RUSH: Out in Portland, Oregon... You know, contrast this with what happened in Covington, Kentucky. Here you have some innocent, milk-drinking 17-year-olds who go on a little field trip to Washington, D.C.

They happen to be wearing Make America Great Again hats. They're 17 years old! They're wiry little teenagers here, and they are confronted by a militant Native-American activist, Nathan something or other, who starts beating on his war drum. So one of these 17-year-old kids, Nick Sandmann, just stands there and smiles so as not to be provocative, so as not to be seen as the cause of anything -- and he gets the blame! He gets targeted and labeled as (impression) "a snarky, white supremacist Trump supporter mocking and intimidating and frail and very weak (but fiercely loyal) Native-American activist."

It was a total lie.

It was 180-degrees wrong.

The media embarrassed themselves with it. They went on and on and on about it, doing everything they could to destroy these kids, who hadn't done anything. They were -- in the common parlance -- victims. Now we go out to Portland this weekend. We have these Antifa people -- and this is a totally misnamed group. Antifa means anti-fa, anti-fascist. These people are just a bunch of domestic left-wing terrorists, and they violently, militantly attack anybody who simply disagrees with them. If anything, what it does is illustrate my well-thought-out, vastly researched theorem that it's us they hate.

It is our existence they hate. It is the fact that we disagree and oppose them that they hate. They despise us. But this is a terrorist group that has gotten away with their label being "anti-fascist," meaning they're anti-government. They're not that at all. They're very pro-government! If anything, they're pro-authoritarian. They are violent. They beat people up. They beat up a gay journalist, and nobody condemned 'em! A bunch of left-wing radical terrorists beat up and then milkshake a gay journalist who has to go to the hospital for a possible brain bleed, and what happens?

The mayor of Portland essentially supports it! (impression) "Because, don't you know, Trump hate! Don't you know it's all justified. Trump has changed the rules now." So all of these bastardizations of norms, they are perfectly fine, perfectly acceptable because of Trump hate. It's like Eric Trump Jr. got spat upon in a restaurant last week. Stephanie Wilkinson is the name of the woman who owns a restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, called The Red Hen. That's the place that refused to serve Sarah Sanders when she went in there last June. This is the place where Sarah Sanders was practically semi-violently booed and thrown out of the place and refused service.

So this past Friday the Washington Post ran a story in which this Stephanie Wilkinson is asked her thoughts on the recent spitting incident involving Eric Trump, and she lets it be known that she's perfectly for it. Why, she even understands it. You have to read a little bit of the story. It's not immediately learnable at the beginning of the story. She writes the piece. "o one in the industry condones the physical assault of a patron." But then, after that... This is what they all say. (impression) "Nobody condones this. Nobody would ever accept this," and then she goes on to justify it.

"t bottom this isn’t about politics. It’s about values, and accountability to values, in business. On a variety of levels, pressure is increasing on companies to articulate and stand by a code. Customers are demonstrating that they want to patronize companies that share their values." So if your client base, if your customer base hates Trump, then you've gotta allow Trump hatred in your establishment. So if Eric Trump or Sarah Sanders walks in and they get thrown out or spit on? That's fine if your patrons hold the value of Trump hatred, which is what this restaurant owner is essentially saying!

"Customers are demonstrating that they want to patronize companies that share their values" of spitting on people related to Donald Trump on who support Trump. "Our workforce also increasingly demands that employers establish a set of ethical standards" that would permit... I'm adding to this. Her sentence ends at "ethical standards," but what she means is "establish a set of ethical standards" that say it's okay to spit on Eric Trump or kick Sarah Sanders out or anybody else who supports Donald Trump. "The once-ubiquitous idea..."

For those of you in Rio Linda, "ubiquitous" means everywhere, can't miss it; it's all over the place. "The once-ubiquitous idea that companies exist purely and solely to provide profit to shareholders is withering away like corn husks in the summer sun." No, it isn't. It's only withering away in the Democrat primaries and in Democrat debates. But the pursuit of profit is not withering away. It's not vanishing, and it's not being deemphasized. In fact, it is propelling this country to new economic heights.

We are now the single largest producer of oil in the world. Do you know this? Statistics last week show we are the single largest producer of oil in the world. Not the Saudis. Not Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Us! A lot of it is due to fracking. A lot of it is due to innovation, getting the oil out of the ground and being able to distribute it worldwide at market prices. It's the free flow of oil at market prices, and if anybody thinks the profit motivate isn't involved here, they've got a lot to learn. No, but Miss. Wilkinson babe says:

"The rules have shifted. It’s no longer okay to serve sea bass from overfished waters or to allow smoking at the table." (repeats) "It’s no longer okay to serve sea bass from overfished waters..." You know what this means? It means they've got clientele coming in there and they're looking at the menu and they see "sea bass." They might see "Chilean sea bass," might see "Ortega saltwater sea bass," and then the customer says (paraphrased exchange), "I need to ask you, is this sea bass coming from overfished waters?" and the servers have to know yes or no.

"Uh, our bass come every day from underfished waters. They're not... No, no, no." "Fine. I'll have it and I'll eat it." If there were no opposition to this, we would all be insane by now. "The rules have shifted. ... It’s not okay to look away from the abusive chef in the kitchen or the handsy guest in the dining room. And it’s not okay to ask employees, partners or management to clock out of their consciences when they clock in to work." See where we're going here? Meaning if somebody comes into an establishment where the staff and the other guests hate Trump, it's perfectly fine to spit on somebody.

"The high-profile clashes rarely involve one citizen fussing at another over the entrees. It’s more often a frustrated person (some of whom are restaurant employees) lashing out at the representatives of an administration that has made its name trashing norms and breaking backs." There you have it. That's the new value base. Since we hate Trump -- since Trump is so abnormal, since Trump is so outside the box, since Trump does things nobody else has done before (and is doing them better than many have ever done before) -- it's okay to spit on people who like him.

Remember we keep hearing from Obama and all these other left-wingers (impression), "This is not our values. It's not who we are." This is their values! Their values permit violence. Their values encourage violence against people who simply disagree, even if it's a gay journalist. A gay journalist gets beaten up, sent to the hospital, and milkshaked, and it's okay! I thought violence against gays would be opposed by every gay special interest group there is out there. But, ohhh, no! This guy doesn't get the protections of GLAAD or the Human Rights whatever they are because he's conservative, or at least he writes for something that's not liberal.

"Not surprising," she says, "if you think about it: You can’t call people your enemies by day and expect hospitality from them in the evening." So Stephanie Wilkinson, who runs The Red Hen, is essentially saying here that if during the day, everybody associated with Trump is your enemy... But they won't let Trump say that. Trump says the media is the enemy of the people; what do they do? "You can't do that! You're destroying the media. You're destroying the reputation. This is treasonous. You can't call them the enemies of the people."

But yet these people can. You oppose them? You support Trump? You are their enemy. "You can’t call people your enemies by day and expect hospitality from them in the evening." She's saying that's hypocritical. If she spends her day hating Trump and everybody that works for Trump and everybody who supports Trump and then some of those people walk into her restaurant, she's a hypocrite if she doesn't kick them out! She's a hypocrite if she gets on somebody who spits on Eric Trump!

"So when the day comes that the world feels returned to its normal axis," meaning when the day comes that Trump is gone and Eric Trump is gone and Ivanka Trump is gone and all the people that support Trump are gone. When that day comes, "I expect we’ll see fewer highly charged encounters making headlines." There will be no reason to spit on people. There will be no reason to deny service to anybody. There will be no reason to throw anybody out. Because Trump will be gone. And when Trump's gone all hatred's gone.

Except it won't be because these people are not gonna stop their hatred.

They are the biggest hate group in this country. The American left and all of its ancillaries -- (ancillaries, however you wish to pronounce it. The Democrat Party, the media, you name it, they are, combined, the biggest hate group in this country. And now they've got people writing op-eds in the Washington Post justifying it. "In the meantime," writes Stephanie Wilkinson... "In the meantime, the new rules apply. If you’re directly complicit in spreading hate or perpetuating suffering, maybe you should consider dining at home."

So she's endorsing spitting on Eric Trump and denying Sarah Sanders service because they "hate." They're the ones that are polite! They come in, they don't attack anybody, they don't bother anybody, they just show up and they are the ones labeled with hate. Just like you have been labeled a hatemonger, just like I have, simply because you're a conservative. I'm gonna tell you this. Whenever Trump goes, whenever Trump is not president of the United States, it's not gonna end the hate these people have for us.

In fact, the day comes they get rid of Trump, their hate is gonna multiply. Their hate is gonna intensify. Their hate is gonna be combined with a sanctimonious happiness and joy, and they're gonna believe that it is their hate that got rid of Trump. They're gonna believe that it is their hatred that defeated Trump, that it was the element that mobilized and inspired people to vote against Trump. So their hatred is only gonna get more violent. It's only gonna get more constant and more common.

The fact that this can happen in Portland and the mayor endorses it and supports it, in violation of the law? But why should that matter when we've bastardized abortion law. We're now bastardizing immigration law. Their hatred for Trump is allowing them to throw out any sense of norms that anybody has ever established or abided by, and it's driving them crazy. They continue to raise their hands when asked. "Yes, I think every illegal ought to be allowed into the country. Everybody that wants in, should get in -- and every damn one of them ought to get free health care."

Does that mean everybody, or just those arriving via the southern border? What happens if somebody named Mustapha Khashoggi lands as JFK and just says, "You know what? I'm not gonna go to Customs -- or when I get through with Customs, I'm not gonna report back." Is he gonna get free health care? Is anybody from a foreign country arriving at any American airport gonna get free health care now? Is anybody that wants to get into this country gonna be allowed a visa to come in? Where does this end? And they think they're gonna win the presidential election on this?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: It is Lennie in Daytona Beach, Florida. Hi, Lennie. Great that you called us. How are you doing, sir? Hello.

CALLER: Very good. Thank you. Maha Rushie. Oh, great to get through to you. Longtime listener, 25 years.

RUSH: Thank you, sir. Thank you so much, sir. I appreciate that.

CALLER: I'm a patriot from New York City now living in Atlanta. They have more sanity. Anyway, in relation to what you were talking about people, because of their values, they see fit to rough up conservative people and throw them out of restaurants literally, I'm seeing a very similar parallel type of discrimination as was practiced against African-Americans years ago, because the restaurant owners and other people, their values didn't agree with integration, and it took ultimately legislation (chuckles) to make it possible for blacks to go to restaurants in the same lunch counters and ride anywhere they wanted in the bus. I'm wondering: Is it gonna take legislation now to make people more tolerant of conservatives or people with a different political viewpoint?

RUSH: Well, no. The analogy is great, but there's never gonna be legislation that creates conservatives as a minority. There aren't any... Conservatives can't possibly. Conservatism... Now, don't misunderstand me here. Somebody just joining here could take this thing out of context and totally miss my point. The left tells us that conservatism is where white supremacy is. There's no way that there's ever gonna be legislation in defense of discriminated-against conservatives. You see, discrimination against conservatives is warranted.

The whole point of the existence of the Democrat Party today is precisely that. Conservatives/Republicans are the ones who have roots back to the founding, and what's that? We have roots back to the unjust founding, the immoral founding, the discrimination-against-blacks-and-women-and-Native-Americans founding. So any action taken against us is not only warranted, it is moral itself, because we represent the problem with this country today, in their eyes. So there's never gonna (scoffs) be legislation. The point here is, who is it that's discriminating?

Who is it that discriminating? Who were the segregationists in your analogy? It was our old buddies the Democrat Party that were the segregationists. It was two Democrat senators that Joe Biden was defending, James Eastland and Herman Talmadge, not to forget J. William Fulbright (who was a mentor to William Jefferson Clinton), and George Wallace of Alabama, and then Lester Maddox in Mississippi. These people were all Democrats. They were all refusing to allow blacks into restaurants, at the water fountain, and into colleges.

Now it's the same people who are practicing the same kind of violent discrimination against Republicans or conservatives. Same people with the same justification. James Eastland was saying (impression), "The black race is an inferior race." One of the guys Biden was defending, that's how he got elected. He got started in the 1940s. That's how he got elected! James Eastland, Mississippi. (impression) "The black race is inferior." "Yay!" These were all Democrats. So now the justification... This woman that owns the restaurant justified all this.

We are the repository of hate. We are against their "values." They have to enforce their values. Their values are to mistreat anybody they think hates. They've tagged us as the haters. They are the haters. They are the angry, militant, unhappy, miserable haters. And, you know, now we come to what to do about it. You don't patronize 'em. "Well, gosh, Rush, there's gonna be fewer and fewer places we can go." I know, if that's the case. But she's even suggesting -- this restaurant owner -- maybe if you're a conservative-Republican Trump supporter (summarized), "Maybe you should eat at home.

"Maybe you don't even come to my restaurant or anybody else's restaurant where you're hated. Maybe just for the sake of civility, you do not bother us. You just don't come to where we are." And yet these are the people who claim to be able to cross the aisle. These are the people that claim to be able to unify. These are the people that claim to be able to work together, or want to. They're still segregationists. They're the biggest segregationists in our culture, and they still are a hate group. And they tell themselves that they're justified because the people that they oppose support this ogre, Donald Trump.

Alan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is next and wants to weigh in on this. How are you doing, sir? Welcome.

CALLER: I'm good, Rush. How are you?

RUSH: I'm fine. Great to have you with us, sir.

CALLER: Mega dittos from a 28-year-old listener. I've been listening to you about 15 years now.

RUSH: Well, I'm honored to have you in the audience out there, Alan. Thank you.

CALLER: So here's my question.

RUSH: Okay.

CALLER: During the monologue segment, you were talking about this thing going on in Portland. Here's my question for you. We all understand that -- and you're absolutely right. The Democrat Party is the biggest hate group, I say, in the history of the country. Here's my question. You know, I'm a 28-year-old Millennial. How are we...? Obviously, Trump is the vessel that gets this started. But how are we going to sustain this long term to fight against the Democrats, again this types of just disgusting behavior? How can we do this and preserve this long-term to continue that American exceptionalism that we were founded upon and made us great and has kept us great under Trump?

RUSH: Well, look, some of this answers itself. Now, my answer is not going to be the answer for every act committed by the left, but in the case of Portland, everything these people did is illegal. They could be put in jail. They could be charged. They could be tried, prosecuted, and jailed. In many cases, simply enforcing the law... The law is already there. We've got so many laws on the books in this country, it would stun you to know how many there are. We've got so many laws, it may not be possible for the average citizen to not break the law in the course of an average day, there are so many laws.

There are clearly laws against beating people up! There are laws against destroy private property. There are laws against throwing things on people. All they have to do is be enforced. But when you've got the mayor of the city in which it happens supporting it -- and, by extension, the police department in the city supporting it -- well, then you have a problem. Your question about how's this sustained. You're looking beyond Trump. Trump can't be president forever, obviously. (sigh) Well, I don't want to get cliched here.

But even after Trump's victory, there were many of us that were warning one election isn't anywhere near what's gonna be required to fix this. This is an ongoing thing. Winning elections must continue to happen. These people must be continually defeated. It's not gonna be easy to do that. There are a significant number of them. I mean, they won the 2018 midterms for a whole host of reasons. I mean, probably as many reasons as there were different races run, different elections. Meaning, it's not just one thing that meant they were gonna win.

It's not a theoretical one or two things that we had to fight against. There were many things. But one of the bigger factors in the 2018 midterms was 55 Republicans retiring. In fact, I think it's one of the biggest factors in losing the House in 2018. Incumbency is the best weapon, the best asset that somebody running for public office has, particularly in the House of Representatives. You know what the incumbency return rate is? It's like 95%. Ninety-five percent of members of Congress win! Every two years.

But when they retire? Well, that throws everybody out the window. Now everything is an open seat -- and depending where those seats are and whether the Republicans are able to come up, in our case, with 55 great replaceable candidates. It's hard to replace 55 retirements. Now, the answer we got (impression), "Well, Rush, you know, they're committee chairmen, and they're term limited in their chairmanships. They can't serve beyond that.

"So they don't want to go back to just being a regular old member of the place, and so they're moving on." Yeah. And they're gonna leverage whatever they did as an elected member into a cushy, well paid private sector gig or lobbyist or analyst on cable TV or what have you. I don't think the 2018... My point is, the 2018 midterms should not be looked at as a policy loss. We didn't lose because of Trump. We didn't lose because of Trump. We lost because we took 55 players off the board.

The same thing would have happened to Democrats if they'd have done the same -- which did happen to them in 1994 -- and after they lost the House in 1994, a bunch of Democrats quit. They didn't want to be on the minority side. So the Republicans were able to come up with those big-seat wins for a number of years until the cycle repeated and they lost. But winning going forward? I don't... (chuckling) As long as the Democrats are doing this... They want to relitigate busing?

Can you believe this? We're being handed, I think, victory on a silver platter if we recognize and know how to play it. They want to relitigate busing? They want to bring busing up? They want to...? Nobody supported busing after it was... You talk about something forced on people? And, by the way, there's a popular misconception about what busing was that I need to correct. If you're suffering from this misconception, I'm gonna fix that here after the next commercial break. Look, I'm glad you called.