Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

RUSH TO DUB: IT'S GUT CHECK TIME ( Stand up for free speech. Veto this bill Mr. President)
rushlimbaugh ^ | 2/15/2002 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 02/16/2002 7:27:55 AM PST by TLBSHOW

Today, ladies and gentlemen, you cannot shout "Freedom!" in a crowded election. That's what this phony campaign finance reform bill will mean if it becomes law, which is why there is a huge debate going on inside the Bush White House over whether the president should veto or sign the bill. It appears right now the president is going to sign the thing - and this is what's troubling.

Mr. President, remember the brilliant address you made to the nation explaining our course of action in fighting world terrorism? I say the same kind of approach is called for with this deceptively named campaign finance reform bill. You enjoy an amazing level of trust with the American people. They trust you. They believe in your honesty and integrity. You could explain to them just why this bill is unconstitutional, and why it ought not ever see the light of day. The First Amendment has just been amended here in wanton violation of the Constitution.

Folks, when John McCain was running for president in the Republican primary, I said, "If Russia passed a new law that restricted free speech and competitive elections in the way that the McCain-Feingold bill does, and then claimed it was reform, our state department and human rights groups would denounce it as repression of the Russian people. The New York Times and Washington Post editorial pages would rail against these efforts as anti-Democratic - which they are." This bill is un-American, wrong and against freedom, and I say this knowing that it would make me even more powerful than I am now. Think about that.

President Bush has demonstrated that he has the resolve and the courage and the principle to face down the evil of terrorism. He's shown that he is committed to doing what's right regardless of what the European Union, congressional Democrats or even the media has to say about it. He's doing the right thing. He's following his instincts. Well, let me suggest that this assault on the Bill of Rights requires no less resolve and courage by the president to prevent a severe blow to our liberty.

To me, this is gut-check time, Mr. President. One of the major reasons you were supported over McCain back in the primary season in the year 2000 was your stand against this very bill. Stand up for free speech. Veto this bill.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: silenceamerica
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 301-319 next last
Comment #241 Removed by Moderator

To: Sabertooth
And all Republicans like McCain who want to restrict our freedoms need to be utterly marginalized. They're no better than Jim Jeffords.

I totally agree with that.

242 posted on 02/16/2002 3:47:21 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Eala
I plan to send more via e-mail and FAX....and once the WH opens again, via phone...i am going to do a test e-mail also to what I think may be an e-mail addy of Karl Rove based on an e-mail I got from a WH spokesman once.
243 posted on 02/16/2002 3:48:21 PM PST by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Libertina
I know last year Cheney did, but this year he had a scheduling problem.
244 posted on 02/16/2002 3:49:08 PM PST by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: ForOurFuture
Half of Congress wouldn't be supporting if it it wasn't popular

The question is popular with who? I've yet to see a poll that has this issue even in the top 20 of concerns of the voters. And why is it popular with some congress"persons"(?) you could rename this the incumbent relection act of 2002.

245 posted on 02/16/2002 3:50:02 PM PST by Valin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: christianswindler
Rush will be very disappointed if Bush does not veto this bill. He has not gotten over the BAD aviation bill that Bush signed following the attacks on 9/11. I have heard him express his outrage over that bill a number of times and blasts Bush for signing it. I think Rush will not take kindly to Bush NOT vetoing the CFR bill. I alos don't think that Rush will try to take the credit if Bush does Veto it. But; If he did take credit, he surely would deserve it. He has been steadfast in talking about the CFR bill. He is more passionate about this bill than anything I have ever heard him talk about.

I hope Bush does not get too Cocky about the conservative right issues. I give him high marks so far, not just on the war but on his consistencey on his domestic issues. If he signs this bill, the media and the dems will not stop the ENRON issues. So what does he have to gain. Nothing in my book, except crush the very base that got him in the white house. I made my call yesterday, after holding for 35 minutes, I gave in and left a message.

246 posted on 02/16/2002 3:50:41 PM PST by peekaboo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
When G.W. Bush needs Limbaugh's opinion, he'll give it to 'em.
247 posted on 02/16/2002 3:52:01 PM PST by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #248 Removed by Moderator

To: TLBSHOW
Is there anything about increasing disclosure of donations in this bill?
249 posted on 02/16/2002 3:54:35 PM PST by ilgipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
YOU PEOPLE ARE ALL WRONG ABOUT THIS SUBJECT. THE FACT THAT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS DELIVER A BUNCH OF CRAP TO US AT ELECTION TIME, AND THE FACT THAT THE COST OF DELIVERING THIS MESSAGE TO US IS PAID FOR BY ENTITIES THAT ARE REPRESENTED BY OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS BETTER THAN WE ARE IS SO WRONG. TO HAVE SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY FUNNELED TO A CANDIDATE SO THAT HE CAN PRODUCE COMMERCIAL AND LITERATURE THAT FEEDS US THIS CRAP HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH FREE SPEECH. SOMEONE WHO IS INTERESTED IN "SPEAKING" ON BEHALF OF A POLITICIAN SHOULD HAVE TO PUT THEIR NAMES ON SAID ENDORSEMENTS. FORGET THIS B.S. ... "PAID FOR BY FRIENDS OF ..., OR "PAID FOR BY CITIZENS FOR ..., LET THE SUPPORTER PURCHASE THE ADVERTISEMENT AND AT THE END PUT, "PAID FOR BY _______________ (insert name of who ACTUALLY paid for said advertisement). NOW, THAT IS "FREE SPEECH". KIND OF LIKE, "PUT YOUR MOUTH WHERE YOUR MONEY IS.
250 posted on 02/16/2002 3:58:20 PM PST by LandofLincoln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hail Jiggy
Really Bad Thinking............veto this bill!
251 posted on 02/16/2002 4:07:13 PM PST by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NoControllingLegalAuthority
But, will you have to send this $600 back to the government with the April 15, 2002 return on the 2001 income? I will, I got the $600, and I must send $500 back. What else has GWB done? The list is pretty short, you must admit, NoControllingLegalAuthority.
252 posted on 02/16/2002 4:07:29 PM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: oldvike
I too called the White House this (Saturday) AM, in addition to my congressman Mike Castle, a worthless RINO who voted FOR Shays-Meehan. I found - as if I did not already know - that NO ONE is listening to us, particularly on weekends. So, my itinerary:

Sunday: [2nd amendment-related activities]
Monday 9 AM: Call congressman, call White House.

253 posted on 02/16/2002 4:17:53 PM PST by redbaiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LandofLincoln
You need not shout. Tell it like is in your language so I know all I need to know to answer you. Take off the caps so I can read it. Re do the post.
254 posted on 02/16/2002 4:43:44 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Here is a limit on freedom: refusing to allow people to sacrifice dogs. I suppose you don't have a problem with allowing that, right?

Excuse me? What do you mean by that statement?

Are you repling to this statement or are you just confused?
"There ought to be limits to freedom." Posted by Anti-Republican
My response- That sounds like a quote from Klinkton not Bush

255 posted on 02/16/2002 5:32:41 PM PST by The Mayor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
'If it feels good, do it.'
Now America is embracing a new ethic and creed:
'LET'S ROLL!'
...We have glimpsed what a new culture of responsibility could look like.
We want to be a Nation that serves goals larger than self.
We have been offered a unique opportunity,
and we must not let this moment pass."

Mr. President in your own words which you know from the deepest part of your good heart that now is the opportunity for you to stand taller, the sturdy stout foundation that our proud American heritage and the briliant truth of our Constitution rests upon to go beyond the pollsters, rise above the pettish bickering snit fits of demagoguering politicians, and keep the faith of our Founding Fathers and your presidential oath of office by becoming our champion of Free Speech just as you have so valiently become the champion of Freedom as you challenge tyranny, oppression, and shown ruthless evil doers that you will gallantly and relentlessly defend Liberty. You said "..It is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight." Well, Mr. President this is a battle for freedom worth fighting.

You have liberted the men and women of Afghanistan. Please do not stand aside and allow Congress to eradicate our First Amendment Rights. Liberate Americans from CFR.

Mr. President, you spoke these words "No people yearn to be oppressed, or aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police."

Will you allow the very same to happen to the good people of this great Nation? Will we begin to fear the "midnight knock of the secret police" for having spoken for a candidate we believe in, or advocated for a policy we support, or worse even dared criticize an elected official?

Finally, I hope you remember these fine words you so eloquently told us during your Inaugural Speech, January 20, 2001:

"I ask you to be citizens:
Citizens, not spectators;
Citizens, not subjects;
Responsible citizens..."

Campaign Finance Reform forces the American People to become spectators, subjects.You ask for responsibility. The generations of average American people have shown incredible and dedicated responsibility when asked by our Country to serve. Please instead, ask it of Congress now. An elected few have voted to repress one of our greatest "hopes for freedom", by passing this abhorent legislation that violates our Constitution are the ones who are irresponsible, conceited, selfish. Even more troubling they have reneged on their oath of office as representatives of the people to defend and protect our Constitution, not their careers. I know Constitution and Career starts with the letter "C" but it appears quite vividly with the passage of CFR that it is their Career that is foremost on their minds.

Tell these two waanabe dictators and their CFR pals to BACK OFF!
Mr. President, Sir, Smoke'em out! Thumbs Down to CFR!
If Congress thinks it is necessary to amend the Constitution then tell them to do it legally in the broad light of day, and not like some common street muggers hiding in the dark shadows of night robbing, pillaging and raping our beautiful Lady Liberty and dimming her brilliant torch of Freedom.

Quotes other than Inaugural Address from the President's SOTUS, January 29, 2002.

Image: Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt LEXUS=Let's Eradicate X-out Ur Speech, unless you are a millionaire with enough money to buy a politician, er I mean, run for a political office.

256 posted on 02/16/2002 6:03:23 PM PST by harpo11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
By opposing this idiotic bill, I am a patriot. As far as the war goes, I support him for now. As far as YOUR comments go, I won't be the person who is on his knees with something obscene down his throat because he supports the president unconditionally.
257 posted on 02/16/2002 6:16:25 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
What exactly were you expecting W to do for you in his first year in office?
258 posted on 02/16/2002 6:21:43 PM PST by NoControllingLegalAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

Comment #259 Removed by Moderator

To: NoControllingLegalAuthority
I have never had much faith that "W" would do anything for me once in office. It was you, NoControllingLegalAuthority, who seemed to think that he could or would do something. I just don't see how he thinks he will get all this liberal support in 2004 by pandering all the time to Shays, EMK, and other liberals. See, the list of accomplishments is shockingly thin; mostly, just that he is not bILLclinton.
260 posted on 02/16/2002 6:29:02 PM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 301-319 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson