All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 3, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:24
January 3, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, greetings and welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Happy to have you along.
It's L. Rush Ball, the Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
And we are uh we're here for the rest of the week.
We're ditto camming all three hours today at Rush Limbaugh.com for those of you who are subscribers.
Telephone number if you'd like to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIB net.com.
Uh New York Times story from uh January 1st, a top Justice Department official objected in 2004 to aspects of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and refused to sign on to it.
The concerns appear to have played a part in the temporary suspension of the secret program.
The concerns prompted two of President Bush's most senior aides, Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzalez to make an emergency visit to a Washington hospital to uh win the needed approval from John Ashcroft.
Now the f first observation is it uh none of this matters.
If it's constitutional, it's constitutional.
So it doesn't matter if James Comey or John Ashcroft or anybody else disagreed with or didn't want to sign on to it.
It's constitutional is constitutional.
But the main point about this is they even look at the lengths that they went to.
I mean, if this were an administration that were hell bent on secrecy and violating everybody's civil liberties, and didn't care a whit about the privacy of the constitution.
Well, they wouldn't have made these efforts.
And they even suspended the program for a while while they were trying to get this sorted out.
Finally, the president said, you know what, I agree with Jamie Garelic.
I have inherent constitutional authority.
So much ado about nothing continues uh with this.
I also got an interesting email uh while I was gone.
Uh Rush, I got a uh a different a different uh spin to the so-called NSA leak.
The NSA only handles the budgets for other alphabet agencies such as the CIA, the FBI, or the DEA.
Does anybody remember the name Christopher Boyce, by the way?
Do you remember the name Christopher Boyce?
Tell you about Christopher Boyce.
Christopher Boyce compromised the real light satellite to the communists in the 70s.
In other words, told the communists he was an American told the commies about the realite satellite.
It was the start of the end of the Cold War.
This this is what the movie, The Falcon and the Snowman was about, Christopher Boyce.
He was he was he was a turncoat.
He gave up information about the spy to the Soviets.
And that was the beginning of the end because the Russian leaders decided that since the United States could intercept their communications, they didn't have a chance against us.
That was the first thing that sent that turned on their light.
And then you go on and on through the Reagan administration, you get to SDI, and that was the final straw.
Well, they learned they couldn't compete.
So this uh email, now that the terrorists know what our capabilities are, they're gonna have a better understanding of their chances against us.
That is, unless the Democrats are able to shut down the program.
That is, unless the Democrats are able to continue to side with our enemies.
If the Democrats are able to continue to penalize the good guys here and the media, then uh the terrorists are gonna win.
But if if uh if we can if we can prevail on this, uh then fine.
Wiretaps, wiretaps are not even necessary because these intercepts are done by uh by electronics.
Computer data mining, not even really real wiretaps.
As the emailer says, the point that I'm trying to make here is that the spy system's been around for a long time.
And the people who were able to win popularity contests and get themselves elected have been briefed on a need to know basis.
The Democrats are bushbashing because he's decided most of them don't have a need to know.
And they can't be trusted to know.
And this whole NSA flap is because they know he's right and they're mad over their loss of power and control.
That's a theory.
And I think that's an element of it, but I I I think there's far more.
I I think they're just so obsessed with with uh getting their own power back and taking Bush out that uh they don't care on a temporary basis who they end up siding with.
Let's go to the audio tapes.
James Risen of the New York Times was on the Today Show today, an exclusive interview.
Uh his story was held to be tied to a book release.
And listen, now this is this is so predictable what he says.
Katie Currick's question, I know that you broke the story, as we mentioned for the New York Times.
Why do you think the people who talked about this secret program came forward and told you about it?
I think this was the most classic whistleblower case I've ever seen where people the tape.
Stop the tape.
That's the new spin.
These are not leakers.
Why?
These are whistleblowers.
Why?
I think he'll even call them patriots.
You know, in in a lot of stories, people have mixed motives for why they talk to reporters.
Some some people, in some stories, there's a turf battle and they're losing out in a turf battle or whatever.
In this case, I've been a reporter for about 25 years.
This was the purest case of a whistle of of whistleblowers coming forward, people who truly believed that there was something wrong going on in the government, and they were motivated, I believe, by the purest uh reasons.
All right, now let's take a look at this.
This this this, I think this displays for us the dramatic differences that exist between us and them.
Here's Ryzen, and his leakers are whistleblowers, and they are patriotic.
Only doing this for the purest of reasons.
Well, could you not say the same thing about whoever it was that leaked Valerie Plains?
In fact, the purpose of leaking Valerie Plame's name, whoever did it was not to expose her and her covert status.
And you know how we know that?
Because the special prosecutor didn't even find that to be a crime.
Scooter Libby's been indicted on what's called a process crime, lying to the grand jury.
But there's no charge that anybody leaked the identity of a covert agent.
The leakers, whoever they were, whoever he or she is, uh in the Plame case, they had just as pure a motive.
They were trying to protect the government's policy and the war in Iraq.
They were doing what they they were leaking these uh bit of information here to try to discredit a bogus story that was being told by Joe Wilson and his wife.
You know, what now?
Let's talk about whose motives are pure.
Well, to the left, the purest of motives are defined by a whistleblower who seeks to undermine the administration.
Scooter Libby, on the other hand, to these people is an absolute hardened criminal.
He is nothing.
He is dirt, he's scum.
He had the audacity to leak this precious operative's name, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Ryzen then continues here with the next question.
Katie says, Well, as you know, your revelations have caused the CIA to launch a formal investigation.
Not this well, D.O.J. is actually doing it.
Uh the Justice Department, she says, to launch a formal investigation.
Are you concerned that you're going to have to reveal your sources to a grand jury?
Well, I hope not.
I uh I think that at this point it would these people came forward for the best reasons.
This is to me, in my opinion, the complete opposite of the Plaim case.
These are people who came forward in order to tell the American people the truth in as they saw it.
And I think they were truly American patriots.
Well, we're going to find out just how committed to the confidentiality of his sources Ryzen is, and whether he'll be willing to go to jail to protect them, because that standard's already been set.
We've got an independent counsel who has sent reporters to jail for not divulging their sources.
And here what does he say?
Well, uh, the the these are people who came forward in order to tell the American people the truth as they saw it.
Who are they?
It's not good enough to say that they're just government sources.
Yeah, that of course, yeah, and he's and he's yeah, and since when does the reporter get to determine who's patriotic and who isn't?
He's the arbiter of whether this is a patriotic leak or a political leak.
He's the arbiter of this.
He gets to sit there and decide.
We'll find out once this investigation gets going if he gets to decide this.
But no, don't make no mistake about something here.
Who are these people?
It's not enough anymore for a reporter to say, these are people high, high caliber, uh very sensitive parts of the government.
Yeah, are they members of move on?
Are they Democrats?
Do they contribute to the Democrat National Committee?
Who are these people?
Are they in the Senate?
Where are these people?
Let's find out who they are before we start passing judgment on their motives.
And we certainly can't sit around and let the reporter be the arbiter of their motives.
Here's the next question.
Let's talk about some of the content.
In your book, uh, you have some very interesting revelations, a lot of different ones.
One is that the president expressed concern that an Al-Qaeda member who was in custody received pain medications.
He said, who authorized that?
You suggested this might be the precursor to torture being used.
Isn't that kind of a big leap?
They were discussing Abu Zabeda, who is the first major Al-Qaeda figure to be captured.
He had been wounded during the capture and he was receiving medication.
What I was told was that the president asked Tenet who authorized giving him pain medication.
The question really goes to how did the message get sent to the CIA over a period of several months that we have to get tough with uh prisoners because eventually we saw a whole cr the creation of a whole regime of harsh interrogation tactics that began at the CIA and then, as we saw, ended up at Abu Ghraib uh in Iraq with the military.
And so there's a question of what were the origins of the interrogation techniques that were used in the war on terror.
You talk about a leap.
Katie didn't even get halfway near it.
So the president apparently, and it won't we only have Ryzen's version of this.
We only have him as as our source and whoever it is that is his source.
So the president says to Ted, well, who's who who's who's given this this terrorist pain medication?
And that launches torture.
That signal to Tennant, okay, the president wants us to be tough with these guys, take the pain medication away and stack them up in a pyramid, send Lindy England over there with a cigarette and a whip.
Is that what this is this is how this happens?
And this is what everybody here has uh has glommed onto.
I got a couple more from Ryzen, well, one more, but we'll take a break.
Back with more in just a second.
One more rising bit.
You see the pattern here, and this is something, by the way, that that um I have I have mentioned throughout this whole scandal, and see if this doesn't remind you of something that you've heard me talk about recently question from Katie Curry.
Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Tennet do not come across very well in your book.
From 9-11 through the beginning of the uh Gulf of uh the war in Iraq.
I think what happened was you you we the checks and balances that normally keep American foreign policy and national security policy towards the center kind of broke down.
Stop the tape.
Stop, stop, stop.
What what what what checks and balances keep American foreign policy and national security policy towards the center?
What in what in the hell is he talking about?
What what right does he have to define the center anyway?
I mean, I know what he's talking about.
Don't misunderstand.
Sounds like it's exactly exactly right, Snerdley.
This this sounds exactly like it's come out of the State Department.
They consider themselves centrists.
They are higher and mightier than everyone, smarter and elite, and they're above it all.
And of course, here come these guys, Cheney and Rumsfeld and Tennet, and they sort of hijack things.
Who does that remind you of?
This guy that used to be Colin Powell's, I can't remember his name now, Colin Powell's chief of staff who starts making these speeches uh uh in the middle of last month.
Here's the rest of the bite.
More of a radicalization of American foreign policy in which the career professionals were not really given a chance to kind of forge a consensus within the administration.
Stop and say it can't opt.
I know that this, at least for this, I know his sources are right out of the State Department that is totally clear uh what's happened here.
What is it?
Forge a consensus.
What good is forging a consensus helped us do what in defeating the Soviets in the Cold War?
Hmm.
What credit can the State Department claim to that?
What credit can the State Department claim to any success we've had in the war on terror in Afghanistan, Baghdad, you name it, what success?
Forging consensus.
You know what consensus is?
It's the absence of leadership.
When the State Department talks about consensus, it's making sure that nobody's next hanging out to dry if something goes wrong, which means we're not going to do anything decisive.
We're just going to have the status quo.
We'll have our ongoing dialogue, and we'll have our ongoing calks and communications.
But we won't actually take steps to solve anything.
Because if we do that, we're out of business.
There's no more reason for us to forge consensus is the rest of this stupid bite.
You had the the principals, Rumsfeld Cheney and Tennet and Rice and many others who were meeting constantly, setting policy, and really never uh allowed the people who understand the experts who understand the region to have much of a say in the presentation.
He suggests there are a lot of power grabbing going on.
Yes.
It's this absurd.
They won the election.
Cheney's the vice president of the United States.
Bush is the president of the United States.
Rumsfeld's the Secretary of Defense.
They are part of the administration, the executive branch.
They won the election.
They cannot power grab.
There is no separation of powers between the executive branch and the State Department.
There's no constitutional authority here granting the State Department any independence whatsoever.
None.
This is absurd to have it portrayed now that the elected leaders of the nation were meeting constantly and setting policy as though that's sinister.
Why, that's never happened before.
The elected leaders meeting constantly, setting policy, never allowing the people who understand the experts who understand the region.
The experts are the people of the State Department, the elected officials of the kind, I don't know what the hell they're doing.
It's a bunch of power mad little despots.
And they're and the truth of the matter is that the people that the country elected, Bush and that he appointed Bush and Cheney Rumsfeld, understand full well the danger posed to our security by the kind of mindset that exists in the State Department.
The so-called experts over there are experts in nothing.
They are certainly not experts in victory.
They are not experts in success.
They are experts in the status quo.
They live and breathe on this notion that they alone understand the region.
If it were up to the State Department and James Arizon and whoever his sources are, there would not be a democracy in Afghanistan today.
There would not be a democracy in in uh in Iraq.
There would not have been 11 million people turn out to vote.
Those are the people who say that's not possible.
Those are the people who say you don't understand the region.
Those are the people who say you don't understand the Arab world.
You go try to do something like that, you're going to have big troubles on your hands.
They don't understand diddly squat.
It's been the case for decades.
And finally, we had some people elected who understand the problems posed by this kind of mindset at the State Department.
Now all of a sudden, those people, I it's it's crystal clear to me what's going on here, and it's it's been crystal clear for two months.
The established foreign policy uh establishment, if you will, in the State Department, and whoever is a member of it at justice and at the Defense Department of the Pentagon, have all aligned themselves because they know full well that they are being outflanked, they're being outperformed, and they're having thirty or forty years of their work blown up right in front of them.
It is being demonstrated how inconsequential they are and have been.
It is being demonstrated how ineffective and incompetent they are.
It's being demonstrated what a bunch of phonies they have been.
It's been demonstrated how they accomplish nothing if they are left alone to practice their art.
And so it's simple human nature, protecting their own backyards and their little fiefdoms.
And so they leak to these doomkoffs, these sponges at the New York Times, who are, of course, fellow travelers and along the same lines, and and of course you get this inertia going where Bush it all fits, the spying overreaching, power grabbing.
Fact is just the opposite.
And these people are going to lose this big time because they're on the wrong side of history.
Here, listen to the president and contrast the president with what you just heard from this New York Times reporter.
The fact that uh somebody leaked this program uh it causes great harm to the United States.
There's an enemy out there.
They read newspapers, they listen to what you write, they listen to what you put on the air, and they react.
And uh we uh it's it seems logical to me that if we know there's an uh uh a phone number associated with Al Qaeda andor an Aqida affiliate, and they're making phone calls, it makes sense to find out why.
They attacked us before, they will attack us again if they can't.
And we're gonna do everything we can to stop.
Now the people that want to find fault with this are unfortunately placed for them, placed in the position of having to defend Al Qaeda as a harmless organization.
They are placed in the position of having to say none of this is necessary.
We have no fear, we have nothing to worry about.
This attack on 9-11 occurred in this country.
The idea that you cannot, as a government, to protect the citizens of this country, find out who else in this country might be talking to other Al-Qaeda types internationally is simply absurd.
And yet that's the side the left and the Democrats have once again put themselves on.
They have accepted the size side of defeat.
They are invested in it.
Don't worry about this.
I mean, I know it's maddening here, folks, but like Bush, he's confident this is going to work out, and so am I. I sleep well at night.
Be back at night.
That's what we do here.
Make the complex understandable.
Vinny in Bayside in New York.
Welcome to the program, Vinny.
Happy New Year, Rush.
Same to you, sir.
Thank you.
Those those sound bites are very telling.
I think it tells us where the American left is today is.
Is Mr. Ryzen really saying that being proactive in a war on terrorism is radical?
And is he really saying that the president which is carrying out his number one constitutional duty as president is indeed a radical?
Is that what Mr. Ryzen is really saying here?
I think he's saying that and more.
I think he's saying he's unconstitutional and criminal, and maybe he didn't use the word, but Democrats using all this to ramp up the impeachment talk.
Damn it, that's the point, Victor Davis Hansen, after all of this success.
We are so prosperous in this country.
We have so much freedom.
Our expectations are so high.
We are used to getting everything we want that when we don't get more than what we want, all of a sudden some people around us get very unhappy.
And so now we want to impeach the president after all of this success.
The Democrats do.
You're damn right they're calling him radical.
They're taking they're calling the elected officials, the president, the vice president, secretary of defense.
Well, he's appointed, but he's the result of an elected uh president being appointed.
They're saying that that them exercising, as you put it, their number one constitutional duty is radical power grabbing.
You got two schools of thought out there, Vinny.
I mean, the the the the left thinks the state these are the same people that that that think we ought to trust the United Nations.
So they don't understand the United Nations.
These are the same people think that we can trust Assad in Syria.
They don't, they don't, they don't have any problem with Assad.
And these are the same people that have been dealing with Iran.
Now, I I have to tell you something, folks.
I I have been reluctant to bring this up.
But Dr. Soule, Thomas Sowell has a column, and I've got it here in the stack.
And it's all about the upcoming uh Iranian success in putting together nuclear weapons.
He said, once that happens, then the world as we know it is over in a whole bunch of ways.
Now, who is it that's working with Iran?
Who is it that has been practicing the James Ryzen version of consensus and expert analysis and conduct with Iran?
It has been the European Union along with the United Nations, and it's that idiotic Mohammed Al-Baradai.
And uh, of course, the State Department, the State Department's in on this too, and I guess they're just fine with this new leader in Iran.
The European Union, eh, we can work with this guy.
There's there's no sense of urgency uh whatsoever about this.
I I'm telling you, you've got two schools, you're gonna side-by-side comparison here, folks.
You've got Iraq, and then you've got right next door, Iran.
And you can take a look at the policies that are being dealt with to deal with both of these countries, and you can ask yourself which one's the best or the better.
We've got the European Union, the State Department, the United Nations dealing with Iran and their upcoming nuclear weapons and this maniac new president they've got.
And you've got the way we've dealt with Saddam Hussein and his potential weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Now, which do you think is gonna have a more direct impact?
Which which of those two countries has been neutered?
Which of those two countries do we not have to worry about becoming a nuclear power or chemical power or whatever?
Which of those countries do we not have to worry about of the two?
Iraq.
Who's been who's been the architects of the way we're dealing with this new clod in Iran?
The James Ryzen crowd, the New York Times crowd, State Department, Moveon.org, the Democratic Party, the American left, the European Union, and the United Nations.
It's uh it's it's just it's it's clear cut.
Here's Joel in Atlanta, your next sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Rush, I can't even begin to tell you how much of an absolute honor it is to speak with you.
I appreciate that.
My father A.C. Coleman, you and my pastor have been the most influential people in my life.
That coming from an OIF veteran.
And uh now I drive semi, so I actually get paid to listen to uh all three hours the EIB program and uh uh day without rush is truly a day without bread.
I love you guys.
Thank you, sir very much.
Love you too.
I love all of you out there.
That's very nice of you to say.
Well, Rush, I wanted to ask you uh I wanted to ask you it just seems like how venomous the left is now, and uh with all the stuff they're coming out with being so negative and uh just really good things happening in Iraq and we're really turning a corner.
Um do you think that this is gonna cost them elections uh our seats, excuse me, in the Senate in the Congress?
No, I I I really I I no.
I I think that there's something I haven't talked about it yet today, but there's something out there that's gonna have a far more direct impact on the makeup of Congress, and that's Jack Abramov.
And I I th that whatever is unveiled in the Abramov scandal is gonna have a far greater impact.
It's gonna be it's gonna be the modern version of term limits, is what the Abramov scandal is.
You know, you well, if you look at term limits, people said, let's put term limits on these guys because after they're ver there for a long enough time, uh the system's gonna corrupt everybody, we just gotta get them out of there so they can't make careers out of this.
Well, term limits didn't work because the people that were for it got elected and said all of a sudden, hey, I don't want to leave.
Well, here comes this scandal.
We find out that this scan this scandal's gonna get rid of some people, so it's in effect they're gonna be term limited by virtue of their behavior.
Whoever it is, and I don't think it's all Republicans here either.
I think Dingy Harry's gonna be found to have some well, he was on Chris Chris uh Wallace's show in Fox.
And uh he took money from an Indian tribe that was working for and with Abramov.
He got all testy.
Hi, this is a Republican scandal.
I haven't taken any money, I've never met Abramov.
I got money from one of his Indian tribes, but I don't know.
But he's involved.
They're involved, a lot of people are going to be involved.
I think that's going to have a far greater effect on the impact of the elections in 06 than than this stuff is.
In in let me let me answer your question about the Democrats, their behavior this way.
Uh and I I I got this question last week out in Los Angeles when I said a golf course.
And here's what I told him.
I said, you know, you guys got to understand something.
If if the if the mainstream press and the media about whom you're within whom you're so immersed, because you know, I those of us who live and breathe and die with the news every day, that's our world.
And if we don't have the ability to get outside of it and like go play golf, uh or or or whatever, have a life, uh, then you get a you get a jaundiced and distorted view of how people really live.
And you get a jaundice distorted view of reality.
If the mainstream media and the Democratic Party had the power that so many of you fear they have, Bush would have been impeached long ago.
The National Guard story would have worked, any num calling him Hitler, calling him a liar, all these all these things, all these charges against Bush.
If they really had the power to convince a majority of the American people to agree with them, and most of the American people have lives, and they're not immersed in media each and every day.
Not to the point that we are.
They pay attention to it, but they're not immersed in it.
The day doesn't begin and end with it, and their their happiness is not defined by it.
And neither is mine, by the way, and I hope more of you can say that in this new year.
Uh while still paying attention.
You can you can be immersed in it, but then still find a way to get away from it and have your own confident beliefs and understand, keep in perspective what you're watching, reading, and seeing.
Or hearing.
The bottom line is if if you look at everything this president's been hit with since the aftermath of the 2000 election, he shouldn't have lasted two years.
Shouldn't have been re-elected for sure.
And yet his approval numbers are back up to 50 percent.
The economy is roaring along.
We've got democracy in Baghdad and Iraq, we've got democracy in Afghanistan.
It can be said that we're winning the terror war.
We have not been attacked on our home soil since September 11th of 2001.
Yet there still are people out there that want you to believe that it's never been worse in this country.
And they're not able to convince enough Americans to throw Bush out of office in 2004.
They're not able to convince a number of people, even the Democratic Party will go out and say that we we we get a pull out of a rock, we didn't get out of there it is horrible.
Okay, let's put it to a vote.
Three of them vote for it, even though they're all saying they should do it.
No confidence and courage of their own convictions.
So I just think the evidence is that all of this this an unceasing and never ending personal attack on George W. Bush is not nearly as successful as you might be led to believe it is simply because you see it done every day all the time.
But if you look at the reality of the situation, Bush is still president, he's still triumphing, his agenda is still moving forward.
He's doing whatever it takes to do the job the way he thinks it needs to be done, practicing as Vinny from Bayside said, his number one constitutional duty the defense and protection of this country and the Constitution that's what he's based his presidency on.
So all these attacks have not have not resulted in Bush's demise maybe some lowering of approval numbers but we'll find out in 06 there I know his question was will it backfire on the Democrats.
Yeah I think the if you look at history the odds of it backfiring on them are far greater than the odds of it succeeding.
They weren't able to stop Roberts by the way and I'm going to tell you right now they weren't able to they're not going to stop Alito.
Alito's going to get confirmed and then and then when that happens some disgruntled Democrat in the courts can say hell with this I can't stand this many conservatives.
I'm quitting.
And then Bush will get a third choice to nominate.
And that'll send them over the edge again.
This is going to be an election year and most often what I have found in politics it's that which is least expected that happens.
Everybody's thinking that all these attacks on Bush and the war and everything else they're going to be the determining factors in a Democrat's taking back the House and maybe the Senate in 06 and that's because that's what the media is telling you ain't going to be that has the potential anyway to be far more powerful in structuring these elections or determining them than this stuff does.
The Wellstone Memorial that's what I would look to as the historical perspective there is nobody in this country that can tell me that their depraved behavior at the Paul Wellstone Memorial did not backfire on them in 2002.
There's nobody that will convince me that their outrageous assaults from Michael Moore to that book that encouraged the assassination of Bush to any number of things the National Guard story in 04 didn't backfire and plus a lousy candidate.
I mean John Kerry let's get real they couldn't have nominated a worse candidate.
In fact if they wanted to throw that election and lose it they couldn't have nominated a worse candidate than than John Kerry.
And he wants to run for it again.
Big question there is will Teresa change her name back to Kerry because she's changed it back to her she's dropped Kerry now.
I mean what a sad sack what an absolutely hopeless sad sack and that was their frontrunner.
Well who else Hillary Sorry folks I am not amongst those of you who are afraid of Mrs. Clinton.
I'm I am afraid and I'm profoundly afraid of what she would do if she were elected don't misunderstand but I'm not afraid of the fact that she cannot be beaten.
I'm not afraid that she's going to run I am not quaking in my boots.
I'm not going, oh no, Hillary all not at all.
I think we're looking at somebody who's been built up way beyond their abilities, way beyond her intelligence, just like the left constantly does Mike in fact if I were you I'd keep an eye on Mark Warner in the Democratic Party for their nomination ex-governor of Virginia that's the guy because I think more and more Democrats are convinced she cannot win a national election.
Let me let me put it to you this way.
What, Mr. Sturdley, put it to you this way What w what what just not what real man is going to vote for Hillary Clinton.
What real man is going to vote for Hillary Clinton.
You're going to have Hollywood men and that kind voting for Hillary Clinton.
But what real man, you're you don't know what negative turnout is until if she gets the nomination mark my words and let's not leave out women the idea that all women are going to vote for Hillary in mass?
Don't believe that, folks.
Do not believe it.
I think this business of of all this criticism, you can't find an evidence, any evidence where it's worked.
You can't find they didn't win anything in 06.
They didn't win anything in 04.
And that's all they've done.
Where's the evidence that it does work?
The evidence is that it does backfire on them.
And as it backfires, they get even more radical.
They get even more crazy.
They get even more whacked out.
But just you heard it here first.
Drop this Hillary business and then keep your eye on Mark Mark Warner.
That's my dark horse on the Democrat side.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back after this.
Now, one thing about this Abramov scandal, folks, and I I don't know where this is going.
He's agreed to plead guilty.
He faces 30 years if if he gets the full vote of punishment.
One of the reasons to plead guilty, you cooperate for a lesser sentence.
I think they're talking about ten years.
And the guy's pretty deeply invested in a whole lot of members of Congress and the Senate, too.
And we don't know who they all are.
The media is reporting it's predominantly Republicans, but the media's agenda is that only the Republicans are corrupt.
The Democrats are clean and pure as the wind driven snow.
As is the usual case, there will be surprises here.
But the real thing that you need to know about this.
The real point of all this is is how does a Jack Abram exist?
How can one person become so intertwined in the policies in the elections of so many people?
How can this happen?
We got lobbyists everywhere, but where do we get Jack Abramov out of this?
I have a theory.
And my theory goes right to Senators McCain and Senators Feingold.
Now we know this.
There's one undeniable axiom of politics, and that is this, and it was spoken, this is first said by the former treasurer of the state of California, Jesse Unruh.
He said, Money is the mother's milk of politics.
I think one of the things that turns so many people, average people off to politics, is they end up thinking, they start out thinking it's all about ideas, and they quickly learn no, it's about money.
All this time spent going to fundraisers and raising money to do this and that, it's it uh they find it's less and less about ideas, they think, and so they get turned off to it.
Because in its simplest form, politics is about ideas.
Well, unfortunately, you can't take the money out of it.
It's always been there, always gonna be there.
But when you come along and you pass a law like campaign finance reform that limits uh what your First Amendment rights, free speech rights, can't run a commercial supporting a certain candidate 60 or 30 days before primary or general election, and nobody raises a hoot about this.
I mean, there's a direct you talk about violation of civil liberties.
McCain and Feingold applauded.
If there were a domestic Nobel Prize, they'd get it for campaign finance reform.
And all it did was muck up the system something terribly.
Because you really now can't give money to who you want to give it to.
You can't do it.
They've taken the parties out of it.
You cannot give money to the party, soft money.
So it gives rise to these clever architects like Abramov.
You have to find an alternative route now to get the money to whom you want to contribute it.
Because you can't just give it right to them.
There's a limit on how much you can give, and then when it comes to the party, you are fat out of luck.
So here's Abramov, and he's got some lo and behold some Indian tribes, an approved minority in this country.
And Indian tribes are supposed to get casinos and a whole bunch other things, and the Indian tribes make contributions.
Here's Abramov finding a way, very creative way to get money to people where donors are not little legally allowed to get it there in a direct route.
Ergo campaign finance reform has itself corrupted the system even more so than it was.
And that that's in the meantime, the architects of this little plan are treated royally.
They are heralded as saviors.
So it I just think this is classic.
You know, Washington tries to fix a problem and they make it worse under the guise of cleaning it up.
By the way, how many of you think that it's never been more expensive to buy a house?
You are wrong.
You are so wrong.
Details coming up.
Stay with us.
If you're on hold, sit tight, hang in there, and be tough, because we will get to you in the uh in the next hour.
And I was serious about this.
Buying a house is less of a bite than it's ever been.
▲
Export Selection