Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
You know, this is kind of odd.
The wife and I had a newlywed couple over to our place this weekend.
I didn't know them that well, but apparently they're having problems in their marriage already.
And I'm talking to the new bride, and I said, What's the problem?
What's the first thing your husband said to you, say, on your honeymoon morning?
And she told me he said, That was great last night, Kathy.
And I said, Hey, what's the problem?
Why did that upset you?
And she said, My name is Susan.
So I thought that probably wasn't the right thing to say.
Hello, once again, everybody.
Jason Lewis here in Minnesota's Mr. Wright filling in for El Rush Bows.
He's taking a couple of days off for some charity golf.
Now, that sounds like a great idea.
That'd be hard to do in Minnesota because in Minnesota, it's been about 48 and snowing all spring long.
I think we've had, to be honest, about three or four days in the 70s so far, and it's May 19th for crying out loud.
Hey, but don't look.
Don't worry.
Look out, August.
We're coming after the 50s then.
Global warming in the news once again.
El Rushbo, as I say, is on a break.
Mark Davis in tomorrow.
I, Jason Lewis, in today.
And then Rush, of course, back on Wednesday.
Always check out rushlimbaugh.com.
In the meantime, phone number remains the same: 1-800-282-2882.
Kind of talk about the Sunday morning shows.
Did you see all the Democrats' cohorts backing off of Barack Obama's appeasement?
The return of the San Francisco Democrats.
Let's see, we had Biden, Gary Hart, Gary Hart.
Wasn't Jimmy Carter available?
Apparently, on the Sunday shows, you had Mo Larry and Curly, Joe Biden, Gary Hart, Harold Ford.
They all distanced themselves from Obama's position yesterday, saying that preconditions for any meeting with somebody from Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea would be mandatory.
Harold Ford at one point said on Meet the Press, I'll concede you cannot meet with foreign leaders, with terrorists, rather, those that lead rogue nations, without some conditions, close quote.
Like the conditions are, we're really going to be mad at you if you don't live up to this arms control agreement.
You know, this is one of those things where the Republicans ought to be hitting it out of the park.
Joe Biden, I think he was on, what, CNN?
Well, I guess nobody saw that one then.
I'll tell you what he said.
He said, Obama gave the wrong answer back in July at that Democrat convention, or I should say debate, when he said he would be willing to meet separately without precondition with the leaders of those rogue states.
So now Biden, did they have to bleep Joe over the weekend?
Biden says Obama gave the wrong answer in the debate, but added, the senator from Illinois has learned a hell of a lot.
That's kind of a half a bleep.
He's doing better than he did last Friday or Saturday, I guess it was.
What we're talking about here is that he has repeatedly, since then, said he would not negotiate unconditionally, meaning him sitting down alone right off the bat with these leaders.
Of course he would.
This is the Democrats, the San Francisco Democrats.
If you remember Gene Kirkpatrick's speech at the 1984 Republican Convention, talking about the San Francisco Democrats, the party of appeasement and vacillation, the party that Scoop Jackson wouldn't recognize today.
You can go back to George McGovern in 1972 as the turning point, if you will.
But this is a great opportunity for the Republicans to take advantage.
This is their Achilles heel.
Now, it's more difficult to do this, quite frankly, in a time of war.
If this were a time of relative peace and Americans weren't quite so ambivalent about the war, maybe they shouldn't be.
You and I probably think they shouldn't be, but I think a lot of them are.
This would be an easier sell.
This is the party of vacillation.
This is the party that can't be trusted.
You know, has holding the national security of a country in their palm as commander-in-chief.
Go back to McGovern in 1972.
You could start there.
You could actually go back further than that.
But think about what's happened here.
You had Nancy Pelosi going to Syria in April 2007.
You had Barack Obama in that July Democratic debate without precondition.
He would meet with anybody.
You had Jimmy Carter meeting with Hamas.
And Joe Biden can't quite figure out, gee, why are the Republicans trying to exploit this?
It's not like we're going to sit down with anybody.
Duh.
And then you get last Thursday's machinations on the House floor.
I don't know if you heard about this, but the stunt the Democrats tried to get done in the war funding bill.
President Bush has requested $178 billion to fund the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan until the summer of 2009.
And that's long enough to give the next president some breathing room, if you will.
And as the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, they divided the vote then on the House floor into three particular sections.
And by the way, they bypassed the Republicans on the Appropriations Committee, which is very rare.
The bill was written in Nancy Pelosi's office.
So they divided the vote into three sections: one for domestic spending, one for a timetable, and one for the actual funds.
So you had three particular votes they had to take.
Well, the Democrats didn't want to upset their moveon.org contributors, so they divided it into this three sections, if you will, and they voted against war funding for domestic spending and for the timetable for withdrawal, thinking the Republicans in the House would then come up and override their vote on the funding, and then they could go in the fall campaign to moveon.org to the San Francisco patrons and say, oh, look, we voted against the funding, but the Republicans, you know,
in that same bill voted to install the funding, so there's nothing we can do.
Well, the Republicans got wise for a change, and they actually voted present.
And so you had the specter last Thursday evening of an emergency supplemental war funding request leaving the House, effectively, for all practical means and purposes.
This is the Iraq and Afghanistan supplemental funding request without any war funding in it.
Just domestic lard, unemployment benefit increases, and all of that, and a timetable for withdrawal going over to the Senate.
I can't figure out why these guys are weak on national defense, can you?
Folks, this, I don't know why the San Francisco Democrats are running away from their own stated policy.
I don't know why they did that yesterday on Sunday's show.
It shows.
If they had the courage of their convictions, you know, Joe Biden, Harold Ford, Gary Hart, Mo Larry, and Curley would have simply stood up and said, you know, we think it's a better idea to talk with our adversaries regardless.
We think arms control or paper security really works better than a bellicose foreign policy.
We think Reagan was wrong.
We think Scoop Jackson was wrong.
JFK was wrong.
Harry Truman was wrong.
We are the San Francisco McGovernite Democrat Party and defend it on that instead of feigning this outrage.
How dare you call this appeasement as they did last week?
This is not a peaceful.
Let's have a real debate.
We can go back to McGovern in 1972.
We can go back to the Vietnam War, if you like.
You know, people forget really what happened in the Vietnam War.
The fact of the matter is, we had won the Vietnam War on the battlefield.
Over Easter 1972, South Vietnamese forces, backed by U.S. air power, were winning the last communist offensives.
We had killed, I think, 100,000 North Vietnamese troops.
So they go to Paris, they sign the peace accords, but it was predicated on, yes, the troops leaving, but continued U.S. help, because you still had 150,000 North Vietnamese soldiers in South Vietnam.
So we pledged to help them.
What happened in 1974, 73, 74, 75, until we saw that fateful day in Saigon in April 1975 and the people grasping onto that helicopter trying to leave the embassy.
What happened?
The Democrats cut off all help to South Vietnam, or nearly all help to South Vietnam.
That's who lost Vietnam.
Oh, and what happened after that?
Oh, I don't know.
Two, three, four million killed in Southeast Asia in the killing fields.
We don't know the number.
We could go forward to the 1970s or the late 70s, if you like.
After the fall of Saigon, up until really Reagan took office, the Soviets were on the march, on the march in Afghanistan, in Angola, in Ethiopia, Mozambique, in Nicaragua, in Grenada, everywhere.
That's the policy of vacillation and appeasement that the Democrats have held since George McGovern.
And yet now they're outraged that George Bush would bring it up in Israel, that John McCain would back that up, that Barack Obama stuck his foot in his mouth, or maybe he really believes it.
We don't know now because Biden and company are saying, well, he's really kind of changed his mind here.
That's what I find so fascinating about this.
Have the courage of your convictions.
This is the party that tried to stop Reagan from deploying the Pershing IIs, tried to get him to cut a deal at Reykjavik, which literally, when he wouldn't cut a deal on SDI at Reykjavik in 1986, former Soviet leaders now admit that broke the back of the Soviet Union.
The Pershings, deploying the Pershings in Europe and all the peace nicks in Europe, which apparently we want to emulate if you're part of the liberal left in America, they were opposed to that.
Reagan went ahead.
He went ahead, and this is a lesson for Republicans today, he went ahead against the poll numbers.
Which brings us to the Republican conundrum.
Normally, this expose of Democrat appeasement would be a big boon to the GOP.
But that presumes you have a GOP that literally has the stomach to fight.
And this is what's so damning about this current conundrum.
Now, granted, there's ambivalence on the war, and it's easier to advocate peace through strength in peacetime, because some people might associate more peace through strength as more war.
But regardless, as Russia said many times, this election is not going to be won or lost on the war, partly because of the success of the surge.
It's going to be won or lost on what's wrong with the country domestically.
People are upset over high food prices, the lack of social security reform, the spending, the amnesty.
We could go right down the line.
And there, the Republicans are a wall.
In fact, it's getting worse.
It's getting much, much worse.
Apparently, one GOP operative now says there's a silver lining in Republicans who apparently privately are now going to emulate John McCain, a different kind of Republican, a maverick, a Republican who believes that global warming requires big government action.
Republican who believes we've got to cut a deal on the border.
A Republican who is weak on the tax cuts initially, although he's coming around now.
Well, now one GOP operative in the Politico says that the observers see a GOP House takeover as utterly impossible now.
So we've thrown in the towel on that.
But now McCain can press for an argument for divided government.
Look, we're going to get cream this fall in the congressional elections.
But look, you need me as a backstop.
That's what this new move left.
That's what this move to the center is going to bring us.
That is not exactly inspiring.
1-800-282-2882.
I'm Jason Lewis, Inferel Rushbo on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Your calls right after this.
Behind the golden EIB mic once again in the Attila the Hun chair, trapped, well, I'm trapped in the frozen tundra, to be perfectly blunt about it.
It is so cold in the upper plains.
Anytime somebody mentions the word global warming, I just want to, I just want to, you know, here's what I want to do.
The next time it snows in Minnesota, I'm going to call Al Gore.
Al, shovel my driveway.
How's that?
This idea about global warming has got me going.
We've got some global warming news a little later, the Republican problems and winning the elections in the fall.
And right now, of course, the San Francisco Democrats return with Laudoth protesting a bit too much when people call them out on their history of appeasement.
I don't want to beat a dead horse here, and I want to get to the calls, this segment.
But look, why don't you just have the courage of your convictions and say, we think arms control and talking with people who want to eliminate us is a better approach.
Now, remember, arms control haven't worked since the London Naval Accords coming out of World War I. Wasn't it the Bismarck?
I believe it was that violated those.
When the Berlin Wall fell, we saw a number of Soviet violations behind the wall.
I think that was in the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty or the INF Treaty, as I recall.
I'm not quite certain on all of these, but you can go right down the list on all the arms control agreements, the paper security that have been broken.
Now, why is that?
It's quite simple.
If somebody is willing to enslave people, to kill them, to take away freedom, they're probably willing to lie in an arms control agreement.
And by the way, if you're going to talk with adversaries, whether it was the Soviets during the Cold War without preconditions, whether it's Fidel Castro and the liberals still want to go to Havana and have freewheeling talks, whether it was the Sandinista, Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the Ortega brothers, it doesn't matter, of course, Hugo Chavez today.
What is the underlying premise behind meeting somebody without preconditions?
The underlying premise is you are willing to deal.
You are willing to give something away.
Otherwise, why would you meet without preconditions?
Or for that matter, why would you meet at all?
Some might say.
So what are we willing to trust or what are we willing to give away?
And this comes down to a fundamental axiom that this dichotomy between the left and the right on foreign policy.
And that is, we think we're right.
That doesn't mean you have to be bellicose.
It doesn't mean you have to be jingoistic.
It doesn't mean America can do no wrong.
But on the big stuff, we're debating a wall keeping people out.
They put up walls to keep people in.
On the big stuff, we embrace freedom and liberty and markets and private property and due process.
We have constitutional limits on what our government may do.
We have the rights.
The government has a few powers we give them.
Government doesn't give us rights.
That's an oxymoron.
So we've got a situation here where you've got to decide for yourself who's right and who's wrong.
And if we're right, that means the Blame America first crowd, as Gene Kirkpatrick used to say, is wrong.
That means our adversaries are wrong.
Now, if they're wrong and we're right, why would we negotiate with them?
Certainly without preconditions, why would we negotiate with them?
Now, I'm not advocating a Jimmy Carter, every other country has to look just like America's human rights or ACLU civil rights policy before we talk to them, a la South Africa, when Carter was going down that road and other places.
You're going to have differences among countries.
And there's nothing wrong with, you know, what was, oh, I can't remember the Churchill line completely, but if Hitler marched into hell, I'd find something nice to say about the devil.
Sometimes you get in bed with some pretty unsavory characters.
But in the big questions of the day, when you're talking about arms control and deals and talks and trust, if you're going to negotiate with somebody who's your avowed enemy and wants to destroy you and is hell bent on expansionism like Chavez is and like the problems in the Middle East are, I mean, what are you willing to give away?
What are you willing to deal?
We're not going to do this.
We're not going to do this.
We're going to give you this.
It's like Jimmy Carter and SALT One all over again.
The bottom line here is you either believe we're in the right or you believe we're wrong.
And if you believe America is wrong, you're not giving her the benefit of the doubt.
And that's why the Democrats are so exercised over this issue.
It's called hitting a nerve.
Deep, deep down, they think America is responsible for third world poverty.
America is responsible for expansionism abroad.
America is responsible for problems throughout the world.
It is American hegemony and America oppression and American capitalism that is destroying the planet and that we are in the wrong and therefore, of course, we should sit down.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
This is the same view they had during the Cold War.
And Ronald Wilson Reagan proved them undeniably wrong by taking just the opposite tact and won a war without firing a shot, at least during the bulk of his presidency.
1-800-282-2882, I'm Jason Lewis in for Rush Limbaugh.
Here's Les in New York City on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Mr. Lewis.
Yes, sir.
I'm a Holocaust survivor.
If I'll give you my last name, you'll probably know who I am.
But I don't know if you want to give last names.
No.
What the heck?
My name is Wiesel.
I'm not Mr. Wiesel.
I am a cosmopolist.
My family survived, unfortunately, not all of them, but we survived the Holocaust only because of one reason.
Only because we had American boys standing there and watching for us and taking care of us.
And when we have a guy like Obama wanting to become the president who wants to fall, America should fall on their knees to negotiate any kind of a peace and any kind of a situation.
Where is this country heading to?
The first sacrifice will be Israel.
Now, everybody knows it.
We know it.
And there's nothing to be hidden about it.
Because what did Iran make a statement?
Iran made a statement that they called us the dead.
I don't even know what the heck he said.
It's not even important.
Well, you know, denying the Holocaust and the elimination of Israel and all of that.
This, I mean, this is the fundamental problem.
And it's not just, and God bless you and the survivors and your family.
It's not just the Middle East.
It's all over the world.
You have got Fidel Castro in Venezuela now with oil.
What are you going to do with Hugo Chavez?
What are you going to do all over the globe?
This is the same old song from liberal Democrats.
They just don't get it.
Sometimes there's evil in the world, and you better stand up to it today because it's going to be a lot more tough to do it tomorrow.
More coming right up on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Talent on loan from Rush.
I am Jason Lewis, and welcome back on this lovely Monday.
Hope your weekend was a good one.
1-800-282-2882.
That's the contact line as always.
Also, RushLimbaugh.com in Fort Knox, Tennessee.
Jeff, you're on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network with me, Jason Lewis.
Hi.
Hey, how you doing?
It's actually Fort Knox, Kentucky, home of the School of Armor.
Excuse me.
I should have known that.
It's all right.
It's all right.
Yeah, I've been listening to the show for a really long time.
I've been in the Army for 22 years, and I currently teach tactics to some of the Army officers.
It would seem both in the Democrat Party and on a lot of other issues that comes up during the debate or debates for the election is that people want to equate peace or peace-loving or wanting peace to being a pacifist.
And I think Ronald Reagan embraced the idea that in order to achieve peace, you sometimes have to fight for what you want.
Well, you know, we can list off all the clichés.
Yeah, we can list off all the clichés going back to Edmund Burke, I mean, the great British conservative who said the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
And pacifism is a form of doing nothing.
George Washington, the best way to avoid war is be prepared for war.
It seems tautological.
It seems self-evident.
Now, that doesn't mean we don't make mistakes.
That doesn't mean that the United States can't get into blunders.
It doesn't mean that you can't criticize a foreign policy move.
But even if you tend to be, let's just put it right out there on the table there, Jeff.
Let's say you're a neo-isolationist.
Let's say you think the move into Iraq was wrong, that we're trying to be the policeman of the world, that we're running, you know, remember, George Bush, the critics say, ran against nation building, against Bill Clinton's travesties, if you will, or excursions, adventures into Somalia and Haiti and the Balkans, which had no particular congressional authorization, by the way.
And so you can make those criticisms, but you still have to be fundamentally a heavily armed dove.
And that's where the Democrats, I mean, we get Clinton balanced the budget by cutting defense, $100 billion.
I lived through that.
I fully know.
And yeah, I completely agree.
So even if you embrace a more, shall we say, diplomatic, I hate to use that term, but a more circumscribed foreign policy, you still have to be ready and willing.
I mean, that's the key.
And frankly, people believe, as you do, and many others who have not had the military experience you have had, believe that the Democrats simply aren't ready and willing to defend the country.
And this is why it pains them so, why they go on the Sunday talk shows and backtrack because you're hitting a nerve, isn't that right?
I think it's really naive for people to think that our politicians don't talk to these foreign diplomats or that we don't go through the diplomacy necessary before I mean it's a huge burden to make the decision to use our troops regardless of branch for anything, even if it's just a show of force through moving a carrier group into a region.
You know, that's not something that I'm sure our politicians take lightly because of the worldwide effects of it.
So, you know, when the Democrats come up with these arguments of, well, you know, without anything else on the table, I would talk to whomever just to appease that crowd.
Well, let's cut to the quick.
Let's cut to the quick here, Jeff.
Of course you're right.
There are back-channel communications, I would guess, and we're all speculating here, but let's be honest, you can go back to the Cuban Missile Crisis when Kennedy and Khrushchev were exchanging notes and pretending they missed some notes and others were read, that sort of thing.
There's back-channel communications.
What Barack Obama was talking about and what the Democrats historically in the modern era have been talking about are not just back-channel negotiations.
They're talking about arms control agreements.
They're talking about peace treaties.
There's all sorts of communications that go on.
But whether you want to sit down with Ahmedinejad or with Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro or his brother or any particular third world tyrant or thug or any group that has an expansionist view and try to cut a deal with them, haven't we disproven the efficacy of arms control after the Cold War when nearly everyone was broken?
That's what's so frustrating about this.
You would think it would be painfully obvious, and yet for some reason, they haven't learned that.
And, you know, a lot of the philosophies that I teach in teaching the new lieutenants tactics is that tactical patience and being able to coordinate all of the effects that they can bring in, all the different assets that we have available to us.
And, you know, in a global war on terror, one of our biggest assets that we have is the negotiation piece.
You know, we're not – our force structure nowadays is not just a – Well, again, I've got to let you go, Jeff.
But again, if tomorrow some of these guys get an epiphany and they decide, oh, you know, let's be a member of the civilized world community and let's quit the expansionism.
Let's have peace in the Middle East.
Let's honor other people's rights and other nations' right to exist and this sort of thing.
Nobody's saying you shouldn't meet with them.
And again, that'll be an ongoing process.
The question is, when someone is your avowed enemy, can you sit down and trust them?
And the old trust but verify.
I just love the Democrats in this war funding bill last week.
They passed a war funding bill out of Nancy Pelosi's House of Representatives that has absolutely no supplemental funding in it, except for domestic items.
Democrats love to support the troops as long as they're not fighting.
When they come home, we're going to get you better health care.
We're going to get you expanded GI bill.
We're going to do this and that.
We're going to make you wards of the state.
But as long as you're fighting, we've got a serious problem with that.
In Phoenix, Jerry, you're next up on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Mega pro-choice on CO2 emissions dittos, Mr. Lewis.
Amen to that, brother.
We could use a few more CO2 emissions up here in the frozen tundra.
Well, we've got plenty down here.
It's awful hot.
But I'm calling to ask for you for somebody to give me the short list, and that is to give me the list of the number of times where Senator Obama has practiced what candidate Obama is preaching.
Give me the number of times where Senator Obama has reached across the great partisan divide to work with President Bush on all of our nation's problems.
Give me the number of times where Senator Obama has reached to restrain his own party's nutbags, like Senator Kent, the hyper-partisan Nancy Pelosi and others.
Give me the number of times where Senator Obama has restrained his party's own special interests, the trial lawyers and the teachers' unions.
I mean, rather than looking for a preponderance of evidence, I'm looking for any evidence whatsoever that there's any record to back.
All right, I will give it to you.
I will give it to you.
Are you ready, sir?
I'm ready.
I got the pen ready right now.
All right, you ready?
Three, two, one.
Did you get it?
Yes.
Zip Zero Nada, the National Journal rates him one of the most, if not the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate.
When he was in the Illinois Assembly, he wouldn't even support a ban on partial birth abortion funding.
I mean, he's about as liberal as you can get.
But here's what he's doing, and this is the great bait and switch.
He's running around talking about faith and hope and change, knowing full well that there's angst in America.
There is angst in America.
And it's not, again, I'm not going to say it's the war.
I think the war is taking a backseat in many ways to the other domestic problems because of our ridiculous energy policy or lack of energy policy.
We have a deliberate policy of an energy crisis in America.
We've got ethanol subsidies driving up the cost of groceries.
We're telling the oil companies they can't explore.
We put in these oxygen-adiated fuel mandates in Phoenix and every place else from May to September that drives up the cost of refining all of these different fuels.
We have deliberately created through government an energy crisis.
And so there's angst out there.
There's angst in a number of situations on rising taxes, homes.
You know the story.
So Barack is saying, I want change without ever telling people he's going to give you more of the same, but I want change because he knows people want change.
If the Republicans had a backbone, they would be coming out and breaking with everything Washington has done in the last decade.
Well, for Obama to go around and tell a San Francisco audience one thing and then poll what rural America wants to hear and tell them the exact opposite, all the while claiming to be the new politician who's going to talk to them straight.
I mean, the one guy who's actually, the irony of this whole thing is the one guy who has actually reached across the partisan aisle and paid a price for it is John McCain.
So in effect, Obama is running as John McCain.
Well, you've got to understand without any record.
You've got to understand something.
Reaching across the aisle, bipartisanship means one thing and one thing only.
You vote for, you support, you vote, and you pass liberal legislation.
There isn't a Democrat I know of.
There isn't a liberal I know of.
There isn't a liberal Republican I know of that thinks a big tent means allowing conservatives into the debate, passing more tax cuts, rescinding government regulations, growing freedom, minimizing government.
That is not part of the bipartisanship.
Bipartisanship means raising taxes for Social Security save or to save Social Security.
Barack Obama's in favor of that.
Barack Obama's in favor of $1.4 trillion in more spending on top of the Bush tax cuts expiring.
Barack Obama is going to literally shut down the economic engine in America with global warming legislation.
But here's the problem once again.
For instance, Barack Obama's over in Everso Green, Oregon, the epicenter of all things environments, and he's running around Oregon saying, quote, we can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times and then just expect the other countries are going to say okay, close quote.
Now, this is a classic case of blame America first.
And the Republicans ought to jump all over this and say it is the global warming crowd, it is the environment or the environmentalists that are taking away your liberty, driving up the cost of gas, of food, of everything, except one little problem.
Their standard bearer is on board.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, the National Governors Association, Governor Tim Poleny in Minnesota, Governor Charlie Christ in Florida, Mike Huckabee, they are all evangelical, born-again global warming types.
So how do you take advantage of it?
Which goes back to the Republican conundrum.
I'm Jason Lewis, in for Rush on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Oh, let's see.
Let's see.
It's up to 51 here.
Snowflurries in May.
Okay, that might be a little bit of an exaggeration.
Hello, and welcome back, everybody.
Jason Lewis in the frozen tundra.
The Northern Command.
I am in for Rush today.
Rush is back on Wednesday.
I think Mark Davis is stepping in tomorrow.
RushLumbaugh.com, up and running.
Check that out.
1-800-282-2882.
Conversationalists across the fruited plain.
The Excellence in Broadcasting Network goes on with Kevin in Gettysburg.
Welcome to the program.
Hello, sir.
Hello, Jason.
Thank you for taking my call today.
Sure.
I'm calling in regard to last week with President Bush addressing Israel.
Everybody knew what he had to say was right.
And I found it kind of comical when all the Democrats came out to shore up Barack Obama, more so when John Kerry came out.
And I don't think the Drive-By Media or anybody really brought the point across as to when John Kerry was a new senator and went down to Nicaragua and met with Ortega.
I'd love to had somebody ask Senator Kerry if he thought that was right at that time to be meeting with communist leaders.
And if they were to say, did they ask him the question?
And as far as, you know, if Harry thought he was right, then why are people dying trying to get out of Cuba, you know, trying to get America?
You know, so I don't know, you know, I don't know how to attribute this, but it goes back to perhaps the progressive era, the first part of the 20th century.
Certainly it goes back to, Kevin, our alliance with the Soviets in defeating fascism.
But remember, everybody knew at that point, and we certainly found out at Yalta when we sentenced Eastern Europe to a half century of tyranny and oppression, but everybody knew the Soviets weren't any better.
Stalin killed millions in forced relocations and starvations and outright gulags.
But for one reason or another, the liberal left in America has always had a blind loyalty towards left-wing oppression.
It doesn't matter whether it's the Ortega brothers and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, whether it's Fidel in Cuba, whether it's Hugo Chavez today, whether it was the former Soviet Union.
They have always been apologists for liberal tyranny.
And it's funny.
The first thing the liberals do when they get in power is shut down the free press, Fidel, the Ortega brothers.
And the first thing people do when they get free elections is vote the commies out.
Again, Nicaragua, although the Ortega brothers supposedly are making a comeback these days.
The point is, there has always been this Achilles heel.
It's appeasement towards America's enemies, and that's why they're so outraged over this.
So you're right.
You know, when you mentioned about Stalin, it goes back, if you look at Alger Hiss, you know, and being the Deputy Secretary of State, that would have been like Paul Wolfowitz at the time being a member of Al-Qaeda.
You know, but nobody ever brought up the fact that the Deputy Secretary of State was a member of the Communist Party.
We now know.
We now know.
I mean, undoubtedly, irrefutably, the Venona papers and everything else has proven Alger Hiss was a communist.
They didn't need Whitaker Chambers.
He was a communist.
He was a dupe for the Soviets.
And yet, in recent years, Kevin, the liberals in this country still defend Hiss and hate Nixon because Nixon's the guy that got him.
Right.
Or they actually rewrote history and gave Senator McCarthy a bad name.
And, you know, he had nothing.
All he did was go after communists who were members of the U.S. government.
He never went after anyone in Hollywood.
That was a House committee.
He was a senator.
That was the House on the American Committee, yeah.
M. Stanton Evans has a new book, by the way.
M. Stanton Evans has a new book on that called Blacklisted by History.
It's an interesting read.
But Kevin, I got to move.
Thanks for the call.
Wilkes Barrel, Pennsylvania.
Matt, you're on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network with Jason Lewis.
Hi.
Hello.
Hello, sir.
Hello, I'm calling from Stockton, California.
And it's your show.
Okay.
I wanted to make comment on the gentleman from Indiana who drilled oil up in his backyard.
Earth to color.
I'm not altogether certain you're on point.
We've been talking about the foreign policy issues of the day.
Let's hold off on that.
Maybe we'll get to it a little later.
You know, one other thing before I get back to the calls.
One other thing is Europe.
Let's take a look at where I'm not going to, you know, look, I'm not going to say that they are drifting towards a Reaganite foreign policy.
But if you take a look at the last few elections in Europe, for all the moaning and groaning by too many liberal Republicans about how the Reagan days are over and we've got to divorce ourselves from Bush entirely, what's happened in France, in Germany, and lately the United Kingdom?
Markle, sarkozy.
You get the right-leaning candidate winning the elections in Europe.
I mean, voters in the United Kingdom sent Prime Minister Gordon Brown a big message, should have sent American conservatives a message when they delivered the Labor Party its worst local election beating.
What, in four decades?
In four decades?
So this whole notion that this sort of worldview is out of fashion really isn't true.
Anyway, got to move.
I'm Jason Lewis, In for Rush on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
All right, wrapping up the first hour on this Monday with me, Jason Lewis, in for El Rushbo.
We've got another two hours coming right up.
You know, one other thing on foreign policy before we move to the Republicans next hour, and we'll continue to take some calls on this as well.
But Hugo Chavez, I keep focusing on this because this guy is a danger.
Interpol, this is the international police organization, has now confirmed that the computer files we got after Colombian terrorists was killed in March confirmed that the strong man from Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, the new hero for the liberal left in America, has been helping FARC.
This is the terrorist organization wreaking havoc in Colombia.
The Marxist Liberation Group is getting help now, confirmed by Interpol from Hugo Chavez.