See, I Told You So:
Media Not Upset by Notion of FCC Monitors in Newsrooms; Journalism Schools Behind the Idea
 

February 21, 2014

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  So yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, I told you that the media would not be upset over this FCC idea of monitors in newsrooms. And I further told you -- and I admit this was a guess but it was an educated guess -- that I wouldn't be surprised if I found out that a journalism school was actually behind this idea.  I mentioned to you that there wouldn't be any protests from journalists or journalism schools. I said:

"If it turns out here that a dean or an entire j-school is behind this idea, it won't surprise me a bit." And guess what?  There are two, ladies and gentlemen. "The FCC commissioned the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Communication and Democracy to do a study defining what information is 'critical' for citizens to have.

"The scholars decided that 'critical information' is information that people need to 'live safe and healthy lives' and to 'have full access to educational, employment, and business opportunities' ..." That's what the news should be.  Any mea culpas in there? Anybody want to now admit what I told you: This isn't about news anymore, it's about advancing the Democrat Party agenda? It's about advancing the leftist agenda. (interruption) Why is it uncanny?

For 25 years I've been accurately predicting this. This is interesting.  It really is.  For 25 years I've been predicting this, and yet people still doubt me.  Now, look, I'm smiling when I say this.  I don't want anybody to misunderstand.  But, on the one hand, it is kind of serious.  I am a renowned authority -- one of the world's foremost -- on the left; I'm never wrong about them. And yet, even now, after 25 years of demonstrable proof of that assertion, I'm still doubted. 

(interruption) All right.  Okay.  All right.  So this goes to the core of a free press.  You would think even they would understand this.  It's a new world.  There isn't any news.  That's not what journalism is anymore.  You don't go into journalism because you want to report news to people.  You don't go into journalism because you want to find out first what's happening and be the first to report to other people what's happening. 

That's not why you go into journalism.  You go into journalism to advance an agenda.  World peace, ending world poverty, destroying the powerful, whatever it is.  But it is not related to the news anymore.  By the way, Katy Bachman, who I mentioned yesterday that I've encountered in my professional broadcast career, writes at Adweek.  She reported yesterday that the program has been dialed back.

It hasn't.  It has not been dialed back.  They want us to think it has.  Lanny Davis has stood up in outrage. Well-known Clinton defender, Lanny Davis, stood up in outrage.  It's typical. He says, "Obama needs to find out who did this and fire him!"  Lanny, Obama would have to fire himself, and that isn't going to happen.  Can I tell you what else I found?  I found a tweet.  I have a got a screen shot here.  It's very small, and it could have been Facebook. 

But it's a tweet, and it is from a Democrat running for Congress in Virginia against Eric Cantor.  The Democrat's name is Mike Dickinson, and it looks like the tweet is from February 17th.  So four days ago.  I'm going to read you the tweet.  "Fox News does nothing but tell lies and mistruths. They have unqualified political analysts. We need FCC to monitor and regulate them."

That's a Democrat candidate for Congress.  Do you think this is a coincidence, four days this clown comes out and tweets this?  Do you know whose idea this really is? I can't say it's her idea, but do you know where this gem of an idea originated?  Try Mignon Clyburn, the daughter of James Clyburn, who was a ranking member of the Congressional Black Caucasians in the House of Representatives. He has a daughter. He named her after a steak -- a prime cut of steak, but nevertheless a steak. 

The filet is the least amount of fat.  If you serve it without a bone, it's the tenderest.  Yeah, it's probably one of the most tender cuts, prime cuts you can get.  He named his daughter after a steak.  A very lean steak.  Mignon Clyburn.  Mignon is the agent behind this.  The Washington Examiner: "The First Amendment says 'Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...'

"But under the Obama [Regime] the Federal Communications Commission is planning to send government contractors into the nation's newsrooms to determine whether journalists are producing articles, television reports, Internet content, and commentary that meets the public's 'critical information needs.' Those 'needs' will be defined by the administration, and news outlets that do not comply with the government's standards could face an uncertain future.

"It's hard to imagine a project more at odds with the First Amendment." No, it's not hard to imagine! That's the point!  It isn't hard to imagine it!  Maybe it's hard to accept it, but it isn't hard to imagine. It's right in front of your face! They're being very open about it! They're not even doing this under the cover of darkness.  They're not even doing this while nobody's looking.  They're doing it wide open, under a full sun.

"The initiative, known around the agency as 'the CIN Study' (pronounced 'sin'), is a bit of a mystery even to insiders. 'This has never been put to an FCC vote, it was just announced,' says Ajit Pai, one of the FCC's five commissioners (and one of its two Republicans)." So he's one of the FCC's commissars, and he's one of two Republicans commissars. Of course, the president being a Democrat, he gets the majority of the commissars.

They used to be called "commissioners," but I'm calling these people "commissars" because they're high commissars -- and in the German, they are "haupt commissars," h-a-u-p-t, high commissars. And it is what it is.  Here are some pull quotes: "Advocates promote the project with Obama-esque rhetoric." Advocates! Advocates! There are people in support of this. There's nobody out there in the media frightened about this.  They think what this is going to end up doing is silencing Fox News and me.

That's the attraction to them for this.  "This study begins the charting of a course to a more effective delivery of necessary information to all citizens," said FCC commisar Mignon Clyburn in 2012. This thing goes back two years!  One of the Republican commissars is who made this public.  Now that it's public, nobody's denying it.  They did tell Katy Bachman that they're pulling back on it but they're not. 

I want you to listen to this quote again from Mignon Clyburn.  She might pronounce it "Mig-non," I don’t know.  I've never heard her name pronounced. (interruption) Is it Mignon?  Have you heard her name pronounced? (interruption) Well, I'll call her Mignon.  Mignon Clyburn, daughter of James Clyburn, Congressional Black Caucasian. By the way, do you know what he does? 

The guy's got a publication in South Carolina, Charleston I think. They've got a publication aimed at the African-American community.  So he's in the business himself, so to speak.  But listen to this.  "This study begins the charting of a course to a more effective delivery of necessary information to all citizens."  This means the Regime is going to determine what the news is.  The study is for the news outlets to tell the Regime how they pick the news and what they decide to ignore in the news. 

And the Regime is going to come in and say, "No, no, no. Here's what the news is, and here's what isn't the news." That's, in a nutshell, what this is.  This is the regime officially making it State-Controlled Media.  "The FCC commissioned the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Communication and Democracy to do a study defining what information is 'critical' for citizens to have.

"The scholars," at these two journalism schools, "decided that 'critical information'" that We the People need from the media "is information that people need to 'live safe and healthy lives'..."  Well, they're already doing that. Don't you get it? They're already telling us how much we can eat, how much of a soda we can't have.  They're already doing this, and not just the media!  Elected officials are already telling us how to live healthy lives, what we can and can't eat. 

Also, the scholars of these two journalism schools decided that another avenue of critical information for the people is 'full access to educational, employment, and business opportunities,' among other things."  So the news is going to become a giant classified ads section: Educational, employment, business opportunities, among other things.  "If the FCC goes forward," pull quote from the story, "it's not clear what will happen to news organizations that fall short of the new government standards.

"Perhaps they will be disciplined. Or perhaps the very threat of investigating their methods will nudge them into compliance with the [Regime]'s journalistic agenda. What is sure is that it will be a gross violation of constitutional rights." This is Byron York's piece, by the way, from the Washington Examiner, I'm reading. That's his pull quote.  In the United States of America this is being written,  as though it's likely to happen it's almost a fait accompli?

And all we're talking about here is what's going to happen to the dissidents, what's going to happen to the resistance?  It will be underground.  They're going to have to broadcast some private locations on private frequencies.  "Perhaps news organizations that fall short of the new government standards ... will be disciplined. Or perhaps the very threat of investigating their methods will nudge them into compliance..."

That's what they've done with the Republican Party.  The Republican Party is in total compliance with the Democrat Party, is it not, in terms of the party at the establishment level?  Have they not been "nudged" into total compliance?  And who are the holdouts?  Me and talk radio and, some of them say, Fox News.  They're not pulling back on this. They have not set it aside, as they reported yesterday.  I have some audio sound bites from the commissar, Ajit Pai, coming up.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, for those who think the media would stand up in righteous outrage I want to remind you: October 9th, 2013, last year, Los Angeles Times announced that was going to be stop publishing letters to the editor if they held a view that manmade global warming was a hoax.  If they were "climate deniers," the LA Times was no longer going to publish them because they're just wrong.  They're not going to waste space. 

Here is Ajit Pai (it may be "pay," it's p-a-i) last night On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, and she said, "What's been the response by the other commiss[ars] at the FCC?"

PAI: I'm pleased to report that, uh, tonight, uhh, the chairman of the FCC Tom Wheeler has instructed the contractor who will be doing this study, uh, to remove questions from the study relating to news philosophy and editorial judgment.  And I think that's a positive step, but, of course, the devil's in the details when it comes to the actual study as implemented.

RUSH:  Right, and remember: The Republicans have two seats on the FCC. The Democrats have three plus the chairmanship.  This is not going to be dialed back.  Whatever they have to tell Republicans in Congress to get them to go along with whatever the Democrat agenda is, they'll say. This is the Democrat agenda.  This is going to happen.  Mr. Pai had one more thing to say about this.

PAI: The study was designed and adopted under previous leadership and I think the reaction you have is the one that a lot of people in America have, and that is that the government doesn't have a place in the newsroom.  They don't need the government over the shoulders telling them that they're doing something wrong.  The study hasn't yet started, and that's why I think it's critical for us to make sure at the outset that either we stop the study or if it's going forward, uh, we make sure it doesn't infringe on anyone's constitutional freedoms.

RUSH:  I tell you, that just amazes me.  No, I don't have time to tell you why because I have to break right here.  But what amazes me is the whole attitude here.  It just amazes me. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  By the way, ladies and gentlemen, this is already happening in the UK.  I have a UK Guardian story here from January 30th: "Diversity Monitoring Service Will Show Broadcasters If They're Hitting Targets -- BBC, ITV, Sky and Channel 4 to join pilot to be launched by the Creative Diversity Network. A monitoring service that will assess how the major broadcasters are performing against their diversity targets -- and each other -- is about to be launched by the Creative Diversity Network.

"The aim is that the initiative will become a permanent benchmark to track the industry's successes and failures, holding its key players to account. A pilot is set to launch in the spring, featuring the BBC, ITV, Sky and Channel 4. However, it is not clear how much of the data will be shared publicly." So "diversity monitoring" is in the works in the UK.  Now, technically this isn't being imposed by the government, per se.  It's being done after pressure by the government.  The British don't have a First Amendment, by the way. 

There's no freedom of speech, per se.  There is no freedom of the press, per se.  Did you know that, that the British don't have a constitution? (interruption) You didn't know that? Everybody thinks that every other country has a constitution.  The Brits do not have a constitution -- and, ergo, there's no actual First Amendment.  There may be in practice the notion of a free press, but it isn't codified.  Sticking with the sound bites, would you grab number three? 

I have to be careful.  I don't want to be critical of the Republican Commissar, Mr. Ajit Pai.  It might be Ajit Pai. (sigh) I'm sorry.  I need to make a mental note.  I need to find pronunciations of people's names, because I never hear them pronounced because of my hearing.  I don't ever have the volume up. It's just noise to me.  So if there's no pronunciation guide, I don't know, and so I have to pronounce it all these different ways to assure the subject I'm not trying to purposely get it wrong. 

I want you to listen.  I'm sure he's a great guy.  But think of what's going on here.  We actually have the federal government ripping the First Amendment to shreds here, and we're talking about it in a reasonable, scholarly, introspective, ahh, extro-speculative scholarly way.  This ought not be given one iota of respect!  This view doesn't have any merit. We don't have to respect this view that the government's going to go in and start monitoring the content of the news!

Hey, look at this, a pronunciation. It's Ah-jeet Pie." I was really close. Again, he's one of the two Republican commissars, FCC.  Greta Van Susteren last night: "Look, it might be a positive step that they're dialing this back a little, but you'd have to be out of your mind to have proposed this in the first place.  So, you know, I suppose it's great the commissioner now, after everyone is raining all over his parade. But who in his right mind, suggested this in the first place, or thought it was OK to send monitors into newsrooms?"

See, she's got the right attitude.  She's literally outraged at the entire concept. 

Here's the answer again...

PAI: The study was designed and adopted under previous leadership and I think the reaction you have is the one that a lot of people in America have, and that is that the government doesn't have a place in the newsroom.  They don't need the government over the shoulders telling them that they're doing something wrong.  The study hasn't yet started, and that's why I think it's critical for us to make sure at the outset that either we stop the study or if it's going forward, uh, we make sure it doesn't infringe on anyone's constitutional freedoms.

RUSH:  What do you mean "if it's going forward"?  It is infringing on constitutional freedoms by virtue of its design!  The government doesn't get to monitor content.  The government doesn't get to say what anybody can or can't say, specifically in political speech, and specifically if they're in the media.  Do you all find it strange that I am one of the few in the media outraged by this? 

I mean, I'm not technically a journalist, because I laugh and smile and I love America.  So I'm not a journalist.  But there's cricket silence out there about this.  Now, admittedly people like me are the target of this thing, and the Drive-By journalists do not think they're the targets. I guaran-damn-tee you that's why they're being silent.  They don't think they're the targets. 

They don't think Obama wants to shut them down and they know how to make sure he doesn't and that is: Just kiss ass.  Every day, just keep kissing butt, that's all you gotta do.  You've got a regime monitor in there.  This is why I was telling Snerdley yesterday I think the media is going to like this.  "There's a monitor in there!  There's somebody who can report back to Obama how good I'm doing, how big a butt kisser I am. 

"There's a monitor in there going to report right back to Obama what a great job I'm doing advancing the agenda."  There's no fear in the Drive-Bys because they don't think they're the targets of this. (interruption)  They don't know that. Snerdley says, "They've got to know they won't stay in power forever."  You know what my dad used to always tell me? When he was being educated about communism and what it did to people...

You know, what it literally meant for people, how it did not just deny their freedoms but ended up with many of them dying. There's a wall built in countries to keep people in, not keep people out.  You end up in political prisons, end up tortured.  There is no upward mobility economically.  The leaders take it all.  There's literally nothing.  It's an absolute dungeon of existence, and he always used to tell me that the people in the media don't realize they're going to be the first to shut up. 

They're going to be the first silenced. They're going to be the first to go. Unless they're brought in line, unless they're willing to toe the line, unless they're willing to become absolute butt kissers and report everything written for them. If there's any dissent there, they're gone, because the state is going to control the media -- and anybody in the media who is not cool with that is going to be the first silenced. 

Actually, the first thing a totalitarian regime will do is go for universal health care.  If you doubt that... Look, that's a matter of historical record.  That's not an opinion even.  Go look at what the national socialists did in Germany.  What's the first thing?  It's always under the auspices of helping the poor, the downtrodden, making everybody healthy and keep everybody from getting sick, everybody. 

You control healthcare and you control every aspect of every citizen's life.  You hold their lives in your hands.  If they surrender their medical care to you, you own them.  Then the next thing you do is you move in -- it almost happens simultaneously -- and you control the media.  Go study what Mao Tse-tung did.  Go study what Castro did the revolution in Cuba.  Anywhere. Look at Hugo Chavez.  The reason I say this is Snerdley said, "Don't these people in the media know?"

No! They think they're on the same side. They think they're loved and adored.  They want to be agents.  The people that you see on CBS, ABC, they want to be on the team.  So they're going to be sucking up, doing whatever they have to do to get noticed, to stay in good stead if you will.  Here's more from Ajit Pai.  Greta Van Susteren said, "Well, look, what's the authority for the FCC even to think that it can do this, Mr. Pai?  What's the statute that they think that they must or are complying with here to do something like this?"

PAI:  Technically the FCC is relying on a statute that requires the FCC to report to Congress every three years on barriers that entrepreneurs and small businesses face when they're trying to get into the communications industry. 

VAN SUSTEREN:  All right, stop there.  What does asking the question about whether or not you've been prevented from telling a story have anything to do with being a barrier? 

PAI:  That's exactly the concern I have, that there isn't any connection -- and moreover, uh, even if there were some connection the FCC doesn't have any regulatory authority when it comes to the print media.  And so we don't tell newspapers what to cover. And newspapers, nonetheless, are covered under the CIN study.

RUSH:  What does that tell you?  They don't care what the First Amendment says.  But you notice the hook here.  I mentioned this yesterday.  The hook is, "We're going to do a study to find out what the barriers are to minority ownership of media properties."  So Greta said, "Okay, so, what in the world does how any newsroom chooses the stories that it's going to report have to do with whether or not the minorities can own broadcast properties?  Mr. Ajit Pai said, "Yeah, that's the same question I had."

I'll tell you the answer, that's how you get everybody supporting the study, the concept of the study. "It's to help minorities.  It's to help victims.  It's to help the poor -- and, of course, this country's so unjust and so immoral and so unfair that the media is like everything else.  It's like Big Oil.  It's like Big Pharma.  It's run by a bunch of racist, rich, white pigs -- and we have to change that. 

"So we're going to find out how these racist, rich, white pigs are keeping everybody out -- and we'll do that by finding out how they taint the news so as to create racist attitudes about potential minority entrepreneurs."  Everybody's going, "Yeah! Yeah!" TMZ.  E Entertainment Network, Low-Information Yahoo News. "Yeah, go for it because we want equality and we want fairness," when in truth the biggest barrier to anybody owning a broadcast property is what? 

Money. 

Money.

So I think, if they're really serious, they need to take the subprime mortgage program and transfer it over to the broadcast business, and call it the Subprime Broadcast Purchase Opportunity, and let people that can't afford to buy broadcast outlets buy them.  Give them the mortgage. Give them the loan.  Let them buy the TV station, the radio station or whatever and know that they can't pay it back. Demand that the banks lend the money like they did in the housing business, or else they will be investigated. 

That's how you do it. 

But you see there's much more than this than just minority ownership. 

That's just the hook. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com

END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links

 RushLimbaugh.com: Journalists Won't Put Up with Regime Monitors in Newsrooms? Don't Be So Sure... - 02.20.14

 Washington Examiner: New Obama Initiative Tramples First Amendment Protections

 FOXNews: FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai ‘On the Record’

 Twitchy: Cantor Challenger: ‘We Need FCC To Monitor And Regulate’ Fox News Channel

 AdWeek: FCC Backs Off Study of Newsroom Editorial Practices. GOP Said Study Violated Freedom Of The Press

 RedState: Why Is the Obama Administration Putting Government Monitors in Newsrooms?

 UK Guardian: Diversity Monitoring Service Will Show Broadcasters If They Are Hitting Targets

 FOXNews: Does The FCC Have The Right To Invade Newsrooms?

 ==================================

Beckel: DC Reporters Sleep with Sources

 February 21, 2014

 RUSH:  Bob Beckel has confirmed that journalists of all three sexes are sleeping with their sources in Washington and have been for years.  The subject has been popularized by the latest season of House of Cards.  Have you delved into it yet?  Have you watched it on Netflix? (interruption) All right.  In the show, journalists and members of Congress routinely sleep with each other, and so it came up on Fox the other day. 

 It's come up in other places, since the show is in its second season.  Dana Perino, Bush's Press Secretary, said, "No, no, no. That would never happen. It would never happen!" Beckel said, "Heh, heh, heh. Are you kidding? Let me tell you something. I've been in this town 20 years and I'm gonna tell you what: Everybody's sleeping with everyone.  And it's males and females and sources and journalists. Heh, heh, heh."

 Dana Perino said, "I can't believe that would actually happen here," and it is happening. 

 BREAK TRANSCRIPT
 

 RUSH: Let's get to the Bob Beckel business. House of Cards star Robin Wright.  Snerdley, you do watch the show, right? (interruption) But you're wrapping up season one? (interruption) Oh, you're reviewing the last season, so you remember where it left off so that you're up to speed when it picks up? (interruption)  Well here it says all 13 episodes are up there on Netflix.  They're all one hour.  I think the last one might be 63 minutes.  They're all 58, 59 minutes. 

 If you want, you can speed through the open. The open's about two minutes but the open doesn't actually open.  You can't really do that, because the show opens cold with actual content and the open comes up.  But whenever the open hits, it's two minutes. You can speed through it.  So he's catching up with it.  Robin Wright plays... What do you think of this, if you watch the show.

 Some people think that Kevin Spacey's character and his wife Robin Wright are actually depictions of Bill and Hillary.  They're not president.  He ends up... Well, no, I can't spoil it.  He's a high-ranking member of Congress.  She runs a nonprofit think tank.  But the depiction, some people are saying... I don't know if most people know this, the House of Cards, the original is Brit.  It goes way back to the '90s.  It was a four-season extravaganza. (interruption)

 Is it on Netflix, the original House of Cards?  (interruption) You've watched that one twice? (interruption)  Now, that one is, that series, that's not Bill Clinton, and his wife is not Hillary.  But this is the adaptation.  Some people are saying that.  "House of Cards star Robin Wright made waves in Washington this week when she claimed she had it on good authority from an unnamed Obama Regime official that reporters really do sleep with their Capitol Hill sources, just as characters in the hit Netflix drama do on screen. According to ... Bob Beckel, it 'happens all the time.'"

 The audio sound bite, this is The Five.  Eric Bolling is co-hosting and he mentions what Robin Wright said about sources and journalists sleeping with each other in DC.  He's acting kind of dubious of it, and Beckel weighs in.

 BECKEL: Are you kidding me? I was in Washington for 30 years. I can tell you... I don't have to guess. I can tell you specifically. I know one female reporter from a particular newspaper chain that slept with at least two members of Congress.  I know of a lobbyist, a female lobbyist slept with maybe eight members of Congress.

 TARANTULA: Woo!

 BECKEL: I know, when I was in the administration, uhhh –

 TARANTULA: (snickering)

 BECKEL: Well, anyway, to answer your question about female, uh, members of Congress, that's been done.  Uh, yes, it happens all the time.

 BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com

 END TRANSCRIPT

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Journalism School Grad-Mother Who Has a Daughter in J-School

February 21, 2014
 

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  To Ellen in Tex'iss somewhere in Tex'iss.  Great to have you on the program.  Hi.

CALLER:  Hello.  Thank you for taking my call.

RUSH:  You bet.  By the way, you've got to say, "Tex'iss." It's not Texas.  Texas is a northern pronunciation.  It's Tex'iss.  Right? 

CALLER:  Well, I have a child in the Principles of American Journalism class at the University of Missouri right now. 

RUSH:  Oh, no.

CALLER:  Oh, yes.  So I contacted her yesterday and asked if they had spoken about it yesterday, and there was no mention made at all.  But they have been talking about whether or not Twitter is journalism. 

RUSH: (laughing) Really? 

CALLER:  Yes.

RUSH:  Now, it's only been around a year.  Give them time to get to it --

CALLER: (groans)

RUSH: -- and it only did really reach prominence yesterday.  So you need to stay in touch with your daughter, did you say? 

CALLER:  Yes.

RUSH:  Because at some point,I really would be fascinated to know how this comes up, if it does at some point.

CALLER:  Well, it's actually interesting.  I floated around on the journalism school websites, because they run a radio station, a television station, and a daily newspaper.

RUSH: Right.

CALLER: It's part of the Missouri Method, which is the most incredible way to learn journalism.  But on the television website, for the television station, they have a section which gives justifications for the newsworthiness of the stories that they have run.  So it may already be taking place, informally, in some of these newsrooms.

RUSH:  Well, it is, but there's a big difference. Now, I don't mean to be splitting hairs here, but if there is a representative of the federal government at the University of Missouri J-School helping to determine these stories, then, yeah.  If it's just a professor judging how the students are reporting news, that's an entirely different matter.  Can you hang on through the break, Ellen? 

CALLER:  Oh, sure.

RUSH:  Yeah? Good. Don't go away. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Back to Ellen in Tex'iss.  Ellen, thank you for waiting.  I appreciate your patience.  What year is your daughter at the University of Missouri J-School?

CALLER:  I'd rather not say.

RUSH: Okay. Okay. I understand, totally.  Your illustration that the TV station, you go to the website and they're already grading or passing judgment on which stories are reported, that's all fine and dandy as part of the teaching of, the instruction of journalism.  The problem then begins with who is doing the teaching and what is their agenda and what is their purpose? 

CALLER:  Right.  Oh, I completely agree.  I also attended the j-school.

RUSH:  At Mizzou? 

CALLER:  I did, yes. I don't work in journalism now, but we were taught it's who,  where, why and how. But also, that you should move to tell people what it means to them. 

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: But I've always thought that shouldn't people be able to figure that out on their own for themselves?  When I was there, everybody wanted to be Woodward and Bernstein or Nellie Bly.

RUSH:  That's what I was going to ask you.  Why does your daughter want to be a journalist?

CALLER:  It so happens that her program falls under the school of journalism.  She doesn't want to be a daily journalist at all. 

RUSH: Oh. Oh. Okay.

CALLER: But the way the things are divided into schools, her program falls under the j-school.

RUSH:  Now, what did...? In your era everybody wanted to be Woodward and Bernstein. What did that mean? 

CALLER:  It meant digging for truth wherever it was.  We wanted to be Nellie Bly.  We didn't want to be Walter Duranty --

RUSH:  Wait a second.

CALLER:  -- and if something like this had come down, it would have been declared Stalinist from the get go.

RUSH:  Wait, you're really firing my brain off here. I could ask you a question after practically every word.  You and your fellow students did not want to be Walter Duranty? What were you taught about Walter Duranty?

CALLER:  That he pretty much white-washed the Soviet era.

RUSH:  He was a Pulitzer Prize Winner! He wasn't treated as a hero? 

CALLER:  Back then he was, but as more and more things came out, you know, people woke up to the fact that it was (garbled) all the way down.

RUSH:  No, in your student days, how was Duranty portrayed to you as when you were a student there? 

CALLER:  Honestly, I don't recall him being mentioned at all.  But I do want to say that while I was at Mizzou I took a criminology class and we were taught about the true Margaret Sanger.

RUSH:  And that is? 

CALLER:  And that was that she wanted to rid the world of "undesirables" and we were also taught about the forced sterilizations and the experiments on African-Americans, the syphilis testing.  We were taught about all of that.  No spin. At all.

RUSH:  Who were the undesirables in her world? 

CALLER:  Well, you know, "the lower classes," "the immigrants."  The African-Americans.

RUSH:  It was "the stupids." 

CALLER:  The minorities. 

RUSH:  Well, they did assume that African-Americans were dumb and stupid and the world would be better without dumb and stupid people.

CALLER:  And it was also Italians and Irish.

RUSH:  Right. 

CALLER:  It was the immigrant groups, and there was a belief in phrenology, the bumps on the head. The size of your skull could tell you if you were a criminal or not.  It was just insanely unscientific back then.

RUSH:  Yeah, but she wasn't alone, by the way. She had some of the so-called brightest thinkers alive who were supporters of hers.  They were fellow travelers in this whole eugenics movement.  I want to go back to Woodward and Bernstein -- and, by the way, I'm not setting you up for anything with these questions.

CALLER:  I don't think you are.

RUSH:  Okay.  Because when I asked you, "What did it mean to a journalism student to say, 'I want to be the next Woodward and Bernstein?'" you said, "To get to the truth." That's not what I think it was.  I think Woodward and Bernstein brought down a Republican president.  Let's just leave it at "president."  Woodward and Bernstein brought down a president.  Journalism can destroy people, and it wasn't just Woodward and Bernstein. 

Others that went to j-school back in that era, and still to this day, want to be on 60 Minutes.  You can walk down the hall at your average j-school, it doesn't matter where it is, and ask the students, "Why are you here?" And they'll tell you, "I want to change the world! I want to make the world a safer place. I want to make a difference." And, of course, the answer is, "Well, then, you're in the wrong place."  "What do you mean I'm in the wrong place? 

"Journalism isn't about world peace.  Journalism isn't about making the world a better place." "Well, yes, it is!" "No, journalism isn't about social justice.  Journalism is about telling somebody who wasn't there, where you were, what happened.  That's all it is." 

But that isn't journalism today. The agenda of journalism today is all about the narrative and who sets it.  It doesn't matter whether it's true or not.  The narrative is related to the agenda. 

The agenda is what everybody in the journalism department cares about supporting, that happens to be liberal causes today. So journalism is about advancing the agenda of the American left.  I think journalism students today, to one degree or another, are propagandized, brainwashed.

But at the same time, that may not be necessary because many arriving may have figured out that's what it is.  If you look at how journalists are rewarded and climb the ladder, that's it.

A profile on a powerful person in a small town holds them up to ridicule and destroys them? (snaps fingers) That's a resume enhancement.  The who, what, when, where, why, whatever you mentioned? That's first-year stuff.  That's boilerplate, satisfies the requirements of the curriculum, and then they get serious after they've glossed over that.  But you stay in touch with your daughter, because I would love to know what the reaction in her classroom is when this whole idea of government monitors in newsrooms is discussed. 

CALLER:  It will be interesting to see what the discussions are like. 

RUSH:  Make sure you tell her that it was two journalism schools that came up with the idea: The University of Southern California's Annenberg School and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Journalism School.  Those were the two places that devised this test, this study, at the behest of Mignon Clyburn.  Thank you, Ellen, for the call. (interruption) The official show observer has a question. What's the question?  (interruption) Mmm-hmm. (interruption) Mmm-hmm.

What would the old guard do what? (interruption) Oh!  Snerdley thinks he's asked me a brilliant question, folks.  He thinks it's a brilliant question.  See, because Snerdley is convinced that a "real journalist," be they the biggest communist on the face of the earth, would want nothing to do with the government monitoring them, directing them, observing them, none of that, no matter how leftist they are. 

So he's asking me, "What would Cronkite's reaction be? What would John Chancellor say if he were alive today? You know, Garrick Utley just passed away. What would Garrick Utley say?"  He's asking me, "What about Eric Sevareid?"  I'll tell you, if you want to get the answer go ask Bill Moyers. He's one of them and he's alive and kicking at PBS, and I'll bet you that Bill Moyers will find a way...

Ah! Ah! I don't want to prejudge it, because Bill Moyers will say whatever he has to make me wrong so I'm not going to predict what he would say.  But what you want me to say is what you believe, which is that Cronkite wouldn't have none of this.  "He wouldn't stand for it, whoever it was, in any administration! If it was the Johnson administration, which he loved..." Let me put it to you this way:

If the Kennedy administration, Camelot, said, "We want monitors in there. We want to make sure that you're covering the news right. We want to find out what you're leaving on the cutting room floor. We want to find out what isn't making the news. We want to find out what is." The war in Vietnam is going on and the Kennedy administration says, "We're going to send Bob McNamara over, in fact, to find out why you're telling all this rotten news about our bad luck in Vietnam." 

You think, you are convinced that Cronkite would stand up with righteous indignation and kick them out of there and would not want any part of it, right? You believe that the old line journalists, be they as commie lib as they might have been, wouldn't put up with this. But you are willing to concede that the current crop -- the heirs, if you will, of Cronkite... Who are they?  Diane Sawyer.  Who are the nightly news people?  Scott Pelley.  Brian Williams.  The F. Chuck Todds. 

You still don't believe that I'm right that they would not have a problem with it? (interruption)  You think that they would. (interruption) I know that. (interruption) Because Moyers was one! When he was doing commentary, he took over for Sevareid. When Moyers was doing commentary on the CBS Evening News with Cronkite, he came from the Johnson the administration! He was a monitor.  These are revolving doors. 

Don't you understand that these journalists are, in effect, part of these administrations? That's what people can't get their arms around.  Journalism in Washington is not in a cocoon.  A journalist will leave and go work for a Congressman.  

Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary, used to work at Time Magazine as a columnist/editor/writer. He left there, went to work for Biden, and from there went to work for Obama. 

Tim Russert used to work for a member of Congress. (interruption) Moynihan, right. What's his face, Chris Matthews, worked for Tip O'Neill.  It's an incestuous pool, a revolving door.  I mentioned the other day that I saw this babe Jilllll Dougherty. (That's how she used to pronounce her name, "Jilllll Dougherty, CNN, Moscow!") Now she's at the Kennedy School.  So are they journalists or members of the administration?  Are they journalists or are they...?

I happen to know a CNN info babe whose husband is on the staff of Jane Harman, Congresswoman from California.  What's his name? David Gregory, Meet the Depressed, his wife is a big lawyer over at Fannie Mae.  To say that journalism inside the beltway is in a cocoon and those people have no relationship with the people they cover and they're doing it objectively? They go back and forth.  They're all liberals, and one thing...

People ask me all the time, "How can a liberal Jewish person be so critical of Israel?" It's because they're liberals first. 

Liberalism... If a liberal is a liberal, that's the most important self-identifying characteristic.  Whatever else they are -- feminist, Jewish, I don't know, take your pick -- liberal is first.  They are always liberals first, and that is what unites them and that's what animates them. 

So whether they're in journalism or working on The Hill or over at the White House or clerking for a Supreme Court justice or what have you, they're liberals first and that means they're advancing the agenda. If they're in the bowels of the EPA, writing regulations, denying farmers in the Central Valley water in order to protect the snail darter, they are liberals first.  That person at EPA might some day be hired by CBS to be a producer or an editor.

It's just incestuous. They go back and forth.  So to say that journalism is made up of people who are insulated from... You used to hear them say, "I can't get too close to my sources.  I must be able to remain objective."

That flew out the window I don't know how long ago.  Kennedy and those old guys back then, everybody in the media during Camelot, would have paid to be hired to be in the Kennedy White House and orb. It was like being part of the Beatles!

It was like -- BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com

How TV and Print Journalists Ended Their Feud

February 21, 2014
 

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You know, as strange as it sounds, I've known people who went to journalism school.  I have known people that graduated from journalism school.  I've known some people that graduated from the University of Missouri Journalism School.  Do you know what? Back in the day... I'm going back decades now. Do you know that graduating journalism students had to take a course in advertising sales, and do you know why?  It's so that they would know what it was that enabled a free press.

It was so that they would have an understanding that it was taking place in a free market.  Now, what happens if all of a sudden that type of instruction is removed from the curriculum, and journalism begins to be taught as something that is a nonprofit or should be a nonprofit, that there ought not be any profit in it at all?  That it is so important and it is so crucial, "Why, look, they gave us our own clause in the First Amendment!"  It's so crucial that we shouldn't even have bottom-line pressures. 

If young skulls full of mush at journalism school are not taught about the role of economics and the free market in sustaining and making a free press possible, what do you think the odds are that they'll be much more accepting of a government monitor, or of the government enabling them to do what they do rather than the market enabling it -- and especially when the journalism professor can point to the First Amendment and say, "Look we've got our own clause in the First Amendment there. 

"So we're entitled to do what we're doing, and we shouldn't have to make a profit," and let me jump forward to when Laurence Tisch of the world famous Tisch family. (interruption) The Paley family owns it still.  That was William Paley, whose wife "Babe" was a brilliant shopper and great socialite.  When William Paley... Well, that's what she's known for. I'm sorry, it takes talent.  We should not diminish it. 

When Paley sold it to Laurence Tisch, the first thing Tisch did -- what anybody would do -- was look at the bottom line.  "Where's this thing bleeding money? Where do I get a handle on outgo?" He saw that the CBS News Division was bleeding money.  So, he's a businessman.  The first thing he did was he announce they were going to lay off 250 people from the news division, and Dan Rather had a cow.  Dan Rather and Charles Kuralt, and that whole crowd, they just went bonkers. 

They went bananas. (interruption) What Black Rock?  (interruption) It was a revolt, even though the broadcast center is not at Black Rock.  The broadcast center is right across the stage from where we did our show.  But at Black Rock on 6th Avenue, there was a revolt in there.  It was led by Dan Rather.  Dan Rather was running around saying (summary), "We ought not have these bottom-line pressures! What we're doing here is too important. 

"Why, we ought to be immune from any bottom-line concerns.  We oughta make what we make and there ought not be any concern at all what it costs," and there was always, back in those days, there was a friction, folks.  Some of you, I'm sure, there remember this.  There was a friction in those days between journalists in print and journalists on TV, and the journalists in print looked down on the TV people.  They didn't think they were journalists.  They thought they were actors reading a script on a teleprompter. 

They didn't think they were anything other than pretty boys.  The problem was, the TV guys were making 25 times what the print guys were.  The print guys are all at Langans drinking straight, no-high-brand scotch or bourbon while smoking cigarettes at the bar and the broadcast guys are at 21 arriving in limousines.  The print guys were just livid, just absolutely livid at all the money that the TV guys were making -- and remember, they were nothing but pretty boys. 

They weren't journalists, they weren't reporters, they didn't pound pavement.  They had producers that did all that.  They had producers and editors and cameramen.  They went out and gathered the news, and the reporters were given a script, it was put on a prompter, and they read it and they got paid a lot of money.  So there was a lot of friction.  Then Dan Rather blew up at the bottom-line concerns -- and the print guys all of a sudden said, "You know what? We better be in solidarity with them or the same thing could happen to us." 

So the print guys, the New York Times print journalists, sided with Dan Rather and the CBS guys who were bellyaching. Even Tom Brokaw.  I was in Sacramento.  This was in 1985 when this happened.  I was in Sacramento.  Tom Brokaw was in town to do a speech to some local group, and I had a chance to interview him.  I asked him about this.  I said, "I don't understand how in the world Dan Rather thinks that news division is supposed to operate in the red all the time. 

"The people that own that cannot sustain that," and he said, "Make the money in some other division.  Make the money in prime time. Make the money somewhere else."  He said, "Yeah, we need to have bottom line concerns because we don't have a blank check.  But what we think is that these networks have plenty of other places they can make the money for us to operate."  Now, this... (interruption) Oh, they hated Tisch! They despised Tisch!  He didn't hang around long. 

It wasn't any fun.  This guy was hated almost as much as I am, just to give you an idea.  Now, this enmity that existed between the print guys and the TV guys, you'll note that has gone away.  Do you know how they made that go away?  You probably would not have this register, but to give you an illustration of how this went away, I'll give you two examples.  There was a program called the McLaughlin Group. 

It started out at about this time.  It started up in the '80s, and the McLaughlin Group brought in print people, put them on TV, got them into the opinion journalism business, and they started making a lot of money.  They became stars, and then they sided with the TV guys, because they became them.  And then PBS did their version of the McLaughlin group, locally in Washington.  It's still on. Gordon Elliott was the host.  Dr. Krauthammer is still on that show.

Robert Novak did his version of it on CNN, and they brought in print people. ESPN has done this. How many have watched on ESPN a feature a thirty-minute documentary on, say, Joe Montana? Look at who the guests are. Look at who the experts that they bring in to add a little commentary here on how great Montana or whoever is. It's always the print reporters from the papers that covered in this case the Fort'iners.

Sometimes ESPN will put on reporters from the Newark Star-Ledger sports page that happened to cover the 49ers when they played the Giants.  Now, the reason this was done was to rid this jealously that the print people had for the TV people. So they brought the print people over, the McLaughlin Group and other such shows, and the print people on TV started exploding in opinion guest slots.  They were paid television money. 

They became stars, where they were no-face by lines at the newspapers.  So it was important in order to keep the unity between all branches of journalism -- and now, if you're in print, it doesn't matter.  You'll end up on the Fox 6:00 show with Bret Baier offering your opinion on something.  If you work at the New York Times, you could be hired at Fox. You might be at the roundtable on Fox on Sunday or roundtable on Meet the Depressed on Sunday. 

But they bring the print people in so as to maintain journalism unity and give the print guys some money, 'cause the TV money has been much bigger than what  print people made. I mean, you've heard of the ink-stained wretch. The print people, before TV, didn't make anything.  Some of the columnists... They're always exceptions.  Some of the columnists did okay.  But now there is an almost... Look at CNN! 

CNN wouldn't know a profit if it came and knocked on the newsroom and door stripped naked. They wouldn't see it.  MSNBC would not know a profit.  They are losing money left and right.  However, CNN is owned by Time Warner, and the money to operate CNN is made in other divisions.  Further able to paper it over.  It's the same thing with MSNBC.  NBC is making money somewhere else that covers the costs of MSNBC.

So whoever buys them (in this case, Comcast) will look at the bottom line and does not do what Larry Tisch did.  Does not say, "We're going to cut the news division.  We've got to get rid of some of these expenses MSNBC. Nobody's watching!" Nope. They'll cover it somewhere else -- or even if they can't cover it financially, they'll absorb the loss and get kudos from everybody else in the liberal community for keeping hope alive, for keeping the cause alive. 

So it was a fascinating thing to watch, and now journalism schools don't teach ad sales.  They don't teach anything about how the free market keeps the news business solvent.  What's taught is that it shouldn't have to be, that the news is as important as any branch of government because it has its own amendment there, its own clause in the First Amendment.  So profit and silly concerns like that can't be responsible for the news not taking place.

When that happened, when the melding of the print and the TV guys took place, a giant unity took place and that was the beginning of, "We don't have to make a profit! We don’t have to be concerned about advertising sales.  We don't want to know about it. We don't want to get anywhere near it.  Eww! Yuck.  All that does is get in the way of our objectivity.  We don't even want to know about it. We don't want to go to client meetings or entertain advertisers. We don't want any part of it," and they're not. 

Therefore the bottom line with all this when a couple of j-schools say, "You know what? We think the government ought to put monitors in the newsrooms to make sure you're doing it right," it's applauded (clapping), because these guys in news already think they're in government, folks. 

They have their own clause in government.  They already think they are.  They don't think they're journalists. They think they're part of the government.  They think they're part of moving the agenda, the Democrat Party forward. 

It isn't news anymore. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com

Tragic: More Black Babies Aborted Than Born in New York City

February 21, 2014

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: If I may get solemn and serious, as this requires, there is shocking news out of New York. I don't know how shocking it is, but it's really bad, and it's Cybercast news service, but the actual source of this is the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.  So this is a city source: "In 2012, there were more black babies killed by abortion (31,328) in New York City than were born there (24,758)..."

So out of a possible 56,000 black babies in New York City in 2012, 31,000 were aborted and 25,000 were killed, "and the black children killed comprised 42.4% of the total number of abortions in" New York City. This is shocking.  Let me run these numbers by you again, because I know they're tough to follow on radio and I screwed up the addition.  So there were, give or take, 56,000 black pregnancies in New York City 2012.

And 31,000 of the 56,000 were aborted and 25,000 were born.  The 31,000 aborted was almost 50% of the total number of abortions, but the African-American population is only, what, 11 to 13%.  These are striking numbers, and this is... Dare I go there?  Yes, I do.  This is exactly what Margaret Sanger had in mind when she came up with the whole notion of Planned Parenthood and eugenics. 

I've always been amazed that the white, liberal elite champion Margaret Sanger, when it wouldn't take anything for Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons to go back and figure out who she is what she really wanted. How in the world there's any support for whatever Margaret Sanger attached her name to is beyond my ability to comprehend.  Well, no it's not, because I know the left. Abortion is the sacrament to them.  But this is just...

These people that are relying on the Democrat Party to protect them to take care of them, to guard them against whatever extremism might be coming their way from conservative Republicans, are wiping themselves out -- with the support of and the recommendation of the Democrat Party -- which puts abortion in top two of the most important issues going.  It's just amazing here, and when you look at the reality of this and then you understand who it is they blame for their lot in life and their plight?

"The report is entitled, Summary of Vital Statistics 2012 The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes, and was prepared by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Vital Statistics." Now, you'd have to say this is shocking news, and you've got Democrat Party advocacy behind it.  You've got Democrat Party identity behind it -- and if you'd add all the other abortions that Democrats are having, you may have a little bit better understanding of why they're so eager for amnesty,

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com

END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links

 CNSNews: NYC: More Black Babies Killed by Abortion Than Born

======================================

There is No Resistance to the Regime

February 21, 2014

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's Marie in Dayton, Ohio.  Marie, it's great to have you on the program.

CALLER:  Hi, Rush, how are yeeeew? 

RUSH:  I'm fine.  Thank you.

CALLER:  Remember you used to say that? (chuckles) Super dittos.

RUSH:  I appreciate that.  Thank you.

CALLER: (silence)

RUSH: Are you still there? 

CALLER:  Yeah. It's such a rush to be on Rush.

RUSH:  I know.

CALLER: I'm... I'm... I'm tongue tied.

RUSH: I know.  I've been where you are.

CALLER:  I just wanted to remind the voters that Hillary Clinton got the Margaret Sanger Award recently.  But what I really called about was that don't you believe that the administration is trying to provoke us into something, like Venezuela and the Ukraine, and what's going on there right now? 

RUSH:  Wait a minute, now.  Wait a minute.  I want to make sure I understand what you're asking.  Are you actually suggesting here that the Regime might be doing things so outrageous it'll force some Tea Party people into the streets in revolt? 

CALLER:  I actually think so.  They've been doing the incremental-ism, boiling the water for a while now.

RUSH:  Okay, so, how would that benefit the Regime if people pour into the streets in the form of protest of the Regime? 

CALLER:  They've already got the laws on the books and previous administrations.  They can lock the hammer down.

RUSH:  They've also got all the bullets, by the way.  They've bought up all the hollow points.  I don't know if you know this or not, but they have.  They've bought up all the ammo.

CALLER:  Yeah, and the body bags and everything.  You know, if they can't provoke us then at least they've gotten that much farther into their liberal --

RUSH:  You know something, folks? This is a risky area to discuss.  But it is an interesting thing.  I'm not going to address whether the Regime is trying to provoke anybody into any kind of public protest, and then from there forecast what the Regime would do about it.  But it is, nevertheless, interesting to observe that it isn't happening.  People's health care is being destroyed right in front of their eyes.

The Regime can go out and they can brag all they want and lie about how many people are signing up, and they can tell people that they're going to save $2,500 a year, and they can tell people they can keep their doctor and all that. But the thing about health care is, it's all lies.  People are losing their health care.  They are being cancelled. People are not able to keep their doctor or their plan and their premiums are not $2,500 cheaper.

One of the things that is the most important thing to a lot of people's lives is their health care, and their health insurance is in a total state of disarray, and people don't know whether they have any.  They don't know if their doctor is going to treat them.  There are all kinds of things -- and if you are in Washington and you are a member of a Regime and you look out over the countryside, you don't see any manifestation of this opposition unless you look at a poll. 

You don't see any anger. 

There isn't anybody marching in the street. 

There's nobody marching on Washington like there was during the Iraq war -- and, by the way, about that. Do you realize now that the body count in Afghanistan is way beyond the body count in Iraq, and where is the anti-war movement?  Where are the Cindy Sheehans? Where are all those people that were calling Bush a murderer? Where are all of those people demanding we get out of Iraq?  Where are all of those people? 

Occupy Wall Street? Where are they?  They were so concerned about the loss of life in the military, so concerned about an endless war.  Where are they?  They're nowhere, are they?  The anti-war movement doesn't really exist.  What are we to conclude from that?  It's very simple: There is no anti-war movement.  If there were an anti-war movement, it would be alive and kicking and protesting and marching on Washington and demanding that Obama close Gitmo like he promised.

They'd be demanding to get out of Afghanistan, and they would be making sure that the news kept track of the body count from Afghanistan every week like we did in Iraq. None of that is happening, but that's all that happens.  I mean, that was daily, and during the Bush administration, while all that was going on there were books being written, and movies being produced on the assassination of George W. Bush, if you recall. 

The anti-war movement had newsworthy figures that were on television all the time.  Cindy Sheehan.  People out in San Francisco.  But now they're nowhere to be found.  So maybe they're not really part of an anti-war movement.  Maybe all they are is leftist activists who will take any occasion during a Republican presidency to protest it and feed the news media with reasons to portray a country that's dispirited, enraged, angry, not unified, a country torn apart, a country roiling. 

Now, look. We have big scandal after big scandal. 

We've got Benghazi and four Americans dead. 

Zip. 

We have a body count dwarfing Iraq in Afghanistan. 

Zip. 

We have one-sixth of the US economy that has literally been destroyed in the process of moving it from the private sector to government, and we've got...

Zip. 

We've got Barack Obama today saying "the era of austerity is over."  I don't know if you've heard this, but he said, "Okay, we're through now with our budget cutbacks."  We've gone from a $10 trillion national debt to nearly $17 trillion in Obama's five years and he's saying (summarized), "This is the era of austerity, and it's over now.  We've cut back now.  We've got to really start spending." 

Zip. 

We have both parties willing to open the borders and allow a flood of illegal immigrants and there's...

Zip. 

There's nothing happening. 

We have people losing their jobs left and right and the government is saying, "That's good! You are liberated.  You're no longer a prisoner of 'job block.'" 

The First Lady on Jimmy Fallon last night said that the people that voted for her husband are "knuckleheads" for not buying something they can't afford: Health care.  Here, grab sound bite number nine.  She called young people that voted for her husband knuckleheads!

MICHELLE: Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, young people can stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26.  But once they hit 26, they're on their own.  And a lot of young people think they're invincible, but the truth is, young people are knuckleheads.

AUDIENCE: (laughter)

MICHELLE: They're the ones who are cookin' for the first time and slice their finger open.  They're dancing on the barstools.  Young people think they're invincible.  They're not.  Life happens, and now young people can get insurance for as little as $50 a month, less than the cost of gym shoes.

RUSH:  No, they can't. 

They're knuckleheads and all that?

The president is saying, "Give America a raise," while his policies are resulting in people getting fired.  The president is proud of Michael Sam coming out ahead of the NFL draft as homosexual, but he would forbid his imaginary son Trayvon Martin from playing in the NFL.  In other words, if you're the Regime, whatever you're doing, the country is asleep and not noticing. So why would you stop?  If you're George Bush, there's protests everywhere in every city.

The country is made to look like it's falling apart, disunified, angry, roiled, and at war with each other.  If you have a Regime now, there's nobody protesting. Ther's nobody upset.  The only thing you can do to find out if there's anger is looking at a poll because the media is not going out and finding people unhappy here.  The media is not finding the knuckleheads.  No, they are finding the knuckleheads.  The knuckleheads are happy!  They're satisfied. Because they believe in global warming too and the president's fighting it. 

So if you're the Regime, what are you worried about? 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com

END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links

 Washington Examiner: New Obama Initiative Tramples First Amendment Protections

 Newsbusters: Michelle Obama: ‘Young People Are Knuckleheads,’ So They Need ObamaCare

Who Does Hillary Think is Losing the Information War?

February 21, 2014

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  So let me refresh my memory on this.  I want to get this right.  Who was it...? That's right. It was Andrea Tarantula who was talking to Lanny Davis, filling in for Hannity last night, and she said: "Your good friend Hillary Clinton admitted recently that the [Regime] is losing the information war," and then asked him, "Is that why you guys want to put monitors in newsrooms?" That's when I asked, "What is 'losing the information war'?"

Who in the world is Obama losing the information war to?  Me?  Fox News?  So I ended up doing an exhaustive search, and here are the fruits of that labor.  It's actually from almost a year ago, January 27, 2013. Hillary Clinton: "America Is Losing' an Information War That 'Al Jazeera Is Winning' -- Secretary of State Hillary [Rodham]  appeared before a US Foreign Policy Priorities committee this morning," a year ago, "stating that counter to our history, we are now 'losing an information war' to other countries.

"Clinton also told the committee that private media isn't up to the task of fighting the information war..." Private media. It "isn't up to the task." Here's her quote: "Our private media cannot fill that gap. In fact, our private media, particularly cultural programming, often works at counter purposes to what we truly are as Americans and what our values are.  I remember having an Afghan general tell me that the only thing he thought about Americans is that all the men wrestled and the women walked around in bikinis because the only TV he ever saw was Baywatch and World Wide Wrestling."

So Hillary is... (laughing) Hillary is in Afghanistan, talking to an Afghan general, who actually told her this? Remember now, Hillary's been told a lot of things by a lot of people.  Remember, Hillary has had to dodge "snipper" fire. Remember Hillary had to corkscrew land into Bosnia to avoid snipper fire.  It turned out there wasn't any.  She made it up. (interruption) Well, my queue sheet said "snipper," or the news report had a typo. 

Instead of "sniper" they wrote "snipper." I thought it was funny, and I ran with it because that's what was printed.  Sniper/snipper.  It's Dick Gephart who has the invisible friend who is rich and wants his taxes raised.  But Hillary's got a bunch of those, too.  Hillary's got people that tell her things, and so now there's an Afghan general.  The only thing he knew about Americans, the only thing he thought was that all the men wrestled and women walked around in bikinis watching them.

"She also mentioned that while the US did a great job in getting America’s message out during the Cold War, after the Berlin Wall fell we stopped and we are paying a price for that. As a result, the emphasis on cultural programming has led to other countries beating us at our own game." So she's saying here that our "private media" cannot cut it compared to al-Jazeera.  She's also talking about the entertainment media, not even the news media!  I mean, Baywatch and the WWE are not even the news media! 

This is really nonsensical, when you get down to it. 

Our private media is "losing an information war. ... Our private media cannot fill that gap. In fact our private media, particularly cultural programming often works at counter purposes to what we truly are as Americans and what our values are." Man, oh, man. If I was one of Hillary's acolytes at ABC, CBS or NBC I would have been righteously indignant and offended if I heard that.

Because Hillary is saying that her friends are doing a lousy job getting the true story of America out there.  She's been saying something like this since 2011.  So Andrea Tarantula was asking Lanny Davis, "Is this why the regime wants monitors in there, to make sure that the stories that are told help America's image abroad?"  What's the Secretary of State supposed to do?  What did she tell the Afghan general after he said that? This is just... I don't know, folks. These people are just absolute whackos. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com

END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links

 Mediaite: Hillary Clinton: ‘America Is Losing’ An Information War That ‘Al Jazeera Is Winning’

 RushLimbaugh.com: See, I Told You So: Media Not Upset by Notion of FCC Monitors in Newsrooms; Journalism Schools Behind the Idea

 Washington Post: Sec. of State Hillary Clinton: Al Jazeera is ‘Real News’, U.S. Losing ‘Information War’

9-Year-Old Read Rush Revere in Three Hours

February 21, 2014

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Lookie here. It's Open Line Friday, and we have a 9-year-old named Jaden from Conover, North Carolina. He's nine years old, obviously calling to talk about Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims.  Jaden, how are you?

CALLER:  I'm good.

RUSH:  Nine years old.  I'm happy to have you in the audience.  I'm glad you're out there and it's great to have you call in.  What's up? 

CALLER:  Um, well, I called to talk about the book. I read it in about three hours.

RUSH:  Three hours? 

CALLER:  Yeah.

RUSH:  Jaden, that's incredible. It took me three days to do the audio version.  Of course, I had to do some parts over again.  You read this book in three hours? 

CALLER:  Yeah.

RUSH:  That's incredible.  Do you like it? 

CALLER:  Yeah, it was really good.

RUSH:  Well, that's cool.  Nine years old. So none of it stumped you?  You're right there. We wrote it for the 10- to 13-year age group.  You're obviously a little advanced if you could do it in three hours. Have you always been able to read fast like that? 

CALLER: Yeah. I love reading and history, so...

RUSH:  That is great.  That's absolutely great.  You're way ahead of the game, caring about things like that at 9 years of age.  So what did you learn that you didn't know or that you found really interesting in this book? 

CALLER:  Um, that the Pilgrims went to another country from England, went from England to another country and then to America.

RUSH:  That is very perceptive.  That's another thing a lot of people don't know.  A lot of adults actually think the Pilgrims set sail from Britain, and they didn't.  They had a stop in the interim and also had a second ship they were going to use that didn't work out.  Well, that's great.  Are you going to get the second book? 

CALLER:  Yeah, my dad's going to preorder it soon.

RUSH:  Well, that's great.  It comes out on March the 11th. If you liked the first one and you were able to read that in three hours, you are going to devour this one.  I don't mean to say that this is better. It's just really good.  If you liked the first one, this one is going to be just as good and maybe even better.  The Boston Tea Party is the primary event that happens in this, but there are a lot of other fascinating things, and we introduce a character that tries to sabotage things for Rush Revere. One of the school kids tries to sabotage the rest.

CALLER: Mmm!

RUSH: It's really, really good.  I can't wait for you to see it, Jaden.

CALLER:  Yeah.  I can't wait either.

RUSH:  Well, March the 11th and you'll have it, because your dad is a forward thinker and preordered it, which is great. Now, Jaden, I want you to hang on, because I want to send... Do you have the audio version?  You probably don't.

CALLER:  No.

RUSH:  Well, you do now. If you'll hang on, Mr. Snerdley will get your address so we can send you the audio version so you can listen to it. 

CALLER: Okay, thank you!

RUSH: You'll hear me read it, and it's a little different experience.  The same words.  It's not abridged.  It's the same thing, word for word, just read by me.  So don't hang up.  Mr. Snerdley will be right with you.  In three hours, he read it.  Nine years old and loved it.  Do you realize what a testimonial that is for Rush Revere and The Brave Pilgrims? I can hear it in his voice. He can't wait for the next book. 

He wishes he had it right now.  He wishes he could read it right now.  Before he goes to bed tonight, he wishes he could read it, but he's not going to get it until March 11th.  Rush Revere and the First Patriots.  He's right: It's available for preorder, at all the usual places, Books-A-Million, Barnes & Noble, Amazon, iTunes. What am I leaving out? At any number of places you can order.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com

END TRANSCRIPT

Pearls of Wisdom

February 21, 2014

"You control health care and you control every aspect of every citizen's life.

You hold their lives in your hands. If they surrender their medical care to you, you own them."

"CNN wouldn't know a profit if it came and knocked on the newsroom door and stripped naked. They wouldn't see it. MSNBC would not know a profit. They are losing money left and right."

"The Republican Party is in total compliance with the Democrat Party, is it not, in terms of the party at the establishment level? Have they not been "nudged" into total compliance? And who are the holdouts? Me and talk radio and, some of them say, Fox News."

"Bob Beckel has confirmed that journalists of all three sexes are sleeping with their sources in Washington and have been for years."

"Everybody thinks that every other country has a constitution. The Brits do not have a constitution -- and, ergo, there's no actual First Amendment. There may be in practice the notion of a free press, but it isn't codified."

"There isn't any news. That's not what journalism is anymore. You don't go into journalism because you want to report news to people. You don't go into journalism because you want to find out first what's happening and be the first to report to other people what's happening."

"I'm not technically a journalist, because I laugh and smile and I love America. So I'm not a journalist."

"Governor Chris Christie at a town hall meeting yesterday said that he hopes someday that he and Bruce Springsteen can be friends again. He really hopes that Springsteen thinks he's a good guy, because Springsteen made fun of him with Fallon on the bridge thing. I'll have the sound bites for you on Monday. I'll remind myself."

"Who in the world is Obama losing the information war to? Me?"

" Remember, Hillary has had to dodge 'snipper' fire. Instead of 'sniper' they wrote 'snipper.' I thought it was funny, and I ran with it because that's what was printed. Sniper/snipper."

"When the Lewinsky scandal hit, you could see some of the journalists thinking, 'Why not me?'"

"Don't you understand that these journalists are, in effect, part of these administrations? That's what people can't get their arms around. Journalism in Washington is not in a cocoon. A journalist will leave and go work for a Congressman."

"People ask me all the time,

'How can a liberal Jewish person be so critical of Israel?' It's because they're liberals first…

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/02/21

The Press Has Relinquished Its Freedom

February 24, 2014

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The story about the FCC monitoring is back. "FCC Backs Off Newsroom Study."  You know, there are two things happening with this.  A, they never back off anything.  They just set it aside for a while where they can bring it back when nobody's looking.  When they propose something like this that gets a lot of pushback, then they shelve it, and they bring it back at a time when nobody will know it's happening, or when they think there won't be any pushback. 

And the way they're trying to mask this is, "Wait a minute. You all are misunderstanding this.  This was not about monitors in newsrooms for content. If you go back and look at what The Steak was actually saying, 'Filet' Mignon Clyburn, she really is concerned about minority ownership.  That's all this was."  Right.  The questions about story selection and why and why not has to do with minority ownership. 

It's not about minority ownership at all.  The thing, again, that is really cockamamie about this is the media's already thrown in the towel.  Monitors are not needed, folks.  There are no monitors needed in most of the newsrooms in this country.  Television, newspaper, radio, most of the places monitors are not needed.  The media has already chosen sides.  The media's all-in already.  The media has given up any pretense of accountability. 

The media has chosen the narrative that they wish to support every day.  They are all-in for the agenda.  These monitors aren't needed.  The guidance isn't needed.  The media is very predictable.  You get a Democrat administration, you're gonna get a media which promotes it and attacks its critics and makes excuses for it. Whatever it has to do to advance the agenda.

You get a Republican and you're gonna have nothing but constant accountability, constant lies, constant misrepresentation, constant pounding -- and everything is gonna happen to make sure the American people hate and despite whoever the American president might happen to be.  That's the game.  That's already happened.  You know it as well as I do.  That's why I get frustrated.

I admit it to you when I get phone calls here, "Rush, somehow we gotta get the media."  The media's gone, folks.  It's not even the media anymore.  There is no news.  I know I'm sounding broken record on this.  But there is no news media, per se. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Politico has a story on this FCC backing off the idea of having newsroom monitors from the Regime.  Right here it is.  They say, look, it was never what all the critics said.  It was just a market study to find out "how and if the media is meeting the public's 'critical information needs' on subjects like public health, politics, transportation and the environment," and to encourage minority ownership. 

Look, I'm gonna keep looking for ways, different ways to make the point.  I mean, it's one thing to say the media is not about reporting news, anymore, that they just exist for the advancement of the liberal agenda.  If you look at any Sunday morning show, with that framework in mind, and you'll see what I'm talk about.

But there are other ways of explaining this as well, and I'm going to be exploring those in an attempt to be persuasive.  But you could say they've chosen the narrative and they're all-in, folks.  There's no doubt. I don't think there's even any pretense at being "The Media" anymore, and there's no question that there's still a couple places where if they could get some monitors in there to intimidate people, they would put them in there.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Let me try it this way.  I'm chomping at the bit here to come up with a way to explain this in addition to what I said. There's nothing wrong with telling you there is no news anymore, that there's nothing left but the advancement of the agenda. That was perfectly clear, I understand that, but there's something more to it.  You remember when this thing was first announced?  You remember last week when it was first announced that the Regime wanted to put monitors in the newsrooms?

The FCC, that's the Regime, wanted to put monitors in the newsroom. I read the questions to you.  They were gonna examine what stories were reported, what stories weren't.  They were gonna want to know why certain stories were reported and others weren't. It went on and on and on -- and do you remember, I made the point that there was no outrage from the mainstream media.  There was none. 

Not only was there no outrage. I predicted it. If you'll also recall, Snerdley came in and when I told him about it, he said, "This is it. This is the last straw. You're gonna see these people erupt," and I said, "No, you're not. They are not gonna erupt.  In fact, they are already doing it.  There's already supportive.  They're not gonna be upset at all," and I gave 'em a couple reasons why.  The First Amendment grants "freedom," by the use of that very word, to the press. 

Free speech. Free press. 

They have given up their freedom, is the point.  They have tossed it away.  They've chosen something other than a free press.  They have chosen sides.  In fact, they didn't even have to choose.  It's just who they are.  You would probably be surprised to learn of the marriages that exist between people in the media and people in government, people in media and people in elective office, or at various cabinet bureaucracies or wherever. 

I mean, it's quite an incestuous revolving door.  But the media is not really engaging in a free press -- and even when there's a Republican president, what they're doing is not exercising freedom of the press.  They are in the process of protecting the agenda at that point.  When you've got a Democrat in office, it's advance the agenda -- and, of course, cream and attack the opposition. 

When the opposition happens to overpower you and win the presidency, then it becomes time to protect the agenda and to trash and destroy the people who are in power, and that's the only time they will do it.  It's been that way for quite a while. As such, if the press... The Founding Fathers were brilliant people.  They knew that a free and independent press was crucial to a representative republic remaining free.

Once the media becomes state-run or state-controlled, the Founding Fathers knew what the various levels of intellect and intelligence were among the population, paying attention.  They knew how important it was.  We're reaping the benefits... Well, not the benefits.  We're seeing the results here of what happens when a free press isn't free. Susan Rice, I guess, is good example yesterday. 

Susan Rice, in a normal political world, would have been embarrassed and ashamed to show up, after having previously appeared on five Sunday morning shows and lying repeatedly about Benghazi and the reasons for it and what happened. But instead, what happened?  She shows up and she's celebrated!  She shows up and she's applauded.  She shows up on these Sunday morning shows and is regaled as a conquering warrior.

Because what really happened was they brought Susan Rice back, and the media joined in an on-air celebration of her survival against attempts by the opposition to get rid of her, or to humiliate her or to diminish her.  She survived. The Regime survived.  The narrative on Benghazi survived.  "Let's bring Susan Rice back and we'll have an on-air celebration that is disguised as a Sunday morning news show," and that's what it was. 

They've surrendered their freedom, just like a lot of people have.  You've heard the old stories. Benjamin Franklin, I think, was the one who warned of it.  Be very worried about people who will surrender a little of their freedom for a little security here, surrender a more freedom for a little security there, because after a while you're not gonna have any freedom anywhere. 

Well, they've surrendered it, and the reason they've surrendered it is because they have been made to believe that they are ranking members of the elite.  Their assignments happen to be as journalists.  Others are assigned to be in elective office.  Others are assigned positions in the bureaucracy.  Others are assigned positions of professor at institutions of higher learning.  Others are assigned positions of community organizer. 

There is no independent media, certainly not in Washington.  But I'll give you example.  Algore.  Here we are in the midst of record cold, record ice at the North and South Poles, record ice in the Great Lakes. I just saw a satellite photo of the nearly totally frozen Great Lakes.  I think Lake Michigan is the only one that has a little free-flowing water on the surface.  It's an amazing picture.  So Algore goes to Kansas City over the weekend.

The Kansas City Star does a news story on Gore coming in, and there's not one syllable of skepticism of Algore's message in this report.  Algore walked into Kansas City's Crown Center Hotel there, a big ballroom.  I've been there many times.  He predicted that the Dust Bowl is on the verge of returning, and the Kansas City Star dutifully reported that the Dust Bowl is gonna soon be returning!

The Dust Bowl of the thirties, by the way, devastated Kansas.  It was a very hot, and it was a very dry summer.  There's only one problem.  What caused the Dust Bowl 80 years ago?  There weren't any SUVs, so it couldn't have been CO2 buildup, because that wasn't an issue back then.  So what caused the Dust Bowl?  What was man doing 80 years ago that caused the Dust Bowl?

Whatever it is, we're still doing it. Algore marched into Kansas City to predict that the Dust Bowl is about to return.  Here's how it begins: "Al Gore has been known for his climate change warnings since the 2006 film 'An Inconvenient Truth.'  But the former vice president, speaking Saturday in Kansas City, cited many more recent examples how heavy use of fossil fuels is contributing to extreme weather events and trends, in his view.

"Gore filled a Westin Crown Center ballroom with a 90-minute presentation, using photos and videos to illustrate a litany of floods, wildfires, torrential rains, droughts, dust storms, rising sea levels and increasing world temperatures.  To those attending the Folk Alliance International conference, he noted examples of flooding in locations both remote and closer to home, such as in Manitou Springs, Colo. ... 

"He cited the possibility of how flooding in Pakistan could destabilize that country, a nuclear power, and the possible effect that continuing drought in California might have on the world's food supply."  He didn't mention that the drought in California is manmade, not caused by global warming but by water policy.

The drought in the California Central Valley has been caused not only by the US Fish and Wildlife Service but state environmental agencies who are diverting water from agriculture to what are said to be endangered species. It isn't new, but as a result there is a drought, not because of global warming or manmade climate change, but rather manmade decisions on the distribution of water. 

Anyway, it goes on.  The Kansas City Star dutifully reports everything.  There's not one word of skepticism. There's not any challenge. There's not even any doubt about it -- and this is what I mean.  So people in Kansas City are not clued in. They get up, read the Kansas City Star on Sunday, hear about Gore's message, and now sitting there worried, scared to death -- in the middle of a frozen tundra -- about the returning Dust Bowl. 

They've given up their freedom as a constitutional entity and instead have chosen acceptance by the elites as a fellow member of the club. 

That's essentially what's happened here. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's Rick in South Bend, Indiana, as we head back to the phones.  Rick, welcome to the EIB Network.  Great to have you here.  Hello.

CALLER:  Thank you.  Hey, Rush, I've been listening to you for a long time, before the Clintons came in.  But I was going back to your thing on the FCC where they're trying to monitor the content of what everybody's saying. I would like to see 'em, like, before every show, people come on, that they would do what you do when you say your accuracy rating is 99.7%.

RUSH:  Well, that's an opinion audit, which is a much different thing than an accuracy rating.  But I get your drift.  You think they ought to be subject to the same thing.

CALLER:  Yeah, I think person that comes on and has a news show should say that, you know, so people know exactly where they stand.

RUSH:  They wouldn't dare.  Rick, let me tell you something.  This is not an exaggeration.  One of the traits now, just short of being a hallmark, is how much the so-called mainstream media get wrong.  It's incredible how much they report that actually is wrong.  It's almost become standard operating procedure, and it's because they've thrown objectivity overboard.  To be objective... Evan Sayet, conservative lecturer, made the point: To be objective is to be a bigot, and they've thrown it

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com

END TRANSCRIPT

<a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/prnd/prn-rush;prngenre=conservative_talk;prntype=web;prnpage=interior;pos=;sz=575x100;u=prngenre*conservative_talk!prntype*web!prnpage*interior!pos*!sz*575x100;ord=123456789?" target="_blank" ><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/prnd/prn-rush;prngenre=conservative_talk;prntype=web;prnpage=interior;pos=;sz=575x100;u=prngenre*conservative_talk!prntype*web!prnpage*interior!pos*!sz*575x100;ord=123456789?" border="0" alt="" /></a>

Related Links

 Washington Examiner: Journalists And Republicans Must Keep FCC Out Of Newsrooms

 RushLimbaugh.com: See, I Told You So: Media Not Upset by Notion of FCC Monitors in Newsrooms; Journalism Schools Behind the Idea - 02.21.14

 Politico: FCC Backs Off Newsroom Study

 Kansas City Star: Al Gore Brings Climate Change Message To Kansas City 

The Obama Foreign Policy Disaster

February 24, 2014

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: There's a lot in the news today that surprises me that it is in the news, and the reason that I'm surprised that it is in the news is that nobody cared about it the first time, so why do they think anybody's gonna care about it now, specifically Susan Rice?  Apparently, she went on TV yesterday and she was perfectly cool with her previous performances where she lied to everybody about Benghazi and the video and everything. 

"She went on TV again yesterday, and she didn't have any remorse!" Why should she have any remorse?  What happened?  What went wrong after her last TV appearance?  Absolutely zip, zero, nada 'cause nobody cared about what went on in Benghazi.  I mean, the Republicans didn't even care about it as a campaign issue. 

Now, you've got this business in Ukraine, and there's one reason why the Regime is not happy with what's going on in Ukraine, and it's not what you think.  The only reason... Well, it wasn't the only, but I would predict to you the primary reason the Regime is upset with what's happening in Ukraine right now is that Obama and his people are not happy with you being able to see the problems of communism right before your very eyes. 

I mean, they don't care about what's happening to the Ukrainian people. They don't care about that. It's just that what's playing out here is the way a totalitarian state acts, and that's what they don't want anybody to see.  If anything, Obama probably called Putin and said, "What are you doing to me, pal?  I told you, just be patient with me and I'll be more flexible after I win reelection. 

"Now you're doing this and you're giving people a heads-up on what's heading our way here.  You've gotta back off, man! You can't do this with the news media watching right over there at the Olympics."  Seriously, the blogs today and Fox News, everybody's going bonkers over Susan Rice.  Who cared about it the first time?  I'm talking about the people, the low-information voters.  Nobody cared about it the first time. 

No, in fact, the Olympics are over, and we have an official statement here from Vladimir Putin. Since the Olympics are over, for you low-information people that means your TV shows are back.  Reruns are over, and first-run episodes of all of your favorite prime-time shows are back.  So when you go to find the TV shows on demand, it's gonna be new stuff starting tonight, because there's no more Olympics. 

But here's Putin and his post-Olympic games statement to the world. 

(playing of spoof)

There you have it, Vladimir Putin's post-Olympic games statement to the United States and our own Dear Leader.  Samantha Power. if I'm talking about Susan Rice, I've gotta mention Samantha Power.  Samantha Power is our UN ambassador.  Now, if you may not know who she is.  If you were watching the State of the Union show, you may remember this.  Every so often, the camera cut to people in the House chamber watching the State of the Coup speech. 

And every so often, the camera hit on a redheaded, really freckle-faced woman who appeared to be in absolute agony and pain.  That was her.  That was Samantha Power.  She was not in agony or pain.  She was in full, total groupie adulation for what she was hearing from Barack Obama.  She is the wife of Cass Sunstein.  She is all-in, in terms of extreme liberalism. 

She's also a full-fledged (as many liberals are), absolute idiot.  She delivered the Daniel Pearl lecture at UCLA, and she met with Daniel Pearl's parents.  You remember Daniel Pearl.  Daniel Pearl, a Wall Street Journal reporter who was en route to a meeting, an interview with an Al-Qaeda leader, somebody in Pakistan. He was kidnapped on the way to that meeting, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 911, killed him.

KSM is currently down at Club Gitmo. We have a song he sings, New York, New York, when the trial was going to be here. He was longing for the day he might end up being a cabdriver in New York when he gets out of Club Gitmo.  He beheaded Daniel Pearl, on video, which was seen by anybody who wanted to watch it.  It was grotesque.  It was not password protected. 

Anybody who wanted to watch the video of Daniel Pearl being beheaded online could.  So she is the UN ambassador.  She went out to UCLA and did the Daniel Pearl lecture and met with his parents. Afterwards, this is what she tweeted, and I defy anybody to decipher it. Not even I can translate this.  Are you ready?  Dadelut dadelut dadelut! Here is her tweet: "Daniel Pearl's story is reminder that individual accountability & reconciliation are required to break cycles of violence." 

That is gobbledygook. 

That is utter, total incoherence. 

I have no idea what this means, but I'll tell you what the root of it is.  The root of it is that to Samantha Power -- just like every other leftist and just like everybody in the Regime and just like everybody in our currently populated State Department -- militant Islam is not a problem; we are.  Militant Islam is not what it is.  In fact, mainstream Christianity poses a bigger threat to this country than radical Islam does, in these people's minds.

And do not doubt me on this. 

Here is a Wall Street Journal reporter who was murdered on camera, beheaded by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  Daniel Pearl's story?  This is our UN ambassador.  "Daniel Pearl's story is reminder that individual accountability..." What, is it his fault? "Daniel Pearl's story is reminder that individual accountability & reconciliation..." What?  It's his fault?  We need to be accountable for what we've done, and he, an American journalist, represents us, so we need to be responsible?

Individual accountability and reconciliation? With who?  With whom do we need to reconcile when it comes to militant Islam or Al-Qaeda or the Taliban?  Who?  So these two things, "individual accountability and reconciliation," are required to break cycles.  So Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, militant Islam, worldwide/international terrorism is just part of the cycle of violence, and somehow we need to break it, and the way we're going to break it is with "individual accountability and reconciliation"?

It makes literally no sense.  All of this is a bunch of platitudinous, feel-good words that she tweets to make herself feel really warm inside 'cause she has such tender feelings, and she's willing to do whatever for there to be peace and love and all that in the world.   It's absolute incoherence.  There's nobody who knows what this means. 

Did the Wall Street Journal murder somebody at Al-Qaeda?  What kind of reconciliation or individual accountability could there be? Did Daniel Pearl behead somebody before Khalid Sheikh Mohammed caught him? (interruption) No, the reason I'm focusing on this is because these are the kinds of people that are all over the government leading this country.  

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com

END TRANSCRIPT

<a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/prnd/prn-rush;prngenre=conservative_talk;prntype=web;prnpage=interior;pos=;sz=575x100;u=prngenre*conservative_talk!prntype*web!prnpage*interior!pos*!sz*575x100;ord=123456789?" target="_blank" ><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/prnd/prn-rush;prngenre=conservative_talk;prntype=web;prnpage=interior;pos=;sz=575x100;u=prngenre*conservative_talk!prntype*web!prnpage*interior!pos*!sz*575x100;ord=123456789?" border="0" alt="" /></a>

Related Links

 Heritage: Susan Rice: No Regrets Over Initial Benghazi Comments

 Reuters: Sochi Games Over, Will Putin Take The Gloves Off?

 HotAir: Ambassador Power: Daniel Pearl Decapitation Part Of A “Cycle Of Violence,” Or Something

Don't Doubt Me: Back to the USSR

February 24, 2014

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's Shannon in Concord, North Carolina.  Great to have you on the EIB Network.  Hello.

CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  How are you?

RUSH:  I'm good.  Thank you.

CALLER:  Well, now that the Olympics have finished, I was waiting with bated breath and wanted to ask you if you think the Dutch government is gonna issue an apology for what their skating coach said about our football -- somewhat like, you know, the Swiss government issued an apology after the store clerk offended Oprah over a purse.

RUSH:  Oh!  Oh!  Oh, yeah.

CALLER:  I mean, I'm waiting.

RUSH:  That's right.  The salesclerk insulted The Oprah by assuming she couldn't afford the purse she was looking at because she was African-American.  I forget.  What did the Dutch coach say, that our skaters are lousy because we're playing a sport that kills people? Football is a sport that kills?

CALLER:  Yeah.  Yeah.  The Dutch coach. Honestly, they did an awesome job, and I don't know why he started picking on us, and was saying that for some reason we're throwing all of our money into a... I won't use his word, but he meant football.

RUSH:  Let me tell something.  I think this has to do with Obama, to tell you the truth.  If you recall one of the selling points of Obama in 2008 was that America at the time was hated and despised, and that was because of that cowboy, Bush.  But here comes The Messiah, and Obama was gonna make everybody love us. 

The US was immediately going to win back its love and respect, the love and respect of the world.  But then Obama goes with the US Olympic Committee somewhere, wherever they went, to pitch the games going to Chicago, and he gets slapped down inside of 30 minutes.  Plus, there's a survey out today: 53% of the American people believe that we are not respected by other nations of the world because of Obama.

I think this Swiss coach and others, Vladimir Putin, think they've got a free run at us.  I think they think they could insult us all they want and nothing's gonna happen to 'em.  They can build a nuclear bomb in Iran, and nothing's gonna happen to 'em.  They can talk about us, to us, whatever they want to do, with impunity, because they know Obama isn't gonna do diddly-squat about it.

CALLER:  Well, I mean, we still haven't really seen what's happened with Benghazi.  But that coach, I saw the video. He was so angry, and I was really so mad because I couldn't understand why he was so mad at us.  I don't know what we did.  I know Obama was supposed to part the seas, and everyone is supposed to love us, but obviously that hasn't happened.

RUSH:  No.  It's gone just the opposite.  There's less respect. I mean, Putin's laughing at us -- Vladimir Putin who, by the way, is in the process of reassembling the Soviet Union.  Make no mistake about that.  Thanks for the call, Shannon. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  You know, speaking of reassembling the Soviet Union, don't doubt me, ladies and gentlemen.  In fact, Vladimir Putin began reassembling the Soviet Union when he invaded Georgia and wanted to get rid of our ally there, Saakashvili, 

And, of course, Obama let him.  If you recall, Obama ended up praising Putin for invading Georgia, and Putin has done the same thing again, and he's done it without troops. 

He's done it in Belarus and he's doing it now in Ukraine, and you remember when Putin kept cutting off the gas and oil to Ukraine before they installed his puppet.  This stuff going on in the Ukraine now?  Putin is not going to let Ukraine get away.  You watch.  The Ukrainian people are standing up. They're protesting, demanding their freedom. They've got this former female president released from prison; the current president is gone. 

In fact, there's a story here that the people of Ukraine... (interruption) Yeah.  Warrant for his arrest. Here's the headline from Reuters.  They're very surprised, seemingly, it says here. "Ukrainians Gawk as Yanukovich's Luxury Estate is Opened to Public -- A sprawling forested estate of graceful waterways and summer houses -- half the size of Monaco but just one hour's drive from Kiev -- stands as a symbol of the folly of Ukraine's fugitive president.

"Even the most cynical Ukrainians, who on Saturday streamed to see Viktor Yanukovich's luxury estate, rubbed their eyes in disbelief when they were confronted by the scale of the opulence he built around him and kept secret from the outside world. There were Australian and African ostriches, stretching their legs. There were hares darting around people's feet -- clearly unused to large numbers.

"Deer and billy goats -- their cages neatly labeled -- were hunkered down, slightly alarmed at the numbers of sudden visitors. All this in a country where the average salary is less than $500 a month. ... As [visitors] poured in their thousands, by foot and by car, onto the 140-hectare grounds for a first glimpse at a luxury they could only suspect, Ukrainians gawped in wonderment at the fairytale surroundings."

So, as usual, the leader of the people surrounds himself abject luxury. He basically hijacks the wealth of the nation, gives it to himself and his friends, and lives in ways that his people can't even dream of living.  Now his people have seen it, and this is the story of liberalism around the world.  It's the story of socialism and communism around the world and throughout world history. 

You've got exalted leaders claiming to do everything for the little guy, claiming to stand up for the little guy, claiming to protect the little guy from the hordes -- and who are the hordes?  Well, the hordes are conservatives, Christians, and pro-lifers and so forth.  The little guys continue to support the state because they believe the state's looking out for 'em, the state's gonna protect 'em, the state is gonna keep those mean people from taking everything away from 'em.

While the esteemed socialist leadership robs them blind. 

It doesn't matter where you go. Cuba, China, Venezuela, Ukraine, Moscow. It doesn't matter where you go, it's the same old story, and even in this country,

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Read or listen to the rest on RushLimbaugh.com

END TRANSCRIPT

<a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/prnd/prn-rush;prngenre=conservative_talk;prntype=web;prnpage=interior;pos=;sz=575x100;u=prngenre*conservative_talk!prntype*web!prnpage*interior!pos*!sz*575x100;ord=123456789?" target="_blank" ><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/prnd/prn-rush;prngenre=conservative_talk;prntype=web;prnpage=interior;pos=;sz=575x100;u=prngenre*conservative_talk!prntype*web!prnpage*interior!pos*!sz*575x100;ord=123456789?" border="0" alt="" /></a>

Related Links

 New York Post: US To Putin: Don't Send Troops Into Ukraine

 RushLimbaugh.com: Dutch Skating Coach: Football Kills, Sucks - 02.20.14

 Politico: Poll: U.S. Thinks Obama Not Respected Abroad