All Episodes
Previous Next
April 11, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:37
April 11, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
It's a large.
It's a large.
It's down from 2x to a large.
It'll be two months on Saturday.
Hit 40, what was it?
To 43 pounds today when I got on the scale.
Greetings.
Greetings, folks.
Great to have you with it already.
Here we are at the middle of the week.
On the nation's leading and most listened to radio talk show in the whole media specter.
And, of course, by virtue of consensus, this program is considered to be the most correct, the most right, and by also virtue of consensus, the largest media presentation of its kind in the country.
Greetings, and nice to have you with us as we head on through Hump Day here, the middle of the week, 800-282-2882.
If you'd like to be on the phone today or on the program and the email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
Welcome to all of you watching on the DittoCam today.
The problems yesterday were straightened out, and it was our problem.
We screwed up.
We did our best to contact all of you who were in a virtual state of panic, but it should be back to normal today.
So big news out of Raleigh, North Carolina.
This has been suspected for a long time.
And the press conference is a couple half hours from now, 2.30 or so Eastern Time.
The Office of North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper will announce, this is an ABC story, that he's dismissing all the charges against the three Duke La Crosse players.
Now, ABC News says that they have learned this from sources close to the case.
Special prosecutors from the Attorney General's office took over the case after the Durham DA, Mike Nyphong, accused himself in January amid charges of unethical conduct filed against him by the North Carolina Barnes.
Since then, Jim Coleman and Mary Winstead have examined the case from scratch, interviewing key witnesses and working through reams of evidence in an explosive case that combined sensitive issues of race and class.
There was no case.
The rest of this story goes on to rehash what happened or what allegedly happened.
And this is just, you know, this is, I don't know, this is a tragedy.
This is a real tragedy for these three.
And not just these three, the whole Duke La Crosse team, the coach.
They canceled the season.
The coach got canned.
Everybody was presumed guilty because the circumstances of these charges fit the liberal template that exists out there regarding race and class.
So you know that if this is true, now keep in mind, this is North Carolina.
And the last time one of these press conferences happened in North Carolina, the pre-pub was totally wrong.
That was the John Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards press conference where it was said that they were going to suspend the campaign.
And then they didn't suspend the campaign.
They went on with the campaign.
By the way, their neighbor down there, Monty Johnson, speaking out now, he's having to sell his 42-acre property, which Elizabeth Edwards has called slummy, because his property taxes have doubled because they built their 28,000 square foot place near his, so his property tax is gone.
He can't afford it.
And he's got to get out of there.
And we've got a couple of sound bites with him as the program unfolds today.
So there's probably going to be, if this is true, if the charges are dropped, then a lot of legal fees that these families have had to spend, have had to probably borrow and raise somehow.
They're going to have to get that back somehow, civil suits against Nyphong, perhaps.
I wonder if the accuser in this case will eventually be charged with filing false information, whatever the charge would be.
I would think that something like that has to happen.
You just can't have, what's this been going on almost two years?
Two years, and it was all leading up to Nifwong's primary reelection campaign in Durham, or Durham, as they say.
And two years of these people's lives have been totally wasted on a whole, it's a bunch of lies.
And, you know, as Ray Donovan said, after he was tried by a special prosecutor, he was labor secretary in the Reagan administration.
A jury acquitted him in 25 minutes or so.
Where do I go to get my reputation back?
Will likely be the cat call here.
I'm sure you've seen the story, but you may not know all about the story here.
All the details have two versions of this story.
One's from the Los Angeles Times, and the other one is from a UK paper.
Yep, here it is.
The Times online, the UK Times online, let me put these stories together.
First off, the LA Times story.
Both stories have to do with the same subject, stem cells shown to rein in type 1 diabetes.
Researchers have demonstrated for the first time that the progression of type 1 diabetes, that's the bad kind, well, they're both bad, but type 2 is what you get, lifestyle circumstances later in life.
And you can sometimes control type 2 with diet and exercise and all that.
Type 1 is, if you're going to get it, type 2 is the one to get.
You don't want either, but don't misunderstand here, but type 1 is the worst of the two.
And the researchers say that they've demonstrated for the first time that the progression of type 1 diabetes can be halted and possibly reversed by a stem cell transplant that preserves the body's diminishing ability to make insulin.
This, according to a study that was published today, experimental therapy eliminated the need for insulin injections for months or even years in 14 of 15 patients recently diagnosed with type 1 diabetes.
One subject, a 30-year-old male, hasn't taken insulin since his stem cell transplant more than three years ago.
According to the study, this appears in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Now, I read the whole story.
I'm not going to read.
Well, yeah, let me go to the LA Times version because I'm sure you're all wondering what kind of stem cells.
What kind of stem cell?
Well, you have to read to the very end of both these stories to find out what kind of stem cells.
And I'll give you a little hint.
You will not find the word embryonic in either of these stories.
Some of those patients are now treated with transplants of beta cells harvested from cadavers.
Scientists also are trying to use embryonic stem cells to grow beta cells for transplant.
That has nothing to do with this story.
They throw that in.
No embryonic stem cells were at work here on the type 1 diabetes research.
Now, the UK Times story, basically the same thing, diabetics cured by stem cell treatment.
You read and you read and you read and you read.
What kind of stem cells?
And of course, you know what kind of stem cells when they don't mention what kind of stem cells because you know that the drive-by media worldwide has an agenda here.
They're operating under an action line or a storing line too.
And of course, the purpose of leaving out what kind of stem cells is, what type of stem cells have the most publicity and notoriety?
It'd be embryonic stem cells.
And of course, they figure that most people will conclude it's embryonic if they don't mention it.
So later on in this story, they enrolled Brazilian diabetics aged 14 to 31 who had been diagnosed within the previous six weeks after stem cells had been harvested from their own blood.
Not only was it somebody else's stem cells, and not only was it not embryonic, it was stem cells from their own bodies.
14 to 31 age groups.
You see, no embryonics used here, mostly adult stem cells.
After stem cells have been harvested from their blood, they then underwent a mild form of chemotherapy to eliminate the white blood cells causing damage to the pancreas.
They were then given transfusions of their own stem cells to help rebuild their immune systems.
So, amazingly great news.
They're all happy about the great news here for the future implications of dealing with type 1 diabetes, but it's adult stem cells, folks.
And I just wanted to pass that on.
When we come back, Nancy Pelosi's back, thinking about going to Iran.
I, you people, may not remember this.
I predicted this last week, or whenever she was over there in Syria talking to Basher Assad.
You know what?
I need to get, I forgot to do this.
Coco or cookie, somebody go to the transcripts of last week and find where I said this.
I want it put.
You don't have to get the audio.
Just get the transcript.
I'll read it.
As I said, the next thing was during the Brit crisis and before the sailors and the Marines there were released, I predicted before it's all said and done, she'd go to Iran and try to negotiate that.
Well, it's a little late to negotiate that, but she is talking about going to Iran, as is Tom Lantos, as they're attempting to forge their own foreign policy.
At the same time, Pelosi is refusing to go meet with the president.
I'm not going to waste my time.
We've got audio soundbites of all of this.
Your telephone calls will be part of the program today as well, so sit tight.
Broadcast Excellence says you've come to know, expect, demand, love, and adore, and cherish.
We'll continue in your moments.
Yeah, here it was.
It was Tuesday, April 3rd, ladies and gentlemen.
And this is what I said on this program about Pelosi.
And if she had the guts, if she had the chance, she'd go to Iran and meet with Ahmadinezad and do the same thing.
And she may well do it before the 2008 election.
I wouldn't put it past her.
I told you people, I know these people, like every square inch of my glorious, shrinking, quickly naked body.
I mean, I saw this news last night, Nancy Pelosi to Iran.
I got to remember.
And I only remembered it this morning.
By the way, before we get to all of that, this is from the Pakistan Daily Times, one of our favorite news sources here at the EIB network.
China is going to create the world's first woman town where women make all the decisions and disobedient men face punishments.
Chong Ging is to convert its Shuangzhao district into woman town, covering 2.3 square kilometers.
That's not that big.
I mean, it's, I guess it's okay.
The slogan, a woman never makes a mistake, a man can never reject a woman's request will be carved into the town gates.
I'm not making this up.
Gonna do this in China.
This is from the Pakistan Daily Times.
A woman never makes a mistake.
A man can never reject a woman's request.
It'll be carved into the town gates.
Construction will take around two years.
Place will become a very good destination for entertainment and relaxation, said Li Jigang, the director of the Shuangzhao District Tourism Bureau.
In any tour group entering this town, female members would play the deciding role concerning shopping, the first thing on their minds, and other items of the itinerary.
We're drafting a township law which stipulates clearly how men should be punished and for what.
A disobedient man will be punished by kneeling on an uneven wooden board or by washing dishes in a restaurant.
Well, this is all well and good is happening in China, but I dispute the fact that they're going to have the first woman's town.
We have our own woman.
We got two woman's towns.
First, the Oprah Show is a woman's town, and then the View Is a woman's town, and both of our towns have television shows.
But I don't know that they've gone this far.
Women will make all the decisions.
Disobedient men face punishments.
You know, that might be so attractive to a bunch of our domestic feminists that they might move there.
This could actually be a good thing.
I want to go back and listen to, along with you, a quote from Mike Nyfwong.
By the way, I erred.
I said this is coming up on two years.
It was one year in March, so it's a little over a year.
It seems like it's gone on two years to me, but it's just a little over one year.
March 27, 2006, this is Mike Nyfwong talking about the Duke La Crosse team and the rape allegations.
This is a rape that also has some undertones of racial animus.
And that is something that I just, and that this community just cannot tolerate.
Of course not.
And this was, you know, six weeks or so before his primary election battle, primary re-election battle.
What a snake.
This is just despicable.
And this, of course, this tars all of law enforcement.
This raises questions now about all kinds of things that you hear from law enforcement.
But anyway, we'll wait.
It's only going to be a couple hours to find out what the truth of all this is.
Let's go to the Pelosi and Dingy Harry soundbites.
This is yesterday afternoon on Capitol Hill, a press conference, Dingy Harry speaking.
The president is inviting us down to the White House with preconditions.
That's not the way things should operate.
And he's got to listen to us because we are speaking for the American people.
He isn't.
And there you have it.
He is, they are speaking for the American people and Bush isn't.
Bush has only been elected by the American people.
Dingy Harry has not been, nor has Nancy Pelosi.
But see, this is all part of their gambit here to suggest that the November elections were about getting rid of Bush and getting rid of the war in Iraq and getting us out of the war on terror and letting Democrats have free reign over what they want to do.
Ben Feller, an AP writer, says that when President Bush invited Democrat leaders for a sit-down in Iraq, it seemed to offer the opportunity for a breakthrough for about five seconds.
Then the White House spent the rest of Tuesday explaining what the meeting would not be.
It's not a chance to compromise, the administration insists.
Bush isn't budging from what kind of war spending bill he can accept.
It's not a time for Bush to lecture lawmakers, the White House said, although he might reiterate why the Democrats' proposals are foolish and irresponsible.
And whatever you do, don't call it a negotiation.
That's what the White House said.
Bush read the Republicans' loss of Congress last year as a message that voters want both parties to work together.
But his move on Tuesday was the latest sign that his tactics remain the same.
We'll cooperate just fine as long as you see it my way.
It is amazing.
Now, the White House may be playing it hardball this way, and I hope they are, but the idea that the Democrats are not engaging in that kind of behavior on virtually everything in the House and in the Senate is literally laughable.
But, of course, here we have a drive-by media.
This is not news analysis.
This is an actual story, supposedly.
Ben Feller covers the White House for the Associated Press.
So anyway, Denji Harry says they're not going to go up there with any of these preconditions.
It's not the way things should operate.
Pelosi rejected the invitation as well.
What the president invited us to do was come to his office so that we could accept without any discussion the bill that he wants.
That's not worthy of the concerns of the American people.
And I join with Senator Reed in rejecting an invitation of that kind.
All right.
All good and well, but I'm still struck by the statements of Carl Levin this past Sunday on what was it, this week with George Stephanopoulos.
We always fund the troops.
Yeah, we're going to fund the troops.
No question about it.
We always have.
We always will.
We will fund the troops.
These guys are up there acting like that there's still a chance for their bill to pass.
I mean, there's there that you talk about disunity or not being on the same page.
It is clear here that Pelosi and Reed are not on the same page as Carl Levin.
So, anyway, it's more poker that is being played here.
And ultimately, the president is going to win this.
Yesterday afternoon, same press conference, this is what Nancy Pelosi said about her trip to Syria.
When we went to Syria, there was no division, no difference in the message that the president has been sending forth and the message that we delivered.
Our message to the President Assad was a very direct one, very consistent with the president's message, very unified.
We left our differences at home.
We spoke about where we were unified as a country.
Really?
Really?
How in the world do you suggest that when you say that the Israelis are ready to talk peace despite what's going on with Hezbollah and Hamas?
And how do you say that when the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Olmert, has to come out and deny what you've said?
Now, Gerd Schroeder today at AmericanThinker.com has got a good question.
Where are the transcripts of this meeting between Pelosi and Assad?
Pelosi yesterday claimed she said nothing to contradict the foreign policy of the president, but she offered no details of that.
And I, for one, would like to hear for myself, especially after hearing a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Tom Lantos, claim last week that they have a Democrat foreign policy that's different from the president's and that they're setting about now to establish that.
How can both the speaker and the chairman both be telling the truth?
If the Democrats in Congress have the right to demand the transcripts of Vice President Cheney's energy working group, and if Henry Waxman can ask for emails from the RNC and all over the place and Condoleezza Rice and so forth, then surely we have a right to know what was said between Speaker Pelosi and Basher Assad and make up our minds where the truth lies.
It's also interesting to note that there is no audio of the meeting, that we see this looped endlessly on the tube.
But as Gerd Schroeder writes here, it's clear through the body language of President Assad that he seems to be clearly lecturing Pelosi about something while she appears to be dimly smiling and nodding.
And everybody, well, what's that discussion all about?
But there aren't any transcripts and she's offering no details.
We're just supposed to accept it at face value that she was over there on a message of unity, taking the president's message to Basher Assad, despite the fact that Tom Lantos said, no, it's not what we were doing.
We're over there advancing our own Democrat foreign policy.
Be right back.
All right, now back to the audio soundbites.
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of State, and Tom Lantos, Deputy Speaker of State, heading out all over the world here trying to establish their own foreign policy.
Here is Nancy Pelosi responding to Dick Cheney on this program, calling her behavior in Syria bad behavior.
An unidentified reporter said, What about the discussion and the vice president's criticism of you going to Syria?
Vice President, I think accused me of bad behavior, sounding sort of father figurish and probably stay home, but we don't accept those instructions.
Maybe in the kitchen.
But it was quite a remarkable thing.
I think it's an indication of the poverty of ideas of this administration to bring peace to the region.
Wait a second.
Wait, wait, wait.
It was Tom Lantos, by the way, that chimed in there with maybe in the kitchen.
What do you mean, poverty of ideas?
You just go back.
Go back, cut 12 poverty of ideas of this administration to bring peace to the region.
But we just heard her say this.
When we went to Syria, there was no division, no difference in the message that the president has been sending forth and the message that we delivered.
Our message to the President Assad was a very direct one, very consistent with the president's message, very unified.
We left our differences at home.
We spoke about where we were unified as a country.
Well, I'm confused then.
How can this be if she's going to say that she thinks Cheney's comment about her behavior being bad was an indication of the poverty of ideas of this administration to bring peace to the region?
She just got through saying that they left our differences at home.
We spoke about where we were unified as a country.
Poverty of ideas.
How does that so she was out expressing the poverty of ideas that she says don't exist or is the fact of the case in this administration?
And let's not forget this San Francisco Chronicle story is from April the 2nd.
It was Monday.
Lantos, referring to recent congressional votes dictating a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, agreed that Democrats were pursuing an approach to counter the Bush administration, excuse me, counter the Bush administration.
He said, quote, we have an alternative Democrat foreign policy.
I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States.
Well, hell's Bell, somebody's lying here.
Somebody's lying a couple of times.
Because here's Pelosi saying they went over there and they were unified and they didn't, they left their differences aside and very consistent with the president's message.
And then Lantos says, no, no, no, we're setting up our own Democrat foreign policy.
It's an alternative Democrat foreign policy.
That's what we're doing over there.
Then Pelosi says that Cheney's criticism of her is an indication of the poverty of ideas of this administration.
So somebody's lying, two lies in this, which is not surprising.
Now, here's the bit about going to Iran, unidentified reporter.
Do you see the possibility of maybe taking a trip to Iran?
Well, I wonder who put that idea in this reporter's questioned mind.
Tell them about your story.
I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning because, however, objectionable and unfair and inaccurate many of Ahmadinejad's statements are, it is important we have a dialogue with him.
So speaking for myself, I'm ready to go.
And knowing the speaker, I think she might be.
This is frightening.
This is the entire culture of appeasement.
Knowing full well, this is a Holocaust survivor, by the way, Tom Lantos, and knowing full well the anti-Semitism of Ahmadinejad.
You know, all Ahmadinejad would have to do is go lie to these people.
They're going over there and they're hoping to hear, no, no, no, no, I didn't say that.
I didn't mean that.
We want peace with the West.
And then they'll come back and say, we want peace and they want peace and we can have peace elect Democrats.
They will believe any lie told of them by a dictator.
And even after the dictator proves he's been lying, they will still trust the first lie.
Say, we worked with this man.
We understand this guy.
We reached him.
I know these people folks like better than anybody out there does.
And they are dangerous.
And I'm not talking about Ahmadinejad because we know what he is.
The Democrats are dangerous in their naivete.
And this is nothing new.
They have been this way for countless decades.
Pelosi finally added this.
A person of Mr. Lantos' stature and personal experience is saying that even as a Holocaust survivor and even recognizing the outrageous statements of the president of Iran, I think it's important to have dialogue.
I think that speaks volumes about the importance of dialogue.
Cliché after cliché after cliché after.
Let's have dialogue.
Any recent news stories, folks, where dialogue is solving the problem?
Is there?
Can you give me an example of any recent something big in the news lately where dialogue's helping?
It's important.
It's the importance of dialogue.
That's it.
We've got to be talking because the theory is that we're talking, nobody can do anything.
Nobody will take any action if we're talking.
Except if you're doing the talking and you're being duped, being set up.
I know, I know.
Why don't a significant number of Americans see this?
We're working on it, folks.
The best I can do.
They won't go to the White House.
They won't go to the White House and talk.
They will not appear on the Fox News channel.
They will not appear on the Fox News channel and talk.
They will not have dialogue with Fox reporters.
They will not have dialogue with the president, but they can't wait to go meet with a murderous thug, Islamo-fascist state sponsor of terrorism, Mahmoud Ahmadinezad.
That's your Democrats today.
And you know what?
The vast majority of Democrats support them in this.
They hate Bush.
You've got to understand, Falk, Bush is the enemy.
Bush is the...
I mean, Bush is even being blamed now for the Imus flap.
Yes.
Our old buddy Jonathan Alter last night on MSNBC.
It's Bush's problem.
Bush has set the climate here.
It's Bush.
Yeah, I kid you not.
I've got the soundbite, but I'm not going to play it because I'm tired of talking about that.
But I just wanted to pass this since it's Bush's book.
They hate Bush.
They hate Fox News.
They hate all of us.
They'll be glad to go over.
They'll talk to Bashur Assad, and they'll talk to Ahmedinezad.
They'll talk to whoever.
They will not appear on Fox, and they will not go to the White House to speak to the president after he has sent them an invitation.
Let me ask you this.
If Ahmedinezhad said, hey, Speaker of State Pelosi, come on over.
Now, don't expect me to change anything in my attitude.
I'm not going to change my attitude about Israel.
I'm going to change my attitude about our nuke program.
I'd love to talk to you.
They should go.
Hell yes.
And you know why?
Because it would make good photo ops.
It would make great press.
And of course, the drive-bys swoon over these clichés and meaningless pap phrases like, it's good to keep dialogue open.
That's such wonderful Diplo speak.
So if Ahmedinejad issued the same invitation and told him at the same time, we get the same preconditions.
We're not going to alter what we believe here.
You're not going to come over here and tell us that we're not going to have the same attitude about Israel and you're not going to talk us out of our nuke program.
She'd still go.
And Lantos would still go.
I have a better place for Pelosi to go.
The Speaker of State is threatening to go off to Iran on what she cleverly calls a fact-finding trip.
But I've got a better idea for this woman.
The most useful fact-finding trip that the Speaker of State could go on would be a fact-finding trip to the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service.
Check out the facts over there.
How much more tax revenue is flooding in thanks to the tax cuts that you want to change?
In fact, they weren't tax cuts at all.
They were just rate reductions.
Then go over to the IRS, since you will not go to my website to see the facts.
Go over to the IRS, Speaker of State Pelosi, and you ask them about the enhanced revenue that's pouring in that nobody, quote unquote, nobody expected.
These were not tax cuts.
These were tax rate reductions.
Anyway, grief time out here.
We'll continue in just a moment on the one and only EIB network.
Sit where you are.
I'm still sitting here blowing my mind over the contradictory, incoherent statements of Nancy Pelosi and Tom Lantos.
I can't let this go.
Let's review this again.
Lantos says we are establishing an alternative Democrat foreign policy.
That's why we went to Syria.
Pelosi says we stopped at the water's edge.
We did not take a different message.
We presented a unity position to President Assad, same as the president's.
Then when asked about the question, comment from Cheney that she engaged in bad behavior, she said, well, you know, that just is an indication of the poverty of ideas this administration has when it comes to peace in the region.
Well, this is completely incoherent.
A poverty of ideas that she said she agrees with and talked to Assad about, while Lantos assured everybody the Democrats are doing their own alternative foreign policy.
Now, here's the question.
If Nancy Pelosi is giving Bashur Assad the same message as the president, then why go at all?
What's the reason?
Why do you have to go if you're just going to relay what the president has been saying?
But the hypocrisy and the confusion, ladies and gentlemen, are even deeper.
Because they claim they have a constitutional right to influence foreign policy.
And then they downplay whether they are in fact influencing foreign policy, except for Lantos.
But Pelosi's all over the board on it.
No, we took the president's message.
There's a poverty of ideas about peace in the region here.
So the hypocrisy and the confusion, the incoherence, that's something, but I mean, it's even deeper because all the while they're claiming they have a constitutional right to influence foreign policy, which they don't.
Now, what's happening here, folks?
You know, Pelosi is a figure that many of us can look at and laugh at.
She does appear to be buffoonish.
But I'll tell you, this is devious and it is dangerous and it is typical of Democrats.
They have done this.
They did it in the 80s.
They did it in the Vietnam War.
This is who they are, undermining the foreign policy of the United States when they are not constitutionally empowered to conduct affairs in this manner.
They went over there, pure and simple.
I'm going to tell you what this was.
Pelosi and Lantos went over to Syria for one purpose, and that was to undermine United States foreign policy.
That's why they went.
And that is what they did.
And now they are responding to criticism by claiming they really went over there to celebrate all the religious holidays, to carry the president's message and so forth.
But she is lying about it, and Lantos let the cat out of the bag because he admitted that they're there establishing an alternative Democrat foreign policy, which means he admits that the Democrats are attempting to undermine established U.S. foreign policy.
Now, here's what we need, folks.
We need an investigation.
We need a public hearing.
I'm not a fool here.
I know that there's not one Republican who is going to call for this.
But I don't care.
I'm just telling you, this is what we need.
We need an investigation, public hearing, to determine exactly what these freelancing members of Congress did in the Middle East and what they said and to whom they said it.
We need some accountability here.
We have it with State Department officials.
When they go overseas, there is accountability.
They have to go up to Congress and testify as to what happened.
Condoleezza Rice has to go up there periodically.
CIA director has to come up.
Other administration officials have to go to Congress time and time again and report what's going on and what they're doing.
It's called oversight.
They are required in the State Department to account for their missions.
Does the Joe Wilson story ring any bells here?
Now, when Pelosi and Lantos and the others in her traveling party conduct themselves in other than appropriate ways by undertaking diplomatic efforts like this, fact-finding, otherwise, whatever it is, we need to know what occurred.
Where are the transcripts of her talk with Assad?
Now, again, I'm under no illusions here.
Democrats are not going to demand an inquiry and the media is not going to demand an inquiry, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't demand one, and it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be one.
You know, I sit here and I read every day where Henry Waxman's firing off letters demanding emails from some other Republican or Republican agency, and I sit here and smoke starts coming out of both of my ears.
It's time for these people to be put under the gun.
You know, Republicans, you know, Democrats are angry all the time.
They're outraged all the time.
And I think, and I'm getting more and more comfortable here, psychoanalyzing these people.
I think anger on the Democrat side has become a virtue.
I think anger is one of the links that has all these Democrats tied together from the blogs to the elected officials to voters.
Their anger and their outrage, which remember last year at this time, I'm suggesting it's what was going to doom them because most people do not want to put up.
They don't want to hear doom and gloom and anger and rage.
It's not infectious.
It's not inspiring.
I don't know if I was wrong about that yet or not.
Jury's still out on the American public's reaction to it in total because I think the Republicans did more to defeat themselves than the Democrats did to win, but nevertheless, last November.
But nevertheless, the fact is this rage and this anger that they exhibit has become virtuous.
It's almost become a mating call from one Democrat to another.
And that's how they send out the signal that they're on the same team.
It's about how they're propagating issues and ideas and so forth.
It's anger and it's rage, and it's become virtuous.
And of course, Republicans are not angry.
They never act mad about anything.
Democrats are angry 24-7.
Pick a name.
Pick a Democrat.
They're always mad.
Even Dingy Harry is mad all the time.
Tom Dashell was mad.
He was concerned all the time.
Pelosi's mad all the time.
Ted Kennedy's mad all the time.
The blogs, they go beyond mad.
They are insane.
A lot of nighttime cable network comments are insane.
They're not just mad.
They're enraged, insane.
They've lost their minds.
And as such, they're attracting like-minded sickos.
But that rage propels them.
Henry Waxman's mad, and Henry Waxman continues to try to do anything he can to destroy what, and that's politics.
The Republicans, on the other hand, have no such rage.
And I'm not suggesting, just drawing differences here.
Although there are, I think there's plenty of stuff to move.
If I were a Democrat, a Republican, sorry, if I were a Republican on Capitol Hill, I would be livid at what Waxman's doing.
And I'd stand up and I'd go before cameras and microphones and I would say so.
But got to have guts to do that.
And I guess it's in short supply.
But regardless, it's time to put these people under the gun, the Pelosis, the Lantos, and so forth, because they're getting away with not only incoherence, they're undermining U.S. foreign policy, and they're not being made to account for it.
They're offering no facts, no details of their meetings.
They're papering it over with all of this cliché, mumbo-jumbo, all this new age jive that people swoon over.
Oh, they're talking, they're having dialogue.
But their statements about what they were doing and what they did are incoherent and using famous Democrat strategy, philosophy.
Why those statements are so incoherent?
Those statements are so there.
I mean, what they did, what they're doing is incoherent.
It makes no sense.
That requires an investigation.
Because the seriousness of the charge is, of course, more relevant than the nature of the evidence.
And in this case, we got plenty of nature of evidence.
We got people lying, Lantos, Pelosi, somebody.
You roll the dice, it'll come up.
All of them are because they're live Democrats.
We'll take a break.
Be back after this.
Well, the Boston Globe weighs in today that the Reverend Sharpton has finally bested Barack Obama as the perceived leader of the black community over the IMUS flap because Obama didn't say anything about it for five days.
We'll be back.
▲
Export Selection