All Episodes
Previous Next
May 19, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
May 19, 2008, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
You know, this is kind of kind of odd.
The wife and I had a 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 to the new bride, and I said, Well, 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, Oh, 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's uh 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.
Uh L. Rushbow, as I say, he's 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.
Got to 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 show, as you had the this the third Mo Larry and Curley, 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 uh what, CNN?
Well, I guess nobody saw that one then.
No, I'll tell you what he said.
He said Obama gave the wrong answer back in July, that Democrat uh Democrat convention, or I should say debate, when he said he was to be 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 d 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 uh last uh 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.
Well, 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 if you 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.
Uh this would be an easier sell.
This is the party of vacillation.
This is the party that can't be trusted.
Uh has you know, has uh holding the national security of a country uh 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.
Uh but but think about what's happened here.
Uh you had Nancy Pelosi going to Syria in April 2007.
You had Barack Obama in that July uh Democratic debate without precondition, he would meet with anybody.
You had Jimmy Carter meeting with Hamas, and Joe Biden is can't quite figure out, gee, why why are the Republicans trying to exploit this?
I don't it's not like we're gonna sit down with anybody, duh.
And then you get last Thursday's uh machinations on the House floor.
Uh- 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 dollars to fund the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan until the summer of 2009.
And that's long enough to give the the next president some breathing room, if you will.
As the Wall Street General 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 move on.org contributors, so they divided it into this uh the the this uh 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 move on.org to the San Francisco uh patrons and say, oh, look, we've we voted against the funding, but the Republicans, you know, in that same bill uh voted to install the funding, so there was 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 uh and an 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.
Which I can't figure out why these guys are weak on national defense, can you?
Folks, this I 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 show shows.
If they had the courage of their convictions, you know, Joe Biden, Harold Ford, Gary Hart, Mo Larry and Curly 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 Scoob Jackson was wrong, JFK was wrong, Harry Truman was wrong.
We are the the San Francisco McGovernite Democrat Party and defend it on that.
Instead of of feigning this outrage, how dare you call this appeasement as they did last week?
This is not a piece of.
Let's have a real debate.
We can go back to McGovern in 72.
We can go back to the Vietnam War if you like.
You know, people forget uh really what happened in the in the Vietnam War.
Uh the fact of the matter is we had won the Vietnam War on the battlefield.
Uh over Easter 1972, South Vietnamese forces backed by U.S. air power were winning the last communist uh offensives.
We had killed, I think, a hundred thousand 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 to the nineteen seventies or the late 70s, if you like.
After the fall of Saigon, uh, up until really Reagan took office, uh, the Soviets were on the march, on the march in Afghanistan and Angola and Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Nicaragua, and 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 stood, you know, stuck his foot in his mouth, or maybe he really believes it.
We don't know now because Biden uh and company are saying, well, he really'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 that tried to stop Reagan from deploying the Pershing twos, 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 Pershions 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 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, there's 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 one or lost on what's wrong, what's wrong with the country domestically?
People are upset over high food prices, the lack of Social Security reform, uh 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 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 uh 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 gonna get creamed 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 i well inspiring.
1-800-282-2882, I'm Jason Lewis, Infrarel Rushbow on the Excellence and Broadcasting Network, your calls right after this.
Behind the golden EIB Mike once again in the Attila the Hun chair, uh trapped well, I'm trapped in the uh 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 something I want to do.
The next time it snows in Minnesota, I'm gonna call Al Gore.
Al, shovel my driveway.
How's that?
Uh this idea about global warming's 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 uh with thou doth 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.
Uh 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 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 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 a freewheeling talks, whether it was the Sandinista uh uh Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the Ortega brothers, it doesn't matter.
Of course, you go 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, you know, 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 that 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.
Doesn't have to mean doesn't mean you have to be jingoistic, 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?
No, 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 was going down that road and other places.
You're going to have differences among countries.
And there's nothing wrong with with, you know, what was well, 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 is your avowed enemy and wants to destroy you and is held 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, we're going to it's like Jimmy Carter and SALT won all over again.
The bottom 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 less in New York City on the Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
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.
My name is Wiesel.
I'm not sure.
I am a customer because my family survived.
Unfortunately, not all of them, but we survived the Holocaust.
Only because for 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 uh 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?
Ivan made a statement that they called us the dead dead I don't even know what the heck you said.
It's not even important.
Well, you know, the denying the Holocaust and the elimination of Israel and and all of that.
This is the fundamental problem, and it's not just, and God bless you and and your 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'd 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 Russia.
Hope your weekend was a good one.
1-800-282-2882.
That's the contact line as always.
Also Rush Limbaugh.com in Fort Knox, Tennessee.
Jeff, you're on the Excellence and Broadcasting Network with me, Jason Lewis.
Hi.
Hey, how are you doing?
It's actually Fort Knox, Kentucky, home of the School of Armor.
Excuse Excuse me, I should have known that.
It's all right, it's all right.
Um, I've been listening to the show for a really long time.
Uh I've been in the Army for twenty-two 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 uh 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 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 cliches.
Yeah, we can list off all the cliches going back to Edmund Burke, I mean, the great uh British conservative who said the only thing for evil necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, and pacifism is a form of of doing nothing.
George Washington, the best way to avoid war is be prepared for war.
It seems uh tautological, it seems self-evident.
Now 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 the move into Iraq was wrong, uh, that we're trying to uh be the policeman of the world, uh, that we're running, you know, remember George Bush, the critics say, ran against nation building, uh, against Bill Clinton's uh, you know, d 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 we 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 got Clinton balanced the budget by cutting defense, a hundred billion dollars.
I I live through that.
I I fully know and and uh yeah, I I I completely agree.
So even if you embrace a more, shall we say, diplomatic, I hate to use that term, but but a a more circumscribed foreign policy, you still have to be ready and willing.
I mean, that's 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 de Democrats simply aren't ready and willing to defend the country.
And 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?
Well, I 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 our troops regardless of branch for anything, even if it's just a show of force through moving a carrier group into a region.
Um, you know, that's not something that that I'm sure our our 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, w without anything else on the table, I would talk to whomever just to appease that crowd.
Well, let's 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 and pretending they missed some notes and others were read, that sort of thing.
There's back channel communications.
What 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.
Much, much there's all sorts of communications that go on.
Uh but what whether you want to sit down with Ahmadinejad 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?
I mean that's what's so frustrating about this.
You would think it would be painfully obvious, and yet for some reason they they haven't learned that.
And you know, a lot of the philosophies that I teach in teaching the the new lieutenants tactics is that tactical patience and being able to coordinate, you know.
All of the the effects that they can bring in, you know, all the different assets that we have available to us.
Um 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 gotta let you go, Jeff.
But again, uh if tomorrow some of these guys, you know, get an epiphany and they decide, oh, you know, let's be a m uh let's be a member of the civilized world community, and let's quit the expansionism.
Let's have peace in the Middle East, uh, 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 and you know they'll trust but verify.
I just love the Democrats in this war funding bill last week.
They pass 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 gonna get you better health care, we're gonna get you f uh expanded GI Bill, we're gonna do this and that, we're gonna 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 ditto, Mr. Lewis.
Amen to that, brother.
Hey, we could use a few more CO2 emissions up here in the frozen tundra.
Um, we got plenty down here.
It's awful hot.
But uh I'm calling to ask for you for somebody to give me the short list, and that is to give me the the list of the number of times where Senator Obama has practiced what candidate Obama is preaching.
Right.
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 nut by nutbags, like Senator K the hyperpartisan Nancy Pelosi and others.
Give me the number of times where Senator Obama is has restrained his party's own special interest, the trial lawyers and the teachers' unions.
I mean uh I'm rather than looking for a preponderance of evidence, I'm looking for any evidence whatsoever that there's any record to back on the case.
Oh, and 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're 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 uh uh uh assembly, he wouldn't even support a ban on partial birth abortion funding.
I mean, he is he's about as liberal as you can get, but well, 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 gonna say it's the war.
I think the war is taking a back seat 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 got ethanol subsidies driving up the cost of groceries.
Uh we're telling the the oil companies they can't explore.
We put in these oxygenated fuel mandates in Phoenix and every place else from May to September that drives up the cost of refining all of these different refuels.
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 you know 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 Washington has done in the last decade.
Well, for for for Obama to go around and tell a San Francisco uh 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 I mean the 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's running as John McCain.
Well, you gotta understand that.
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, passing uh uh r you know, rescinding government regulations, growing freedom, minimizing government.
There isn't that is not part of the bipartisanship.
Bipartisanship means raising taxes for Social Security save or or to save Social Security, Barack Obama's in favor of that.
Barack Obama's in favor of one point four trillion dollars 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 uh legislation.
And here's but here's the problem once again.
For instance, Barack Obama's over in uh ever so green, Oregon, the 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 seventy-two degrees at all times, and then just expect the other countries are going to say, okay, close quote.
Now, th this is a classic 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 Governor's Association, Governor Tim Pollening 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 fifty one here.
Snow flurries in May.
Okay, that might be a little bit of an exaggeration.
Hello and welcome uh back, everybody, Jason Lewis in the frozen tundra, the Northern Command.
Uh I am in for rush today.
Rush is back on Wednesday.
I think Mark Davis is stepping in tomorrow.
Rush Limbaugh.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.
Uh I'm calling in regard to last week with President Bush addressing Israel.
Um he knew what he had to said was right, and I found a kind of uh comical when all the Democrats came out to uh shore up uh Barack Obama.
Uh more more so uh when John Kerry came out.
And uh I don't think the uh the drive by me or anybody really brought the point across as to when uh John Kerry was a uh a new senator and went down to Nicaragua and met with Ortega.
Right.
Um I I'd love to had somebody ask Senator Kerry if he thought it that was right at that time to be meeting with uh uh communist leaders and uh if you're yes they did.
Yes, they did.
Did they ask him the question, you know?
Um and as far as you know, if 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 uh I don't know, you know, I don't know how to attribute this, but it it goes back to perhaps the progressive era, the first part of the twentieth century.
Certainly it goes back to uh 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 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 some 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, uh, 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, uh the Ortega brothers.
And the first thing people do when they get free elections is vote the the commies out.
Uh again, Nicaragua.
Although the Ortega brothers supposedly are making a comeback these days.
The point is there it's always been this Achilles heel.
It's appeasement towards America's enemies, and that's why they're so outraged over this.
Right.
So you're right.
You know, when you mentioned about Stalin, you know, it goes back if you look at uh Alger Hiss, you know, and and you know, being the deputy secretary of state, that would have been like Paul Wolfowitz at the time being uh a member of Al Qaeda.
You know, but nobody ever brought up the fact that uh the deputy secretary of state was a member of the Communist Party.
We now know.
We we now know.
I mean, undoubtedly, irrefutably the Venona papers and everything else has proven proven Alger Hiss was a communist.
They didn't need Whitaker Chambers, he was a communist.
He was 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 or they they actually rewrote history and gave uh 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.
Uh he never went after anyone in Hollywood.
That was uh a House committee.
He was a senator.
That was the House on 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.
That's it's an interesting read.
But uh, Kevin, I got a move.
Thanks for the call.
Wilkes Barrel, Pennsylvania.
Matt, you're on the Excellence and Broadcasting Network with Jason Lewis.
Hi.
Hello, sir.
Hello, I'm calling from uh Stockton, California.
And uh here show.
Okay.
I just wanted to make a comment on the gentleman from Indiana who drilled oil up in his backyard there.
Bye.
Uh Earth uh Earth to caller.
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.
Uh you know, what's 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 gonna, 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 King.
Sarkozy, you get the right-leaning candidate winning the elections in Europe.
I mean, voters in the United Kingdom sent Prime Minister Gordon Brown uh a big message, should have sent American conservatives a message uh 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 and Broadcasting Network.
All right, wrapping up the first hour on this Monday with me, Jason Lewis, in for El Rushbow.
Uh, we've got another uh two hours coming right up.
You know, one of the 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 is now confirmed that the computer files we got after Colombian terrorist uh Colombian terrorist was killed in March, confirmed that the strong man from Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, the new hero for the liberal left in America, has been has been helping FARC.
This is the terrorist organization wreaking havoc in Colombia.
Uh the Marxist Liberation Group is getting help now, confirmed by Interpol from from uh uh Hugo Chavez.
And Colombia is an ally.
We ought to be trading with Colombia.
We ought to be helping Colombia.
So, do you want to sit down with Hugo Chavez?
▲
Export Selection