RUSH: I got a fascinating letter today. I was sitting here minding my own business, bothering no one -- which is usually the case when I'm here doing show prep. The letter is from the Congress of the United States, dated April 12th. This is how long it takes mail to get to me, folks. This is May 14th.
"Mr. Rush Limbaugh "Washington Speakers Bureau "Alexandria, Virginia"
That's the first thing that caught my eye because I'm not registered with the Washington Speakers Bureau. I don't need an agent or a bureau to get me invitations to do speeches. I don't know why, but obviously my name's there. Here's the letter:
"Dear Rush:
"On behalf of the United States House of Representatives Committee on House Administration and the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, we would like to invite you to speak at the 2007 Summer Intern Lecture Series.
"The Summer Intern Lecture Series is held for college students and recent graduates who work as congressional interns in Capitol Hill offices during the summer months. It provides an educational opportunity for interns to hear prominent members of government speak about their personal experiences in public service, as well as important issues facing our nation and the world today. The series runs from June the 6th through August the 11th of this year. We look forward to including you in this summer's series. [They give me two names and numbers here] for more information, or to schedule a date and time for your participation. Thank you for your kind consideration of this invitation. Sincerely yours, Dianne Feinstein."
I have the letter here, right here, ladies and gentlemen. I'm holding it up so people watching on the Dittocam can see it. I pdf'd a copy of it up to Koko, Jr., at RushLimbaugh.com. It's also signed by Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald, who's chairman of the committee on House administration, Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration in the United States Senate. I got thinking, why would they...? I mean, they are trying to shut me down. We'll get to this story in just a second. The American Spectator today, The Prowler column, there are numerous Democrats on Capitol Hill quoted as saying they know they'll never shut me up, but they want to make it as hard as possible. Pelosi's going to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine in the next six months. Because Air America failed, liberals can't get a toehold on the radio, and so they want to shut us up. It's nothing new, but they're just very bold here when they're speaking for attribution. Well, they're being quoted but anonymously. We don't know who the Democrats are saying this.
So while they're trying to shut me up, while the effort is ongoing to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine, I get this letter from Senator Feinstein asking me to come up as a prominent member of government to speak to some interns this summer on Capitol Hill. I was thinking about this. It might be fun to accept, but why? Why are they inviting me? Possibly because of my nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. I could go up there and I could talk to these interns about what it's like to be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize. I could go up there and I could defend the Bill of Rights, including the right to bear arms. My remarks to the interns could support the aggressive interrogation of detainees at Club Gitmo to ensure the protection of the Free World. I could tell the interns that we all must have a vested interest in human life because life is all we've got. You give them an anti-abortion mention. More abortions kill people, more humans are killed from abortion in this country than AK-47s, and I could mention my freedom agenda, talk about the problems of ethics in defense contracting. There was a number of things that I could speak to these interns about and warn them about what happens to them if they get transferred to White House duty with certain people in office. There are any number of things.
Do you realize what a golden opportunity this would be for me to have access to these young skulls full of mush and to go up there and just give them our agenda here, folks, of things that we talk about each and every day? What a hoot that that would be. After the speech, after my remarks are over, I'm going to anoint these interns. I'm going to call them Rushilantes. They'll be unleashed on Capitol Hill to go spread the word. Nobody else will tell 'em the things I will tell you them. So I'm going to ponder this invitation. I'm going to think about talking to the interns. I'm going to remind them that this may be one of the last chances they'll ever have to hear me because even though I've been invited to come up and talk, Democrats in this body are at this moment plotting to zip my lips.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Let me grab Diane here in South San Francisco, because it will set up the Spectator story that Snerdley is so agitated about. Hi, Diane, nice to have you on the EIB Network.
CALLER: Hi, Rush.
RUSH: Hi.
CALLER: You just said it. The reason they'll never stop you is because you're having a good time telling the truth.
RUSH: Well, that's not how the Fairness Doctrine works. The Fairness Doctrine doesn't go after the truth. Do you know how the Fairness Doctrine works?
CALLER: I remember the Fairness Doctrine, yes.
RUSH: Not to put you on the spot, but I'm going to just use your call as a teaching opportunity here. What, as you recall it, is the Fairness Doctrine? What does it do?
CALLER: Well, everyone would get equal time to respond.
RUSH: No. The equal time law is entirely different than the Fairness Doctrine.
CALLER: Uh, well --
RUSH: You're close.
CALLER: My recollection --
RUSH: You're warm, you're warm.
CALLER: Well, provided equal opportunity for airtime.
RUSH: Yeah, and here's how it works at the local level. Now, I'm on 612 radio stations, so what would happen if the Fairness Doctrine was ever enacted -- and the Congress, they may pass it, but Bush will never sign it. That's why it's really going to depend on whether they win the White House in November of '08. But let's say just for the sake of discussion here that the Fairness Doctrine is re-implemented. That will be a signal to the left to mobilize and demand that everything that's said on this program and others like it be "balanced" with an alternative point of view. I'm too conservative, so if I criticize liberals or criticize a piece of legislation or criticize a politician, representatives will call the local station and demand time on this program, my program, to respond. It's not equal time, but it's just a giant hassle. Have you ever wondered why there was no so-called controversial programming before 1987, other than between midnight and six when nobody's listening, on balance, why there was no controversial programming? Because it wasn't worth the hassle. Local management at radio stations will simply cancel programs like this because it's not worth the hassle to let every complainer have access to the airwaves. That's what would happen. It would happen by the millions. It would happen in droves because this is a coordinated plan. It's a coordinated stunt. At the same time they're doing that, if they grant all this time -- if I'm forced to grant time, or local stations are forced to cut portions of this program so that whoever's been offended can respond -- then this program ceases to be what it is. It is a pernicious thing and it is being done for one reason, and that is to silence conservatives.
CALLER: Of course.
RUSH: It's a pure Stalinist tactic. They're not interested in debate, because they can't win the debate in the arena of ideas. They want to discredit or silence or shut people like me up, and they have wanted to for the last 19 years.
CALLER: May I say one reason they want to shut you up? Because you have the most well researched source of retrospective news, as I call it. You tell us what they said last week, last month, last year, as far as their lies go back, in comparison to what they're saying today because what they say today is what they've always said for political gain, for --
RUSH: Exactly.
CALLER: -- however the wind blows.
RUSH: I'm glad you mentioned that, because one of the things that I'm most proud of on this program is the historical context in which we place most everything that's discussed. Historical context that puts things happening today in a more understandable light. They can't beat the show. They've tried I don't know how many people. I've lost count of the numbers. They've tried whole networks. They can't even put a dent in this show. It's been striking the failure after failure after failure. They're leftists, and it's just like political correctness: it's nothing more than censorship. These people don't want to hear what challenges their world view. They don't want to hear what they can't or won't argue with -- and they don't want you to, either.
Now, here's the American Spectator story. It's in their Prowler column. "According to two members of the House Democrat Caucus, Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have informed them that they will 'aggressively pursue' reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine over the next six months. In January, Democrat presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich announced that he was going to pursue the Fairness Doctrine through his Government Reform subcommittee. That announcement was greeted with silence. But now, Pelosi has moved things to the front burner. Much of the doctrine, regulated through the FCC, was largely dumped in 1987. Other parts of it, related to 'personal attack' rule and the 'political editorial' rule, remained in place until 2000. The personal attack rule required anyone 'attacked' over the airwaves to be notified beforehand and given an opportunity to respond."
If I may pause? All you have to do is criticize a Democrat, and they think they've been "attacked." They can attack Bush all they want. They can lie about Bush, and say some of the most demeaning, outrageous things. They're just being patriotic. Why, they're just "practicing dissent." Any criticism of Democrats is considered "the politics of personal destruction," and vile, "personal attacks." They've set the language up this way. That was finally gotten rid of in 2000. Now, the decision to press for reestablishment of the Fairness Doctrine now seems to have developed for two reasons. Here's a quote from one of the two sources that the American Spectator has: "First, we're doing this because we failed on the radio airwaves with Air America. No one wanted to listen." This is a senior advisor to Pelosi speaking on the record, with anonymity, to the American Spectator. "Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it. Second, it looks like the Republicans are going to have someone in the presidential race who has access to media in ways our folks don't want, so we want to make sure the GOP has no advantages going into 2008." What is this? "Access to media in ways our folks don't..." Oh, I guess that's like their candidates do not want to have their debates on Fox. That would be an example of that. "Republicans are going to have someone in the presidential race who has access to media in ways..."
This is what's laughable about this. Look at the way Obama gets kid glove treatment in the big, Drive-By Media. Look at the way Hillary Rodham Clinton gets kid glove treatment. They all do. The idea that Drive-By Media doesn't count for them is ludicrous. They know it does. They don't want any opposition. They don't look at balance as fairness. No, no, that's not fair! When there is criticism of them, fairness has gone out the window. Fairness isn't allowed. Criticism isn't allowed. These people have been fed up with it -- and, of course, all this is the result of them blaming people like me for their defeats. They're not responsible. Of course not! The American people are too stupid to understand how dangerous liberals and socialists are. If it weren't for people like me, why, the American people would love Democrats. By 80 to 90%, they would love socialism, and they would love leftists. But people like me have come along and poisoned your mind and created among you a marching army of mind-numbed robots, getting orders from me each and every day before you go out and live your lives -- which is, frankly, the exact thing they're doing with their constituents. But this is a pernicious, pernicious threat.
Now, that last comment, by the way, "The Republicans are going to have somebody in the presidential race who has access to media in ways our folks don't," they're talking about Fred Thompson. Fred Thompson stars in Law & Order and has other acting roles, television and movies, and it looks like he's gearing up for a presidential run. Now, "According to another Democrat leadership aide, Pelosi and her team are focused on several targets in the fight, including Rush Limbaugh and the Salem Radio Network. In fact, Kucinich's staff has begun investigating Salem, one of the fastest growing radio networks in the country..." Bill Bennett's on Salem, and Michael Medved. A Government Reform Committee staffer said, "The Democrats are identifying senior employees, their political activities and their political giving." They have some Christian hosts on the Salem network, too, and that's why they're being targeted because they're Christians, because they've got some evangelistic-type people on staff and on the air. "Salem is a big target, but the big one is going to be Limbaugh. We know we can't shut him up, but we want to make life a bit more difficult for him."
I'm a big kid. Don't worry about the effect on me on this, because this is not the first time they've been talking about it. I just want you, in this vast and great audience, to understand at the bottom what this is all about. This is elected officials of government attempting to silence a few citizens who have access to microphones. The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the right to free speech, this sort of thing. They'll do this under the guise, "Well, these are the public airwaves, the common public trust on the public airwaves, and balance, fairness, and all this." It's not about that. They don't care to get their side on. They own the traditional Drive-By Media. They just want to shut me and other people up. I do get kind of worn out talking about this. This movement has been called the "Flush Rush" movement, the "Hush Rush" movement. It's been around since -- well, actually the early nineties when this program took off. It's gone nowhere because the Democrats haven't been in a position of power to do anything about it. Clinton didn't touch it when he was president because he didn't have a Republican House of Representatives from 1995 on. Now they've got the House; now they've got the Senate -- by slim margins -- and if they get the White House, that's when they're going to try this. I don't ever think it's going to succeed. The American people -- you, and the audiences of the target, me -- are too sophisticated now. You understand and are well versed on what the attempt is, and you're not going to put up with it. It will be fascinating if they try, because it will be crystal clear to one and all just exactly what they fear and how they deal with it. They're afraid to come into the arena of ideas and debate these things. They just have to either try to destroy or discredit or silence the people who say things they would rather not hear.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I asked Snerdley, "With all of these attempts to hush me up since 1988, why is this one bothering you so much?"
"One of the reasons it bothers me is because I know it doesn't bother you. You just let this stuff roll off and this one ought to bother you because the House Democrats are waging war on Rush Limbaugh, and they're now doing it being quoted in the media. They are waging war on you. Meanwhile, they give Al-Qaeda a pass; they have tried to secure defeat in Iraq; they're doing everything they can to ignore genuine threats to the country, and now focusing full energy on you. It ought to make you livid."
I said, "I don't have time to get livid. They don't understand. Every time they do this they put their foot in a trap."
"Aren't you scared by big government coming?"
"Well, I'd rather it not be happening, but I don't plan to lose this. I'm not going to go sit in the corner and start (crying) 'Why don't they leave me alone?'"
Bring it on, guys! You've tried everything you can think of to take me out, and we're bigger and better than ever. You guys ought to just take it somewhere else. You won the last election, but that's not enough. No, no, no. I can't impress upon you enough, folks: as far as they're concerned, there is no other point of view. There is no need for fairness. There is no need to debate. What they are is it, and everybody else is just a freak. Here's Jack in Cape Coral, Florida. Nice to have you on the program, sir.
CALLER: Hey, Rush.
RUSH: Hey.
CALLER: Been listening to you for 20 years. It's an honor.
RUSH: Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.
CALLER: Thank you. My question is on the Fairness Act we've just been talking about.
RUSH: Yes?
CALLER: Would it be beneficial for the conservatives, by giving them a chance to air their side, on liberal TV programs?
RUSH: That won't happen.
CALLER: Face the Nation and such?
RUSH: Oh, no! Those are "news programs." They're exempt.
CALLER: Oh.
RUSH: Those are programs run by journalists. No, the news programs are exempt.
CALLER: Just radio.
RUSH: It's a radio doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine applies only to radio -- and especially as the Democrats re-implement it, I'm sure they'll tweak it and make that point. In addition, however, I should say something. In addition to the fact that they're trying to silence me here and it won't work, my theory is it won't work because the audience now, the American people, are too sophisticated. They're not going to put up with it. There are a few liberal talk shows out there. They don't have strikingly huge audiences, but they're still out there. They have some that say they're national on like 25 or 30 stations. Yip yip yip yip yahoo! There are some in local markets. If the Fairness Doctrine's implemented, conservative groups can harass those stations and demand every time those liberals say something that they get a fair shot, and I wouldn't be surprised if these liberals that have shows who think they're much bigger than they are (but still have shows), actually join forces against the Democrats, because they don't want themselves silenced, either. It will not just be a one-way street if this happens, but the liberal government guys, the Democrats, would be glad to sacrifice a little radio because it's so insignificant.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Remember last hour, I looked at Snerdley and he looked agitated, and I said, "Are you having trouble in there with the callers?"
He shook his head, "No."
During the break he told me what was happening when I thought he was agitated. He got a call -- this guy was in New Jersey? The guy couldn't go on the air because his body is riddled with cancer. Throat, mouth, and the guy admitted -- did he give you his first name, do you remember what his first name was? His first name was Dennis. He admitted that he was a short-timer, doesn't have much to go because the cancer has just riddled his body. But he called here because he's still engaged with the future of his country. I've marveled at this, too, and I've mentioned this when I was young and as I've gotten older. We all know people that are older than we are, and many of us know people who are in the latter stages of their lives. One thing that's always amazed me, even as I have been a well-known radio raconteur and host, I'll meet people who are terminally ill who will point at me and say, "This country needs you," or, "The future of the country is threatened and it's crucial," and I've always marveled at that.
I've wondered if I ever had a circumstance like that, if I ever fell into a terminal illness and had a very finite period of time left, would I care? I'm not going to be around. Would I care as much as I cared when I was alive? Or would my attitude be, "Okay, I gave it my best shot. I've done my work. I've done the contributions." Not just as a radio person, as a citizen, human being, you, too. Yet that's what's fascinating and wonderful about this is because love of country is so great that people who are soon to be passing away and passing on, still care just as much about it, and this guy called, and he was just insistent that Mr. Snerdley pass on a message from him to me. He is livid at the Democrats. He is livid at the way they're tearing the country apart, particularly on foreign policy, and his idea was, "Just suggest that they go neutral, just have the Democrats become like Sweden." If they can't root for us to win, just have them be quiet. Don't root for us to lose. Don't invest in defeat, just go neutral. You know, be who they are, but stop all these incessant attacks. It was his opinion that their constant badgering of Bush and Republicans is tearing the country apart.
When Snerdley told me that, I remembered something -- and you'll remember this, too. Back when Clinton was inaugurated in 1993 and we began our America Held Hostage countdown, the number of days left until Clinton was gone so we'd all be released from bondage, the joke, do you remember how mad the liberals got at that? Do you remember how mad the Drive-Bys got at that? Then they started running stories how I, Rush Limbaugh, was destroying the respect for the office of the presidency that the American people had. I, Rush Limbaugh, was doing it. Then I, of course, was destroying the respect that common citizens had for government at large, so that when Timothy McVeigh and his cronies blew up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, the administration goes out there and try to blame me and others on talk radio, 'til we called 'em on it. What we were doing back then, by the way, might have sounded harsh to them because they have never been accustomed to criticism. Hello, Fairness Doctrine and wanting to shut people like me up. They don't like criticism. Those are "personal attacks." But if they think what we were doing back then is in any way comparable to what they are doing now, then they have short memories.
Everything we did about Clinton was humorous. It had a political point. We were making fun of and laughing. We were not filled with a paralyzing rage and hatred for the guy. The most it manifested itself as was an absolute mystifyingly, inexplicable curiosity about why it is a majority of the American people bought hook, line and sinker Clintonism and his style and his lying and his this and that and the other thing. That's what we marveled at and we were frustrated at it, but filled with rage and hatred? These guys, they accuse me and others of destroying respect for the office of the president. They are trying, and probably have done it in many ways, far more violently, in a verbal sense, than anything the -- and of course they were called "Clinton-haters." We were called "Clinton-haters" back then. Nobody "hates" Bush! You can't say "Bush-haters," but they are. So this wonderful guy who called, who was just telling Snerdley how much he loves the program? I marvel at the compassion and the love and the caring that everybody has for this country, especially people like Dennis who called here from New Jersey, and I wanted to acknowledge him even though he couldn't go on the air because his voice is racked -- his mouth and his throat -- via and because of his cancer.
Rush Limbaugh the Television Show on the OK City Bombing
