All Episodes
Previous Next
April 5, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:25
April 5, 2007, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back.
Greetings.
Nice to have you with us again, folks.
Rush Limbaugh here behind the Golden EIB.
Just tell me.
I saw that.
Okay.
Anyway, great.
Got sign language going on here on the other side of the glass with panic-looking faces like maybe Pelosi's at the back door.
Wanting to talk peace.
Anyway, welcome back, folks.
Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network, 800-282-2882.
If you'd like to be with us, as mentioned, and as promised, we welcome back to the EIB microphone with always a great privilege to have the Vice President Dick Cheney with us.
Mr. Vice President, welcome once again to our program.
Well, thank you, Rush.
It's good to be back on.
I can imagine.
Now, let's start talking about the supplemental funding bill for Iraq.
I have to tell you something, and I heard last night as I'm watching some of the cable news network shows, some of the Democrats and Democrat commentators are saying publicly now they expect that the president is eventually going to back off the veto threat because he will eventually realize that he cannot be seen as defunding the troops.
No, he has been very, very firm in his insistence, Rush, that if they send him a bill with limitations on his ability, to function as commander-in-chief, or restrictions on the troops, or with a withdrawal date that in effect would tell our enemies we're going to quit, he will veto it.
He's also said the same thing if the bills are loaded up with pork on non-essential spending.
So he's been very, very clear.
Nobody should be mistaken about that.
Where do you think this is going to go?
The Democrats don't seem to be in any hurry to have this go to conference, have a final bill voted upon and then sent up to the White House for the veto.
How long is this going to take, do you suspect?
Well, I hope it only takes a couple of weeks.
You know, they all took off for vacation as soon as they passed the bills.
But so far, the House hasn't even appointed contraes, and they're going to be out next week as well, too.
The Senate is coming back next week.
You and the President both have derided the theatrics of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and a number of the Democrats.
And I don't know if you're being politic with the statement, because I, frankly, need to ask you if you really think it's theatrics, or is this who they really are?
Is this what they really intend to lose this war to make sure we come home defeated?
Well, I think that the policies that they are recommending would, in fact, produce that result.
Now, I think I've got some friends on the other side of the aisle, and I don't want to question everybody's motives.
I do believe that a significant portion of the Democrats, including, I think, Nancy Pelosi, are adamantly opposed to the war and prepared to pack it in and come home and defeat rather than put in place or support a policy that will lead to victory.
Do you understand that?
Fundamental difference.
Can you share with us whether or not you understand their devotion or their seeming allegiance to the concept of U.S. defeat?
I can't.
It seems to me so abundantly clear, Rush, that we really need to prevail in this conflict, that there's an awful lot writing on it.
It's not just about Iraq.
It's about our efforts in the global war on terror and that entire part of the world.
It affects what's going on in Iran where we're trying to make sure they don't develop a nuclear weapon.
You can imagine the extent to which the Iranians would be heartened in that effort if they see us withdraw from Iraq next door.
We've got Musharraf in Pakistan and Karza in Afghanistan to put their lives on the line every day, in effect supporting our efforts to deal with the extremists and the terrorists in that part of the world.
If they see us bail out in Iraq, they clearly would lose confidence in our capacity to carry through and get the job done.
So it's absolutely essential we do it.
I don't know why, what the motive is.
They seem to think that we can withdraw from Iraq and walk away from it.
They ignore the lessons of the past.
Remember what happened in Afghanistan.
We'd been involved in Afghanistan in the 80s supporting the Mujahideen against the Soviets, then prevailed.
We won.
Everybody walked away.
And in the 90s, Afghanistan became a safe haven for terrorists, area for training camps where Al-Qaeda trained 20,000 terrorists in the late 90s and the base from which they launched attacks against the United States on 9-11.
So those are very real problems.
And to advocate withdrawal from Iraq at this point seems to me simply to play right into the hands of the U.S.
It may not just be Iraq.
Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs, I forget the name of the committee, in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal 08 is going to actually remove the phrase global war on terror because they don't think it's applicable.
They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes, but they're going to try to rid the Defense Appropriation Bill and thus official government language of that term, which does that give you any indication of their motivation or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself.
Sure.
Well, it's just flawed thinking.
I like Ike Skelton.
I worked closely with Ike when I was Secretary of Defense.
He's chairman of the Armed Services Committee now.
Ike's a good man.
He's just dead wrong about this, though.
Think about, just to give you one example, Arash.
Remember Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Jordanian terrorist al-Qaeda affiliate, ran a training camp in Afghanistan for al-Qaeda, then migrated after we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there.
He went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene, and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June.
He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samara Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni.
This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq, and as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.
There's no way you can segment out and say, well, we'll fight the war on terror in Pakistan or in Afghanistan, but we can separate Iraq.
That's not really in any way, shape, or form related.
That's just dead wrong.
Bin Laden himself has said this is the central battle in the war on terror.
Well, I have to think the Democrats know all of this too, which puzzles people even more as to why they seem devoted to pulling out of there with defeat securely in hand.
But not only would what you detail happen, but the next conflict, the next battle that we find ourselves in, there will be one.
How tough is it going to be to assemble allies if they think we might just pull out in the middle of the whole thing before it's complete?
Well, it would be very tough.
Remember what Al-Qaeda is betting on here.
They cannot beat us in a stand-up fight.
They never have.
What they're betting is that they can break our will, that they can, in fact, force the American people to retreat, that we'll finally get tired of the battle and go home, and then they win.
The only way they can win is if we quit.
And to adopt a policy that says we're going to withdraw from Iraq would do precisely that.
It in effect hands victory to the terrorist.
It validates the whole al-Qaeda strategy.
The other thing you can be sure of, once they figure out that if they attack America often enough, we'll change our policies.
They'll keep attacking America.
You have a lot of supporters in this audience, obviously, and they're chomping at the bit to help.
What can people in this audience do to assist the effort to get the supplemental passed as the president wants it?
Well, I think they ought to make it clear to their member of Congress that this is a question of supporting the troops.
These are young men and women who put their lives on the line every day for this country.
They deserve the absolute unequivocal support of the United States, of the Congress, the funding that's in that bill, the resources that they need to do the job we ask them to do for us.
This is a real test.
You cannot pursue this fiction that some of them like to pursue is that they, quote, support the troops, but they're opposed to everything the troops are doing.
That's just a nonsensical statement.
It's very, very important that this legislation go forward and that members of Congress be judged based on whether or not they really do support the troops when they're put to the test.
A couple quick more things before you have to go.
What's the administration view today?
What's the emotion?
What are you thinking about Speaker Pelosi's trip to the Middle East, specifically the conveyance of the incorrect message to Bashar Assad in Syria about peace talks with Israel?
Well, it's not helpful.
I made it clear earlier that I thought this created difficulties, if I can put it in a general form.
Obviously, she's the Speaker of the House and ought to travel to foreign nations and ought to be her own foreign policy, is she?
She's not entitled to make policy.
In this particular case, by going to Damascus at this stage, it serves to reinforce, if you will, a reward Bashir Assad for his bad behavior.
He's done all kinds of things that are not in the interest of the United States, including allowing Syria to be an area from which attacks are launched against our people inside Iraq.
He obviously was heavily involved right now in supporting an effort by Hezbollah to try to topple the government of Lebanon.
This is a bad actor, and until he changes his behavior, he should not be rewarded with visits by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Well, how much damage has she done by conveying to Assad that Israel is ready for peace talks when Israel is not ready for peace talks as Syria is currently constituted?
Well, I think it clearly stimulated a reaction out of the Israelis.
Prime Minister Olmert immediately made it clear that she was not authorized to make any such offer to Bashir Assad, among other things.
Of course, the Syrians have not renounced their support for terror.
The major terrorist organizations that are dedicated to the destruction of Israel, such as Hamas, are headquartered in Damascus, Syria.
It was a non-statement, nonsensical statement.
It didn't make any sense at all that she would suggest that those talks could go forward as long as the Syrians conducted themselves as a prime state sponsor of terror.
You are a reserved individual and very professional, and you've been doing this a long time.
I'm asking this for people in my audience as well as me.
How do you feel when this ⁇ don't you get enraged when this kind of thing happens?
Well, I've been around a long time.
I'm obviously disappointed.
I think it is, in fact, bad behavior on her part.
I wish she hadn't done it, but she is the Speaker of the House.
And fortunately, I think the various parties involved recognize she doesn't speak for the United States in those circumstances.
She doesn't represent the administration.
President's the one who conducts foreign policy, not the Speaker of the House.
One more, and that's the recess appointment of Sam Fox.
Sam Fox is from my home state, and I know of Sam Fox.
He's an immigrant, a Ukrainian Jewish immigrant whose parents had nothing.
When they died, they had nothing.
He is a totally self-made man, a great American.
And he was treated horribly by Senator Kerry and others on that committee simply because he had made a political donation.
They essentially told him he did not have freedom of speech in this country.
And until he would apologize, until he would go up to Kerry and apologize for supporting the Swift votes, now the president has recess appointed him.
And of course, the Democrats say they're going to investigate this and going to look into this.
This is the kind of move that garners a lot of support from the people in the country.
This shows the administration willing to engage these people and not allow them to get away with this kind of, well, my term, you don't have to accept it, Stalinist behavior from these people on that committee.
Well, you're dead on, Rush.
I know Sam well.
He's a good friend of mine and has been for many years.
I think he's a great appointment.
He'll do a superb job as our ambassador to Belgium.
I was delighted when the president made the recess appointment.
He clearly has that authority under the Constitution.
Yeah, you go on vacation.
John Kerry basically shot it down.
But you go on vacation.
This is what happens to you if you're the Democrat.
Mr. Vice President, thanks for your time.
It really is always a pleasure to talk to you.
And we appreciate your candor when you come on the program very much.
So all the best and have a great Easter weekend, you and your family.
All right.
Thanks, Rush.
Enjoy the show.
Thank you.
That is Vice President Cheney.
We'll be back right after this with much more on the EIB network.
You got to love Cheney, our hero here, Pelosi, engaged in bad behavior.
And we're back.
El Rushbo, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have here on the EIB network.
The Libs are not going to like the details of this next story.
It is out of New York.
New York City jazz musician and martial arts instructor pleaded guilty yesterday to pledging allegiance to al-Qaeda and offering to train would-be terrorists in hand-to-hand combat.
So New York City jazz musician did this.
The prosecution's case against Tariq Ibn Osman Shah was based largely on taped conversations between him, an undercover FBI agent posing as an al-Qaeda recruiter and an FBI informant, Mohamed Alansi.
Alansi attracted attention in 2004 when apparently in protest against his treatment by the FBI, he attempted suicide by setting himself on fire in front of the White House.
Shah, this is the New York City jazz musician, Tariq ibn Osman Shah, said, I agreed with others to provide material support to Al-Qaeda in the form of martial arts training, which I knew was wrong.
He told the U.S. magistrate judge Gabriel Gorenstein after entering his guilty plea.
I knew the Secretary of State had designated Al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization.
Now, this Tariq ibn Osman Shah faces up to 15 years in prison.
He'll be sentenced on July 10th.
One of four men charged with conspiring to provide material support to groups the U.S. says are involved in terrorist activities.
The important thing here is it was taped.
Conversation.
Was it the NSA spy program that nailed Tariq ibn Osman Shah?
Libs will hate this.
ACLU will be in this on the well, there won't be an appeal.
The guys pled guilty.
And I guess under a headline, we could say, damn that bush.
Look at this headline.
This is from the French news agency, U.S. to escape recession.
World economy looking good.
Quote, IMF.
The United States will overcome a housing slowdown and will avert recession while the rest of the global economy is in sound health, the IMF International Monetary Fund said Thursday.
The message here is reassuring.
Do not think the U.S. is heading for a recession, said the new chief economist of the IMF, Simon Johnson.
He acknowledged the housing slowdown underway in the world's largest economy, ours, but we're not seeing it spread beyond residential construction.
If the U.S. sneezes, you should worry about other parts of the world catching cold.
But at the moment, other parts of the world are healthy.
Once again, a testament to the power and the strength, the United States and its role in the world economy and its role in the world of everything.
So, damn it.
Damn it.
Damn it.
We're going to escape a recession.
A housing bubble is not going to be that big a deal.
And the world economy is going to damn that Bush.
He always just lucks out, doesn't he?
Barbara in St. Louis.
I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
I just heard Vice President Cheney, who's a hero of mine, I just feel so helpless about Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed, whose biggest thing in life is doing these land deals.
And are they as stupid as they sound?
No, they're not.
No, no, no, no.
They are not.
Well, Pelosi, look, this is a tough question.
They're liberals first, whatever their IQ.
They are liberals first.
And you have to never forget that.
And whatever their intelligence is, they are liberals first.
And they are obsessed with defeating George W. Bush at every turn, whatever the policy, including the war on terror.
They are, this is not an accidental swerve into defeat.
They own it.
They have the deed.
They are the sole owners, and there's not a mortgage on it.
They bought it outright.
They are the sole owners of defeat, and they are inspired and motivated towards that.
As for Pelosi, I can tell you exactly what she's doing.
She is trying to show the rest of the world that if liberal Democrats are in charge, we can have peace in the world simply by going and talking to these SOB dictators and thugs, that we don't have to be bullies and that we don't have to push them around.
We don't have to use our superpower status against them.
And we don't have to send the military all over the world.
We just have to go talk to them.
They're just like us.
All we have to do is engage in a conversation, show them we mean them no harm and that we want peace for their people and so forth and so on.
Where they're naive is that they actually believe that doing this kind of thing, talking to dictators and thugs and murderers and tyrants in this way, actually changes them.
I'm sure she thinks that Basher Assad's a more reasonable guy than George W. Bush, and I am not saying that as an exaggeration.
I am sure she thinks that.
I'm sure she thinks that she can get more done with Assad than she can get done with Bush.
You know, for all this talk about wanting to talk to Assad and all these other people, how often do they want to talk to Bush?
They don't want to talk to Bush.
They don't want to give Bush the time of day.
I am telling you people, I've told you over and over again, to them, the number one enemy of themselves, this country, in the world, is Bush today and nobody else.
What do you mean, Ghana?
We are having a good time.
And we're here on the EIB network.
El Rushboard, by the way, folks, I am not going to be here tomorrow, taking tomorrow off.
It's Good Friday.
So let's do Open Line Friday on Thursday today for the rest of the program.
We got an Open Line Friday question up there anyway, which is what perspired me to suggest that we do this for the rest of the program.
So pretend it's Open Line Friday, whatever you want to talk about, fair game.
We go to Grand.
Is this Grand Marie, Minnesota?
Is that how you pronounce that?
Laura?
That's right.
Grand Marie, Minnesota.
Yeah, Grand Marie, Minnesota.
That's what it is.
All right, well, great to have you on the program.
Thank you.
Rush, you're going to have to calm me down because I was so frustrated by your Pelosi question and Shaney's response.
Was so um, I can just almost yelling at the wait wait, what was wrong with his response out there?
I, I was so hoping it would be forceful and I, I was shouting, just say it, just say it, she crossed the line, I believe.
I believe that she way went over the boundaries of what a speaker of the house is supposed to be and I was just hoping he would say, she is out of line and really um, let her have it kind of.
Well, you know um, I understand how you uh, how you feel uh, I was trying to extract some uh, emotion from the vice president, but there's two things that work here.
A, he is not given to those kind of responses ever throughout his career.
And even when he's out in Wyoming fishing and the fish gets away, you know he turns to his buddy and says oh, it got away, and then rebates and uh, and and moves on plus the the, the.
You know he's, he's uh, he's also governed by the philosophies of the administration from the top down.
The president doesn't get mad.
The president really doesn't get very emotional when discussing these kinds of things.
He gets.
He got a little fired up for the first time in a long time uh, when they passed this supplemental bill, that had the deadline, with all the pork in it, but it's not something that that they're given to, they're just they're not, they're not going to do it.
I guess i'd like to see more of a response from our Republicans and our elected officials, you know, calling her, or at least calling these Democrats to account.
I really believe that this is, uh something that really undermined the president's authority in a sense.
Well, they're going there and speaking to this terrorist.
They they, they know all of this and I, I think that they um, I don't know, I just i'm guessing, but their way of dealing with this is uh, underneath the public view uh, and in in their own, in their own ways.
I also think that they, they have confidence.
The American people are going to see this for what it is, and and that look at this administration has.
It's frustrating, it's it's to me, and i've mentioned it a bunch of times they have a view and it's it's.
It comes from Bush.
He is he, he has a reverence for the office and he, he is not going to behave in such a manner that he thinks detracts from that reverence, which includes not being partisan and not being ideological and not being political.
He they, they.
Their philosophy is going to be above all this.
They're going to be above the fray.
They'll other people go out and play like they're in the sandbox and they're going to trust the American people to figure this all out in the end.
Oh, i'm glad that they have that much faith in the intelligence of the American people.
I'm starting to doubt that.
I hear you, American people too many of them are a bunch of sponges out there and they'll soak it all up.
But you know here, we will know.
You just keep a sharp eye.
If, on the next hunting trip, Cheney invites Pelosi to go, that would.
I'd pay to see that.
All right well, look at your, your bet.
Your frustrations are felt and shared by a lot of people.
Good okay well, but we've got to.
It's going to be interesting to see how the press reacts to this, this interview, because he said some things in this interview, regardless how he said them.
He said some things in this interview that you know.
We're going to have the transcript up there at Rushglimbaugh.com pretty soon so that the drive-bys can take it out of context.
Yeah and, and it'll be interesting.
There are a couple of points uh, in this, in this interview, a couple of his answers that if they want to, if they want to build this stuff out into the Matter Horn Mountain, they'll be able to, which is the other frustration, with the media always twisting things well, but they are who they are.
You're not going to change that.
They are who they are.
Right, right.
Well, you've calmed me down a little, but I'd still.
Well, I have that effect.
I'd still love to see some response that's, you know, right there.
Well, let me ask you this.
Of the presidential candidates that are announced and are out there campaigning, have you chosen one yet?
I have not chosen one.
I'm finding it a little scary, actually.
But, you know, in fact, I have a bet going with a friend that Hillary's going to be president, and I'm really hoping I lose it.
But as far as Republicans, who are you betting on?
I'm not betting on any Republicans because I feel like even the ones that there are probably the Republican Party.
I have to ask the question twice.
I've been through this.
I've been a husband.
Who are you betting on?
Well, at this point, I'm betting against anybody that runs.
No, you've made a bet.
You've made a bet with somebody who's going to be president.
You hope you don't.
Is it Hillary?
I'm betting it's going to be Hillary.
Okay.
And I'm hoping I lose.
It'll be the best money I ever lost.
How much did you bet?
50.
50 bucks.
Yeah.
Well, that's not an insignificant amount.
No, because I'm so sure of it, and it's scaring the daylights out of me.
But I really believe so.
Well, let me ask you this.
If one of the presidential candidates on the campaign trail actually went on television and started ripping Pelosi over the coals, would that affect you?
Well, I think it would encourage me, at least just to see that they're paying attention and that they're seeing what this is doing to our stand in the world and our, you know, how it's undercutting the president.
It's going around him, and it's causing us or our enemy to see that we are not a unified country and that we have an active party trying to undermine anything the president is trying to do.
I find it very frustrating.
Yeah, I know a lot of people worry about that aspect of it.
But if the American people respond to leadership, and that's what you're saying you want, when you say you want emotion, you want leadership.
And the American people respond to it.
And at some point, it will emerge.
It always does.
You just have to be, excuse me, have to be very patient for it.
Laura, have to go get another call here.
Thanks so much for your time.
I appreciate it.
This is Kelly in Plymouth, Indiana.
You're next on the EIB network.
Is this Kelly in Plymouth?
Kelly, are you there?
Yes, honored to speak with you, Mr. Limbaugh.
Thank you.
Just quick question.
What do you believe are the consequences to Nancy Pelosi for what she has done?
There won't be any.
If she doesn't feel any shame or embarrassment over this, there really won't be any.
Her party's not going to do anything to her.
There's really nothing the Republicans can do to her.
The consequences here ought to be worldwide embarrassment.
But I don't know whether she has the humility to feel that.
Doubtful.
Yep.
Okay.
There won't be any consequences.
That's, see, everybody wants vengeance here.
We want some payback.
We want Pelosi to suffer somehow for engaging in this sort.
But you know what?
It will happen.
It'll happen down the road.
We may not even know when.
But these kinds of things catch up with people.
She's not going to lose an election.
She owns her district and so forth.
Well, you know, if the Democrats don't win the House, and they're cruising for this, if she keeps this kind of stuff up and they keep writing these supplemental bills to defeat, secure defeat, I mean, they think they're on the way to cementing their future for the next thousand years running the house.
They may lose it in 2008.
And that would be paying a consequence.
You just got to be patient.
This stuff evens out over time.
I can only hope.
Well, trust me, you can hope.
Very good.
All right.
Thank you very much, sir.
My pleasure.
Back to Tampa, Florida.
Mike, welcome to the EIB Network.
Open Line Friday on Thursday.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
You are the basis of my sanity, and you are my hero.
Well, thank you, sir.
My question for you is: I know that with your hearing problem, you cannot hear new music that you tend to gravitate to the old music that you heard, I guess, prior to the hearing loss.
My question is: how do you handle the parodies?
Can you hear them well or if you'll note most of the parodies are put to tunes that I know that I was able to hear before I lost my hearing?
But there's always a transcript for them as they get produced, suggested, you know, pool together the writing resources here of these things.
And my memory supplies the melody.
I really don't have any problem with the parodies.
Now, in the rare event that there is a parody put together with a tune that I am not familiar with, I rely on trusted staff to tell me whether or not it's any good.
That's funny.
Because I guess it's just gibberish.
It's just, well, the music is gibberish because I can't detect every note sounds the same.
So if I haven't heard it, my memory can't supply the melody.
Okay.
Like soundtracks to movies, I've just adapted to it.
It's just an utter distraction, especially if the dialogue is very low.
So I have closed captioning on.
I do my best to tune it out.
Some soundtracks use a lot of strings.
Sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.
But I can tell when it's a piano.
I can tell when I hear percussion.
I hear bass lines fine and dandy.
But once you get into higher frequencies like piano notes, and I can tell it's a piano, but I couldn't tell you what melody if I've never heard it before.
Do you hear the voices as they're presented?
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, well, within a range of recognizability, I mean, everybody sounds to me today the way they did before I lost my hearing.
Now, on the phone here, every female voice sounds identical.
I cannot distinguish them.
It's just a circumstance of the quality on a phone line.
Male voices are more distinguishable to me than female, but most females sound identical in ways that would make it hard for me to distinguish one from another.
Now, how about in person?
Not in person.
It's not in person, not the case in person.
How about on television?
Television, really, I rely on closed captioning for most of what I watch on television or anything that's on video because that's the only way I'm going to get every word spoken, particularly in subtle, low-spoken scenes, a lot of music or sound effects going on.
You know, a conglomeration of sound just all sounds just like one jumble, and it's difficult.
But there are ways around it.
I mean, it's not hard, believe me.
It is not hard.
And I've totally adapted to it.
I don't even think of it as a problem.
I can't tell you the last time I sat around and said, gee, I wish I had my hearing.
It's genuinely when I wish I could hear some music as I did.
But other than that, that happens so infrequently, it's something I don't even think about.
It's just what it is.
And I'm fortunate.
A lot of people that have cochlear implants don't do as well as I've done, and they don't know why that is.
Science is not far enough along to be able to explain or even predict who's going to do better than others.
There are a couple factors that they can get a general idea from, but they can't predict it at all.
But I'm really lucky.
My comprehension is about 80% of speech when they do their tests.
Most people in the 50s and 60s, I was able to use the phone the first day they activated mine.
Some people can't ever because they can't distinguish words on the phone.
Some people take three or four months before they're able to.
So I've been really lucky with mine.
I've got to run a little long here, but we'll continue right after this.
Stay with us.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Rush Limbaugh, the excellence in broadcasting network, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations daily.
Jeff in Chicago, nice to have you with us, sir.
Rush, it's an honor.
Thank you, sir.
Does Nancy Pelosi not understand what the Constitution specifically defines as her role as an elected official?
She totally understands it.
She is in the legislative branch, not the executive.
And a lot of the things that she is beginning to do encroaches upon the executive branch.
Now, my main question is this, though.
She is almost like her own drug.
The more she does, the more she's going to attempt to do.
She is becoming more and more reckless, more and more out of control.
She is almost attempting to take over on her own agenda.
Congratulations, you got it.
And it's not just her, it's their whole party.
Well, my question is this, though.
If you try and take over a government that is not in your constitutional rights to do, does that not border on treason?
Well, if somebody wants to level the charge, if somebody wants to bring the charge, but what do you want to bet nobody will?
Well, that's just exactly right.
For whatever reason, it won't.
I mean, yes, there's a lot of politics involved.
That's why they call it politics.
But the bottom line is this.
This is not new.
You guys, I explained this.
The Democrats did this to Reagan in his second term with the Contras and the Boland Amendment, the Nicaraguan situation.
They're flying down, making buddy-buddy, drinking wine, breaking bread with communist Sandinistas all over the place down there.
These people are about power.
Nancy Pelosi, they have been out of power since 1995.
You do not, I don't know how to take the thing in life, Jeff, that you are most passionate about and imagine it's taken away from you for 10 years.
And all of a sudden, you get it back.
You aren't ever going to lose it.
And part of your theory in not losing it is to make it even bigger.
You're going to make, in their case, they're trying to amass power so that they never, ever lose it.
And they have enough arrogance and superiority to think that it's not even that.
This is just their life's mission to run and control government.
You're exactly right with the arrogance because what that arrogance is causing them to do is lose respect for the office.
When you are elected to that high of an office, you are to be of utmost moral character, so on and so forth.
We've seen people, frankly, on both sides of the aisle not live up to that.
And we as the American people need to start holding these people accountable.
They are working for us, not the other way around.
I actually had a staffer of a past congressman tell me once when I was discussing an issue, tell me, oh, you don't know what you're talking about.
Well, I'm telling you what I would like my congressman to do as my representative, and you're telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.
Yeah, he was being totally honest with you.
Exactly.
He was being he's he, you don't know about grain subsidies.
You don't know about dealing with the intricacies of foreign oil drilling in Basha Basha.
You have no clue.
You're just an idiot out there.
And after you vote, you are supposed to shut up and be honored and thrilled and happy that somebody is up there working for you like this.
The accountability is called a ballot box in this country.
And unfortunately, a number of sponges in this country wanted to hold more Republicans accountable than Democrats last November.
Go figure.
I mean, it had my head swimming for months, still is for a while, frankly, be acting in distance.
Ha, how are you?
Two hours down.
We've got one to go.
We're doing Open Line Friday on Thursday.
Paul W. Smith will be here tomorrow from New York.
We're taking our first Good Friday off in what?
18 years.
Yeah, yeah.
Hubba, hubba, dooba, dooba.
▲
Export Selection