a limb and predict it, but we'll just see.
I'm just going to tell you that I, for one, would not be surprised if there is no anger or outrage real.
You might have some innocent guy stand up and express mock outrage at this, but But there won't be.
I won't be surprised if there isn't any substantive pushback to this.
It's the outcome that matters.
The journalism flew the coupe a long time ago.
There isn't any of that going on here.
Now they can there are people who think they're journalists.
They they and hearing me say this think, oh, um, is off his rocker again, not understanding the context in which I'm offering these comments.
That's why I don't worry about you all are here every day.
You understand you're you're able to put my comments in context here, and you know exactly what I mean.
There isn't any journalism going on.
There isn't anybody standing in a corner and telling us what happened that we didn't see.
Everything, everything is flavored in terms of how does it affect Obama, how does it affect the elections, how's it gonna affect the Democrats?
Everything.
Everything in the media is oriented toward advancing the agenda of the Democrat Party, the American left Barack Obama or whatever.
And I just I'm just telling you that I wouldn't, I'm not gonna be surprised at all.
Now, remember, Ad Week says they've suspended this, they're not gonna go forward with it since it's been discovered.
They're not gonna move forward with it now, they're gonna delay it.
It was all a ruse based on trying to figure out some things about how to enhance minority ownership of media properties.
That's what they said this was about.
And that's how they were able to get it in under the radar.
Then the commissioner wrote the op-ed ten days ago in the Wall Street Journal, it's finally surfaced, and people have seen it, and there is some reaction on The right.
There isn't any reaction to this where you would think there would be.
It is conservatives standing up to defend the media.
They're not standing up in righteous outrage or indignation over what would happen to them.
Let me move on to Ukraine here for a second, because a lot of people try and what the heck is going on here?
It's not that hard to figure out.
The people who live in Ukraine want to be free.
They want to be part of the European Union.
Putin doesn't want them to be free.
Putin wants to control them.
They were promised they were going to be part of the European Union at some point, and all of a sudden the promise was broken.
They're going to be under Soviet-style nomination from Moscow.
The people are protesting.
There's outrage.
The people are protesting the government in Ukraine.
So Obama, Mr. Peacemaker, went in there and drew another red line, like he did in Syria.
I've got a soundbite here.
It's number nine on my roster.
It is ten seconds long.
And it is the totality of Obama's policy here.
Listen.
We'll be monitoring very carefully the situation, recognizing that along with our European partners and the international community, there will be consequences if people step over the line.
Oh man, I'm scared.
That would intimidate me.
That would really make me stop and think twice.
Here's a guy, Barack Obama, who told Dmitry Medvedev.
Hey, look, Dimitri, you go back and you tell Vlad I'm going to have a lot more flexibility.
Getting rid of our nukes after I win the election in 2012.
Tell Vlad everything is going to be fine.
It was an open mic.
We all heard it.
So Medvedev smiles.
He goes back and tells Putin, don't worry, this guy wants to please us.
This guy wants to make us happy.
He said, just roll with him till after the election he'll start getting rid of his nukes.
So Putin, I guarantee you, has no fear of Obama.
So the situation in Ukraine breaks out, coincidentally, at the same time the Olympics are going on in Sochi.
And Obama says, well, all right, I'm gonna he thinks he brokered a truce between the government and the protesters, and the government promised to stop beating up the protesters.
And that was the red line.
Obama demanded to govern Ukraine draw a red line and stop beating up busting heads of the citizens, the protesters.
And after he drew the red line, we're gonna be monitoring real careful situation, recognizing a long old European partners.
Well, the truce is broken down and the heads are being beaten, and there's nothing anybody can do, and Putin's sitting there no doubt laughing about it.
Because Putin wants to swallow the Ukraine.
Putin wants to reassemble the Soviet Union.
Putin is on the march to reassembling the Soviet Union.
Meanwhile, what are we doing here?
We're uh oh, did you hear that?
Ben Affleck is going to testify to Congress as an expert on the Congo.
Because he starred in a movie about it.
Right here it is.
Ben Affleck, slated to appear before the meanwhile, Vladimir Putin is reassembling the Soviet Union.
And what are we doing?
What is news in this?
What are we concerned about?
What we're concerned about is Bodie Miller being brought to tears by a female info babe interviewing Amber He wins a medal at the Olympics.
Ben Affleck slated to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee next Wednesday to discuss the troubled Central African country of Congo.
You know why?
Because Ben Affleck directed a movie called Argo.
And it says here that he has shown keen interest in Congo in recent years through his philanthropic uh philanthropic organization, the Eastern Congo initiative.
So Affleck is going to testify as an expert on Congo.
Because he made movies.
You want to hear a partial list of other actors and actresses who have been called as expert witnesses before Senate and House Committees.
Angelina Jolie met with Congress over 20 times over the United Nations.
Loretta Swift, Mash, Hot Lips Hooligan, animal rights expert, Catherine Bell has testified on the abuses of human rights and religious freedom perpetrated by the French government.
Pamela Anderson has testified before Congress demanding an end to harmful chimpanzee experiments.
Jenny McCarthy has testified before Congress demanding the regulation of vaccine.
She testified before Congress regarding vaccine scheduling.
Nicole Kidman, actress, has testified to Congress as an expert on domestic violence.
I don't know.
I don't know what did I miss.
What made her an expert on domestic violence?
We probably don't want to go there.
Cheryl Crow testified to fund research on a cure for breast cancer.
Lindsay Lohan has testified before Congress on the support of small businesses in the attempt to get Congress to enact policies that would help create more jobs.
Lindsay Lohan has it's not these are people who've testified before Congress.
Lindsay Lohan's testified before Congress on job creation.
Christy Brinkley has testified on the risks associated with nuclear reactors.
That's right.
Julia Roberts also has testified on the risks of nuclear reactors.
Carrie Washington, who stars in Scandal on ABC, has testified before Congress on the importance of keeping arts in education.
Jewel, the well-known song stylist, has testified on the disconnected and disadvantaged youth of the world.
Jennifer Garner, who is the wife of Ben Affleck, has testified in order to bring attention to early childhood development, poverty, and to find a way to help out struggling families.
Jessica Lay has testified before Congress on the struggles of farm wives because she portrayed one in a movie.
And I think Jane Fonda did too.
I mean, they tell at the same time.
Linda Lovelace has testified before Congress on the dangers of pornography.
And Denise Austin has testified before Congress on childhood obesity.
Speaking of which, I have a story.
Apparently Michelle Obama is leading the fight against obesity.
Apparently, there's a new norm now.
Overweight, somewhat overweight, is now going to be considered normal.
Thank you.
It just the new normal, certain amounts overweight, because I guess we've got to point realize we're just not going to be able to get everybody down to normal size.
So we're just going to have to proclaim a new normal that includes a little bit of overweight, but we're not going to call it obesity.
This list of people that have tested for it.
This doesn't even scratch the surface.
I mean, who else has testified up there?
What's her name?
Morgan Fairchild has testified.
Alan Cranston, Senator from California, used to have an actress a week come up and testify.
But Ben Affleck will go in there and talk about Congo.
Got to take a quick timeout, folks.
El Rushbow, back after this, don't go away.
You know, you see Ukraine business folks.
You actually do have to wonder which side of the barricades Obama would be on.
If he were there, uh which side of the uh barricade to the protests in in Ukraine?
Because the side where the regime is that wants to cling to a rigid top-down command and control economy and and and uh deny uh entrance of the European Union, deny liberated freedom for the citizens, or that's one side, or the protesters in the street who are demanding limits on the government.
Now that which side do you think you'd find Obama on there?
Well, no, seriously.
No, no, no.
You know, people think we're making jokes.
I'm through making jokes.
Well, I'm not through making jokes.
My point is we've been laughing at these people 25 years, they propose this absolutely asinine weird stuff, and it's it's it's all happening.
So I'm just I'm it you know it is.
It's all more freedom or less freedom, which side's Obama gonna be.
If you go to Ukraine, you you've got the people in Ukraine who are demanding limits on the government, and you've got the government beating them over the head, trying to keep them in line in a command and control economy and other aspect of government.
What what where would Obama be in that circumstance?
I know.
You know, here's the thing.
You make you ask that question, and if there are any low information voters, you know, scanning, searching through, finding this show, they'll think a question like that is extreme and ridiculous and and so forth.
Oh my goodness I can't believe this is so insane.
It's ludicrous.
Well, and I just don't um get it.
Anyway, I'm let me grab a phone call here because we've got a lot, and people have been patiently waiting as always.
We're gonna start Philadelphia, but Richard, welcome, sir.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hi.
Good good afternoon, Rush.
Uh, I just want to preface this by saying, quoting Edmund Burke, who said, for evil to triumph, good men must do nothing.
And therefore, this this is fully going to be supported by the clowns at MSNBC, because if you put a government of uh Ministry of Truth monitor in their newsroom, you're not going to be able to tell the difference between them and the guys who work at MSNBC.
So what do they care?
It's just going to be another compadre in their newsroom, as opposed to Fox or more conservative minded media when they have a monitor in there, it's going to stand like like a sore thumb, and you're going to have their boot on their neck.
And these are the good people who are going to do nothing and let freedom die.
Okay, so you you would say that Fox would object, but MSNBC wouldn't.
Well, I I think Fox would object more than MSNBC would.
Everything is going to be relative.
I mean, they're also establishment type people, but the more the more conservative people that have some differences with this regime are gonna are gonna potentially fight it while the MSNBC and NBC and ABC crew, what do they care whether there's a modern same people?
Let me ask you a question.
Very simply.
Um has Congress stood up in righteous indignation over Obama usurping their power?
Of course not.
They haven't.
Is anybody have doctors, hospitals, anybody stood up and expressed anger and outrage over Obama who knows nothing about taking over the entire health care industry?
Well, I am a I am a physician.
I'm living through it.
I'm at the end of my career, and I'm thankful that I am.
Right.
People are not standing up in rights opposition, they're trying to figure ways out of it.
Well, I mean, the people who are standing up are being cowed try uh attempted to be cowed by the by the the vitriol that comes back at them.
Right.
Exactly right.
So so you're gonna so therefore there are no good people to stand up against this evil.
No evil will not evil will triumph.
That's what I'm saying.
I think there's plenty of good people.
I I'm uh I think there's just abject fear.
Yeah.
I think there's total fear Of standing up to anything this regime is doing.
And if, you know, why would the media stand up and oppose Obama trying to take over their operation when nobody else, Congress isn't?
Nobody else is standing up in righteous opposition to it.
Anyway, we'll explore this further, folks, because I can I can paint you a picture that you might conclude, yeah, I've got a point.
Back after this.
Don't go anywhere.
Hi, folks, and welcome back.
Uh coming up in the next hour, we got more audio sound bites, and the regime is now trying to make school discipline proportionate and the same for every student.
It's kind of like monitors in newsrooms, only in schools.
▲
Export Selection