Dems begin effort to silence talk radio

In a spirit of “bipartisanship” (defined as, “The Democrats get what they want”), President Obama invited GOP leaders to the White House last week to tell them, “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.”

The media has widely reported that Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama to fail. Of course the media had no problem at all with forwarding their own agenda for the last eight years in their hopes that President Bush would fail. But that isn’t the point. The point is they took Rush’s words out of context as he knew they would when he went the extra mile to explain them.

Now the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee is promoting an online petition which urges Americans to “express your outrage about Rush’s comments.” They include an EDITED audio clip from Rush’s monologue which takes his words completely  out of context.

Here is what Rush said IN CONTEXT:

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down.  And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him.  Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care.  I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work.  So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at?  See, here’s the point.  Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say.  Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.”  Why not?  Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails?  Liberalism is our problem.  Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here.  Why do I want more of it?  I don’t care what the Drive-By story is.  I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.”  Somebody’s gotta say it.  

Limbaugh’s comments came in the context of a lengthy monologue detailing the radical socialist agenda which Obama and Congressional Democrats are foisting on the American people under the guise of a “stimulus package.” The Congressional Democrats are now twisting his words in a FUNDRAISING effort. Typical.

But this is merely the first volley in a war to silence talk radio. Look for serious efforts by Congressional Democrats to revive the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” to take away your right to hear conservative opinion.

The Democrats’ online petition includes a place to leave comments. I signed the petition IN SUPPORT of Rush Limbaugh and hope you will do the same. Let’s ensure that this thing backfires and remind the liberals that there are 50 million voters in this country who DID NOT vote for them.

Sign the petition and leave your comments here:

33 thoughts on “Dems begin effort to silence talk radio

  1. Hebrews 11:6 (New Living Translation)

    6 And it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him.

    I feel it is important that we give those we help the opportunity to be truly blessed with the rewards of God. Teaching them to seek God should not a prerequisite, but without the instruction the blessing will not lead to eternal life and will get “used up” rather quickly.

    Example from our pastor: If Jesus had simply given us righteousness from the cross…we would have used it up by now…He made us righteous…that’s what we ARE.

    To truly bless the destitute they must be connected to the source of life itself…not merely given things that are consumable…*: )

  2. “Charity is the role of the Church and I’m afraid that there is no incentive to get that role back to it’s proper place.”

    Where does this idea come from, can’t charity be from any source so long as there are no hidden agenda to recieve that charity? If that statement is true, then why isn’t the church stepping up more? When a church has an annual budget of 2.2 mil and some 14K goes to charity then there are major issues with the church. This is what drives me crazy when christians point to “others” as our issue in society. Maybe the issue is we have built our own stainfree subculture and the outreach only goes to those willing to come into our four walls and only those.

  3. You tell tell a lot about a man from who is enemies are. You can also judge a man’s relevance by the amount of opposition he receives. Rush Limbaugh is not the highest rated talk show host in history because he is irrelevant. The fact that a Gallop poll asked about his “approval rating” is enough to show that he is in fact an extremely relevant public figure. Just because you may not agree with his statements, does not render him irrelevant.

    I understand his sentiment regarding Obama’s success. I too hope that if he truly does implement the extreme agenda he touts, I hope they do fail. If he suddenly has a change of heart and truly becomes conservative (I think you know what will freeze over first, but that’s a different story!) then I hope he is successful.

    Too many people think that just because we as conservatives disagree with a person’s agenda that we wish them harm. Nothing is further from the truth. America was built on the ideal of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under our system of government, these are God-endowed rights. But these rights can only be realized when we are free to exercise them and accept the responsibility of our own success or failure. There is no guarantee in any of our founding documents of success or of a government safety net if we fail. Charity is the role of the Church and I’m afraid that there is no incentive to get that role back to it’s proper place.

    I do hope that nothing happens to Obama. First of all, God is concerned with life and if we do wish him ill, Jesus Himself said that we have committed murder in our heart. Second, the scariest thought about something happening to Obama, is “President” Biden of if something should happen to both of them, “President” Pelosi! No THAT’S a frightening thought!

  4. Now Mike, that is definitely crossing the line from political to spiritual…we are human…we can NEVER get it RIGHT! Maybe close to accurate…It’s kinda like on a show I saw last night…no one ever sees the same rainbow…*; )

  5. Yosef (and all I suppose)

    Wouldn’t it be better to abandon the idea of “balance” in the media and just strive for ACCURATE! It shouldn’t be a give and take but a get it right.

  6. Rush Limbaugh will never be silenced.

    The fact that he has gotten all this media attention with his comments means he has done his job.

  7. Rush was not taken out of context, they had this whole quote on MSNBC, even the “I hope he fails”. Stop trying to cover up this neo-con, he makes no sense and he is definitely not balanced, which I thought you were going for right?

  8. I know Nancy, it was long, I was just putting it down for the record because my position on issues has been fairly consistant but I get accused of this position or that position when I don’t agree with the status quo here. Sorry.

  9. Just an observation, some blogs limit the amount of words used to comment…such as if your comment is longer than the original post…maybe you should use the specially prepared contact form.

    Not that I don’t like to read your comments, Jeff, for truly I do…but how many verses does that song have?

  10. Oh and one more little thing, Jeff – it’s easy for us to feel like we ‘need to try to understand Jesus’s message better’ or DO something. But I really think that was Jesus really wants from us is not to DO anything but to pour out our hearts to him and then trust him and let him do the work. If we try too hard to understand or do something good or whatever, we can end up getting in the way.
    I’m not saying anything you don’t already know, just sort of talking out loud to remind myself and my brothers and sisters that Jesus just wants our simple trust and surrender.

  11. Ha ha! Well, if someone calls you emergent or labels you, it doesn’t mean it’s true. What matters is the truth, you know, and a bit of trusth is that we are all cracked about the head and desperately in need of mending, like Herman Melville said. Geez am I on a quotes roll today or what?
    And if by God’s grace we realize how broken we are, we can have the same compassion towards others and hubris will disappear.

  12. Maybe we need to try to understand the message of Jesus better and maybe realize that it is not about being more right than the other person, or denomination, but that it is about following our rabbi, and Lord and Saviour. When we truly look at Jesus without a lot of our doctrines the message seems to be much different than what we have been sold all our lives. Now I will likely be called an emergent because nailing my doctrines down is like nailing jello to a wall. Maybe Jesus never wanted anything nailed to a wall. 🙂

  13. Thanks Jeff. I feel too that lots of Christians have a strong bond with the political to a degree that it does not glorify God at all and is very much about them and their issues. But at the same time I do the same thing, maybe not with politics (although maybe indeed with politics!) but with many other things for sure. I cling to stuff every minute that is all about me and my issues, and not at all about God. So this is why we need Jesus, I suppose. 🙂 Thanks again for the blog compliment.

  14. Thanks Steph, That quote is awesome. I feel that many of my fellow brothers and sisters is the faith have more of a bond in the political than what should really be bonding us and that is Christ. Your blog is very nice BTW.

  15. I think this Tim Kelle quote is pretty apt. Any thoughts?

    “If we get our very identity, our sense worth, from our political position, then politics is not really about politics, it is about us. Through our cause we are getting a self, our worth. That means we must despise and demonize the opposition.” – Tim Keller

  16. Steph,

    Although Paul probably feels that some of my comments need to be censored, his has been fair in letting me post. I will give him that.

  17. I very much think there are double standards on both sides of the political spectrum, definitely the liberals included. Just from the context of your recent posts, the emphasis seems to be weighted heavily towards politics and not so much about God or other aspects of culture. Does this seem like a fair observation? Seriously, correct me if I’m wrong.

    I was also curious about how Jeff said you didn’t yet approve a comment of his. If you aren’t approving a certain comment, do you consider that to be censorship? I really am interested in your reasoning. I want to be a good listener. I have nothing to be defensive of because the blood of Jesus Christ covers us all if we are believers! (Yay!)

  18. Paul,

    The thing that I don’t understand is, you say all this stuff about conservative principles being biblical,(this is a matter of opinion) but then you seem to defend the republicans, even when they are not being conservative. I have heard you for years and the only time you criticized Bush was for going slightly to the center on an issue like immigration even though the conservative icon Reagan signed a similar bill into law. Or you will criticize him for his views on faith. All else, you seem to make excuses or justify his actions, immunity for telecoms for breaking the law, OK, torture, we need to be safe, stonewalling any investigation and using extreme secrecy in matters that should be out in the open, OK. over and over I have heard you defend the indefensible, the only thing I can conclude is because you are a partisan over anything. Can’t wrong be wrong? If the right or left does it, can’t we all be honest and stop defending “our” side?

  19. BTW, one of my posts has a link it in to Stephanie’s blog and it say “waiting for moderators approval”

  20. Once again Paul, you are at a 10, let’s bring it down to a 3. You ask why don’t I have the same passion for Obama as I do Bush, well, Bush has much more of a history and his actions are still coming to light. Not only that, but I think Obama is doing a good job so far in many areas, not all. Regarding the Defense Secretary, I have stated on this blog before that I am VERY concerned with Obama’s discussion of ramping up in Afghanistan. It is the military industrial complex at work, the great Republican president Dwight D Eisenhower warned us of that years ago. I know you like to paint me as some left wing lib who wants to disagree with everything you consider sacred but it simply isn’t true. It is true that I can’t stand GW Bush, I think he has done so much damage to this country and its reputation worldwide that it is going to take many years to repair. I have come to this conclusion through much reading and studying from all different perspectives. I have read books from John W. Dean, and Andrew Bachevich on the right as well as John Podesta and yes, Barak Obama on the left. Unlike you, I don’t consider my opinions set in stone, I want to learn, I don’t have an ideology and then try to read everything I can to back that ideology. I have said this many times, I don’t trust a lot of sources; I try to filter through the spin. The left has its own spin of painting right wingers a certain way and the right has its spin of painting the left a certain way. Usually, the way it is painted, is true of only a minor section of the other side. If you recall Paul, when I first posted here years ago I was a die hard Ron Paul supporter. Then I began to understand what would happen in a Ron Paul world. I loved his stance on war and sound money, but cutting every Washington program would be a mess in our society. I have been very clear and very principled in my stances, unlike many who identify themselves one side or the other and try to defend things they might not normally defend. So here is what I will state and I think my posts clearly show this to be the case. I am against war unless it is the only option left on the table. I am against torture because of many different reasons. I am against government intervention in our personal lives especially when it comes to spying on all Americas. I am against abortion, but recognize that there are other ways to fight the issue that is more effective than the one of the religious right. In addition, I think the way the political right has used this issue to get votes is an utter disgrace. I am against redefining marriage, but recognize that America is a country that rights should be given to folks that I don’t agree with thus I support civil unions for both hetero and homo relationships. I think there in a nation you have to balance between big government and corperatocracy. Meaning you can’t free the market completely or you will have a return of the robber barron era in the late 19th century. I think that government can do things to help the little guy, I think government should do things to protect us from destroying the environment in the name of a profits. I find it interesting that Christians who know that the “heart of man is deceitful above all things”, thinks that letting the free market run wide will somehow work without hurting many along the way. I think about this stuff all the time Paul and sometimes I will post something that might be slightly more extreme than I actually think but I am looking to see what folks say. I am willing to admit that I would change my mind if someone makes a good enough case and I don’t try to defend an ideology. I like to engage in conversation. Believe it or not, for my entire life up until about 4 years ago I would have agreed with you almost 100%. I was a good Christian that did all the things Christians are suppose to do including be a republican. That is where I am and what I believe, but I understand why it helps you to paint me as a one sided liberal especially if I disagree and make a solid case for the disagreement. BTW, I think the Dems are just as despicable in the way they use the plight of the poor and minorities to get votes in the same way Republicans use values.

  21. Hey guys,

    For those of you who think the new site is not “user-friendly” I’d love to hear why that is. I ask, since I”m the one who edited this theme and put it up here for Paul.


  22. Paul, I get the idea that you feel that the Republican party is more “right” than the Democratic party. Is this fair to assume, and if so, I’d love to hear your reasons why. Thanks!

  23. Sophronia,
    I saw the interview with RL on Hannity recently and he said something that I thought was interesting and revealing about the comments above that are so controversial. He said that he opposes Obama’s success because in the instance of Health Care reform, if the Dems are successful then the American public would like it too much to ever get that back. So he opposes something that we would like? It is comments like that, that have changed my mind about much of the right wing agenda. They say that government IS the problem, in the case of health care there are millions in this country that think the private sector is the problem. But I am just a Lib anyway 😉

    Chris, have you ever read “The Republican Noise Machine” by David Brock?

  24. Sophronia,
    WHere do you get your facts. Do you really believe those are the only two solutions? WHat about the fact that government toiling in the economy created this crisis with the whole act of forcing banks to give out bad mortgages?

  25. I agree with the first poster. Your site is not very user friendly.

    You know I heard the “in context” quote by R. L. and I still thought what he said was controversial and not helpful to anyone. Of course controversy is what he stirs up and thrives on, but the unhelpful part shows where his values are.

    If I understand the national discussion going on right now, we have 2 alternataives to dealing with the economic crisis we are in. We can nationalize the banks which to many is socialism, and I guess ideologically that is a correct statement. Or we can set up a “bad bank” as was done in the ’80s during the S & L crisis with the Resolution Trust.

    If you favor one solution, working positively toward that solution would seem to be the way to go, rather than relying on ideology to characterize the former path. I mean we are in crisis here. If the past admin. could set aside habeas corpus for foreign nationals in our custody, because of a security crisis, I am not sure why in an economic crisis, banks could not be nationalized if absolutely necessary.

    No one likes the alternatives, but there does seem to be agreement that something must be done, some action taken by our government. Unfortunately, it may boil down to what can be done, not what should be done. Conservatives should be part of the solution.

    Of course RL has a right to say anything short of treason or slander. But why would he say he wishes Obama to fail in any context, in the middle of an extremely bad economic crisis?

  26. Another reason why I don’t align myself with a particular party or ideology.

    Rush Limbaugh has long stopped being relevant, interesting or anything but a parody of himself. He’s the talk radio version of Howard Stern–just uses politics instead of lesbians. But he says what he says simply to get a reaction. What he said about wanting Obama to fail was idiotic and he said it simply to get a reaction, cause controversy and get his name out there. I don’t doubt he meant it–he’s been so warped by politics that he sees everything through red-colored glasses.

    But he has a right to say it, and I’ll defend that right to the death. The American people have the right to listen to it and make up their own minds whether they agree with it or not. They DON’T need the Democrats (who see everything through blue colored glasses) to tell them “feel outraged” or voice their support of Obama. Obama’s a big boy–his best response is to ignore the words of a buffoon with a microphone and just prove him wrong. And if he falls flat on his face, Limbaugh has every right to gloat.

  27. I find it interesting that the party that says they want freedom of speech on the airwaves is the same one that had to setup “free speech zones” so that their leader Bush would never have to see the crowd of people who opposed his views. Fact is, LARGE corperations love their freedom to push agendas that help their causes and if an opposing view is heard that exposes their real policies the mass of the people would be against it. It all in how you sell it and this is being done in the same way. The folks behind this must have love Orwell’s 1984.

  28. I signed the petition basically saying that while I am not a fan of Mr. Limbaugh, I am a fan of Freedom of Speech. If the Dems want to become a socialist party they should be allowed to do so, but don’t think the American people will just jump on board because you choose to silence the opposition.

  29. I liked your previous format because it was easy to read and navigate…while this one looks way more flashy…not nearly as user friendly…I realize it is still in trial mode…hoping for the improvements soon.

Comments are closed.