All Episodes
Previous Next
March 7, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:27
March 7, 2013, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
A thrill and a delight every day, folks, to be with you here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Also the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The phone number, if you want to be with us today, 800-282-2882 and the email address, L. Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
And we welcome to the program this afternoon Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky.
Senator, you got some sleep last night, I trust.
Well, I did.
But, you know, I was thinking of you when I was in the middle of this 13 hours.
I got about five hours into it, and it's like, well, Rush does four hours of this every day.
Certainly I can do four more hours.
I was going to say that's awfully nice of you to say, but I doubt that I was in your thoughts last night, although I appreciate the comment.
When did you decide, Senator, that you wanted to make this a filibuster?
Did it just happen spontaneously, or did you have a plan for it?
We've been talking for a week about how important the issue is, that it's a constitutional issue and has more to do with the Constitution than it does to do with individuals.
But we didn't decide on doing it really until I walked in that morning.
I was walking into the Capitol and unfortunately didn't have very good shoes on it for it either.
My shoes were hurting me the whole damn time.
But we walked in and you have to look for an opportunity when the floor is open.
The Democrats control the floor and most of the time they tie it up where you're not allowed to filibuster.
And the floor became open and it was either today or Wednesday or Thursday.
And we decided the opportunity was there and we went for it.
But we had prepared for it in the sense that I'd been going over articles about drones and the discussion for a couple weeks.
Well, the American people recently, modern era, hear about a filibuster.
And to them, it just means everything's on hold until somebody comes up with 60 votes.
You actually had, people were marveling last night.
We actually had a speaking or a talking filibuster.
And you had some help from people on your side.
You even had some Democrats join you.
I'll tell you what, you probably know this, but the people of this country, and I think it's a majority of people, Senator, are very frustrated at how we're being governed by a minority.
We're the majority of thinking in this country.
People that are filibustering on the topic you were filibustering on last night, the idea of a smaller government, a government simply out of control, too big, too much in debt.
That is a majority viewpoint.
But nobody in the Republican Party has dared take this president on.
You did last night, and you're alive today to talk about it.
And nobody's calling you names.
And you are, in certain ways, a hero to a lot of people today.
And I hope this kind of thing continues.
I hope the reaction you've gotten.
I know you're getting some criticism.
We'll ask you about a minute.
But this was, to me, a seminal event last night that could change the direction that we are all heading, particularly in terms of educating and informing the American people about what actually is happening in their country.
Well, you know, we ask a pretty important question, and that's whether you get to pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights apply to American citizens.
And, you know, the Fifth Amendment says you get a right to a trial, you get a right to due process.
And we don't think the president or any politician, Republican or Democrat, should get to choose when the Fifth Amendment applies.
We also just weren't satisfied with him when he says, well, I intend to not do this.
I don't intend to kill Americans.
The problem is, is it's sort of like indefinite detention.
We can now detain American citizens without trial.
And he says, well, I don't intend to.
Well, his oath of office says, I will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
It doesn't say I intend to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
So we want stronger language.
We want him to admit we're still talking to the White House today, and we're not going to let the nomination go forward in any expeditious fashion unless he will answer the question directly.
Well, that's a good point.
Your filibuster ostensibly was to protest the nomination of John Brennan as the CIA director, but it's taken on a much larger universe of ideas now.
It's become bigger than just the Brennan nomination.
Now, imagine a lot of people who came to this whole debate late, who hear that the subject being discussed is whether or not the president will promise not to kill American people sitting at a cafe who are not engaging in any provocative behavior.
A lot of people are saying, come on, there's no president that would ever do that.
What are we talking about here?
So why are you concerned?
Do you actually need this in writing from the president to be assured that this is something he wouldn't do?
Well, here's the question.
It seems so absurd and so bizarre, and it should be a really easy question to answer.
But the reason we ask the question is we currently do drone strikes overseas, and I'm all for them.
When people are shooting at American soldiers, I think they're a great tool.
I think it's a great weapon we should use to defend American soldiers and American lives.
But we are also killing a lot of people who aren't actively involved.
Now, they may be bad people.
They may have been involved yesterday or are going to be tomorrow.
But we kill them at home asleep in restaurants, cafes, etc.
Now, that standard may be okay overseas.
I think it's debatable, but at home, that standard is not good enough.
So if you're in a cafe and you've been emailing your cousin who lives in the Middle East, and people here in Congress say, oh, well, you're an enemy combatant.
Well, I think you can be accused then of being associated with a terrorist if that person in the Middle East is a terrorist, but you need to be arrested and you need to have a chance to defend yourself.
If you have a grenade launcher, though, you don't get due process.
So if you're attacking America inside or out, American or otherwise, you don't get a lawyer or due process if you're setting up a bomb.
But you do, if you're in a cafe eating with somebody, you're sending an email to someone.
It needs to be clear that if you're non-combatant, if you're not engaged in combat, that you get your day in court.
The problem is the president came forward with this document that he leaked, this drone document, and he said in it that an imminent threat doesn't have to be an immediate threat.
And then there are these pictures of people being killed around the world who are not engaged in combat.
And I just don't think that standard can be used here at home.
Senator Cruz yesterday, in hearings at his committee with the Attorney General, eventually pried from the Attorney General that such behavior as you just described by the government would indeed be unconstitutional.
It took him like pulling teeth without Nova Cain, but he finally got that done.
Now, that was earlier in the day.
Why wasn't that enough for you to end your filibuster?
Well, we got that news a couple hours into it.
I talked to Senator Cruz, but it was hard to have conversations because I had to keep talking the whole time.
But we did get a transcript of it, and we read through it.
And I described it later on in the debate as withering cross-examination by Senator Cruz.
And that's basically what it was.
He did not want to answer the question, and I think it was under duress, and the word constitutional never occurs in any of his answers.
So all we want is a short paragraph.
I think they're coming towards us.
We want them to answer something that every American believes, that you cannot target an American on American soil and kill them without first charging, arresting, or convicting them in a court of law.
I think every American believes that, left and right.
But some who are so fearful say, oh, America's the battlefield and this is law of war over here.
But law of war means you don't get due process.
And I'm not against that.
In the middle of a war and you're shooting at someone, you don't get a lawyer, you don't get due process.
But in America, eating in a restaurant, you get arrested and you get due process.
That is a really important distinction, and we need to have that debate because there are some up here arguing.
In fact, the Wall Street Journal today argues that if you're declared an enemy combatant, you can be killed.
The problem is who gets to decide when you're an enemy combatant and when you're not.
The president does.
He's got the kill list.
That's a real problem for me.
He's bragging about it, Senator.
He's bragging.
They're trying to build up his tough pro-military credentials by he's got the kill list.
He picks the names.
Well, the Bureau of Justice has come forward with some criterion for people you need to report on if you know these people.
These are people with missing fingers, stains on their clothes, people who like to pay in cash, people who have weatherized ammunition, and more than seven days of food.
These are people who are potential terrorists.
And if that's the list, I know a lot of people on that list.
I'm a little concerned that they ought to get a trial before they get a drone strike ordered.
I'm on that list.
I am.
But, you know, you raise an interesting point.
It's 2013.
There are a lot of people today who can't believe, literally can't believe, that the highest law enforcement officials in the country will not, with ease, assure the American people that they will not be randomly targeted by a drone while they're minding their own business and not threatening anybody.
This doesn't even seem to most people to be something that should take five seconds to answer.
And the real debate is bigger than President Obama or any president, bigger than Republican or Democrat.
It's about what Madison said in the Federalist Papers.
He said basically that you can't, you know, if you had a government of angels, we wouldn't have to worry about having rules, but we don't always have a government of angels, and that's why we have the rule of law to prevent the time when a democracy can make a mistake and elect a bad person, an evil person to office.
So this is not always about the here and now.
It's about protecting people in the future from bad government.
Exactly.
By the way, a point of clarification.
When I said I was on the list, I meant I fit the criteria.
I don't think I'm on anybody's list.
I've seen the list, but I don't want to announce it in front of you whether you're on the list or not.
Well, okay, but I fit the criteria.
Now, let's get to the critics.
Senator McCain, who went out to dinner last night with President Obama, along with Senator Graham, said that what you're doing is a waste of time, and you're actually maybe doing something harmful that you are somehow conveying to the American people that the rules of the Senate are being abused.
What in the world could he possibly be talking about?
And what is your reaction to his criticism?
You know, I think we've struck a nerve, and there is a little bit of a difference within the Republican Caucus and a growing sort of division on some of these issues.
Their side believes that the battlefield is everywhere.
And this is what John and Brennan believes here.
He says there's no geographic limitation to the battlefield.
And that means that if the battlefield is America also, then the people, you know, like Senator McCain and Graham, they believe that the laws of war apply.
The problem is that the laws of war don't involve due process.
And I understand when you're in war, you don't get due process.
So in the battlefield, you don't ask your opponent, you know, for Miranda rights.
You don't present them with warrants.
You shoot your opponent.
That's a different sphere than America.
That's why the military operates overseas and the police operate here.
We have different sets of rules.
I don't want to believe that we're going to have to live in America as a battlefield because I know these young men and women, when they go over there fighting for the Bill of Rights, they tell me so and I believe so, and I know that's why we've sent them.
They're fighting for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
But if we give up and say, oh, we're going to have the law of war, the law of war doesn't include the Bill of Rights.
Senator Graham said that your filibuster has convinced him to vote to confirm Brennan.
Well, he misses the point.
This has never been about Brennan.
This is about the president and whether or not he will respond to the request I've made.
And the request is very simple: Can you kill Americans not engaged in combat in America with a drone strike?
And the answer's got to be an unequivocal no.
Brennan may win over my objections, but I'm going to ask this question to the president.
I'm going to keep asking until I get an answer.
We've asked them this morning.
We have talked with the White House this morning.
Other Republicans are calling the White House.
So I'm having assistance from other members of my caucus who want the answer too.
I think we will get an answer.
Let me give you a real-world example.
We have, and it's been criticized by some, we have killed an American with a drone strike, an admitted, acknowledged terrorist.
His name is Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen.
Now, let's play a hypothetical, Senator.
Let's put him in an American cafe, but everything else about him we know.
We know he's a terrorist.
We know he's acknowledged it.
We know that he was involved in the USS Call, whatever, terrorist activity.
Let's put him in Chicago, and he's in an outdoor cafe in the summer waiting to go to a Cubs game.
Is the administration asking for the right to drone him, to kill him with a drone, on American soil if he's in that circumstance?
You know, Senator Cruz addressed this last night: if he's in America and he doesn't have a weapon or a grenade launcher on his shoulder, obviously we'd arrest him.
Senator Chambliss also made the point that that's how we'll get information is by arresting people.
And if they don't have a weapon, why in the world would we want to kill them first?
We'd get no information.
Some of that argument's been made overseas, but particularly in this country, when you're unarmed and the police can arrest you, why would we not arrest you?
So even when someone's clearly guilty, if we can arrest them, it's preferable for intelligence reasons.
If they've got a grenade launcher on their shoulder, any kind of lethal force can be used against them.
If they're flying planes into our buildings, F-16s, bombs, rockets, any way we can stop people from attacking us, we use.
Right, but Olaki was not doing any of that when we killed him in Yemen.
Yeah.
There's a debate overseas how you ought to do it as well, because is there a difference for American citizens than foreigners?
My argument, not everybody agrees on this.
We're all agreed, I think, or many of us on the American citizens on American soil.
Overseas, my preference with Al Wauke would be to have a fairly expeditious trial for treason, not one with multiple appeals, one at the highest court level, and then I would do the drone strike after convicting him of treason.
There aren't very many of these people, so this isn't something we're going to go through every week.
The problem is, and this is where I really find the president's men reprehensible, is that when Alwaukee's son is killed in a separate strike later, two weeks, we think it's a signature strike.
They won't tell us all these things, but a signature strike is where you just knock out a caravan.
You don't know who all's in it.
You just think they're bad people coming from a place where bad people are gathered.
And when he was killed there, the president's man responded and they said, do you feel bad about killing a 16-year-old?
Are you going to say, was he a target or was he an accident?
He said, well, he should have chosen a more responsible father.
And so my question yesterday was, is that the standard we're going to take in America?
If you're related to bad people, are you allowed to be killed with a drone strike?
You know, so the standards overseas, there is maybe some question about those standards, but for goodness sakes, we can't have a standard in America that if you're related to someone who's committed evil or someone who is bad, that you are now eligible for a drone strike.
Senator, I have to take a quick break.
Do you have just two more minutes till we get back?
Okay, great.
Senator Rand Paul is with us discussing his filibuster last night, the reasons for it.
We'll be back in just a second.
We're back.
We have Kentucky Senator Rand Paul fresh off his.
How long did your filibuster go last night?
Excess of 12 hours?
I think it was close to 13, but just shy of 13 hours.
I think it may have been the second longest one since Strom Thurmond in 1957.
Were you thinking of trying to beat that record and the call of nature just overwhelmed?
Well, his was 24 hours, so we were only halfway there.
And the other thing is, is he was using some means of beating the rules on biological functions.
He had some secret devices he was using.
And I've been there and inserted those, and I decided I didn't want one of those.
Okay.
Now, one more reaction to criticism you're getting is that what you're really doing, you have a larger mission here that is hidden, and that is similar to your father.
You simply don't like drones, period.
You don't like them being used.
The war on terror, particularly against Islamists, and that that's what you're really aiming for here by calling attention to their use domestically.
What do you say to people that say that?
Well, I would say that's not accurate.
You know, I don't object to the technology.
And in fact, I've been supportive of the drone strikes, particularly in aiding our soldiers in battle.
I'm not necessarily against targeted strikes overseas.
I think we have to look at the rules.
But at home, I'm absolutely opposed to targeted strikes on Americans.
So I think there's some debatable things overseas.
In the military action, I'm absolutely in favor of them.
I think drones in America, if you have hostage situations or bombs, you know, we use robots to disable bombs.
So there's all kinds of reasons for the technology to be used.
In America, though, I am worried about them doing surveillance without warrants, flying over my farm, watching where I hunt, things like that, looking at my farmland with the EPA.
There's all kinds of potential abuses, but it's not the technology.
It really gets back to the Bill of Rights.
If you obey the Bill of Rights, I don't have any problem with drones.
Senator, I appreciate your time.
And I know you're being hotly pursued today by a lot of people that want to talk to you.
I just want to say that I don't know if you've had time to get a lot of feedback, if you're aware of it, but you've turned a lot of people last night, including people predisposed to oppose Republicans.
You hit a nerve with a lot of people last night, and you did demonstrate that this administration can be criticized.
You can take this administration on, and you can get public support for doing so.
And I hope that others learn from your example and pick up on it going forward.
Thanks, Rush.
Thanks for having me on.
Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky and his explanation why he was doing the filibuster last night.
Okay, we got to take a break here coming up at the bottom of the hour.
And when we come back, we still got all kinds of bokus soundbites.
We've got your phone calls to get to.
And I've just barely even scratched the surface of my stack of stuff of show prep today.
So sit tight.
We'll be back with all the rest of it right after this.
Don't go away.
Hi.
How are you?
We are back.
El Rushbo, as always.
Half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
Great to have you here.
Back to the phones.
This is the Florida Keys and Marion.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Hey, Rush.
Hi, how are you?
You sound like you're underwater on your cell phone connection, but I'm doing fine.
That's good.
That's good.
I'm sorry about that.
I'm driving down the turnpike, and my dog just put the window down.
Your dog just put the window down.
Yes, she did.
She got up on the door handle, and all of a sudden the window went down.
That's what that noise was.
I'm sorry about that.
Oh, oh, okay, cool.
You're good.
You sound good now.
You sound okay now.
Great, great show today.
I just can't tell you how great it makes me feel.
This is one of the best days of my whole life, and I appreciate you taking my call.
And I just want you to know that as a long, lifelong Republican, both my husband and myself, we just re-registered and we just changed our party affiliation to independents.
And we're just so frustrated with the Republicans.
I'm really proud of Senator Paul, and I'm just so thrilled that somebody has finally taken some positive steps, you know, intellectually and just everything he has done.
It's what has been missing.
And it may still be.
Only time is going to tell.
A number of people think that what happened last night signals a big shift in energy.
Some people think it signifies a change in momentum, combined with the fact that the sequester is not working out for Obama the way he intended.
And an example of that, and I've got more detail on that coming up, but one of the examples, Obama's getting hit by the media on kids not being able to tour the White House.
ABC and some other networks are not playing that story the way Obama wanted it played.
He's actually being hit for that.
But let's take a look here at liberals versus conservatives in one sense.
On the left, they've got their guy, Barack Obama.
They've got their hero.
They've got their star.
They've got the guy that's their leader, that motivates them, inspires them, or what have you.
They've got the guy.
They've got somebody that people can respond to, can rally around, can focus their energy on, either to promote or defend if he or what they believe in comes under attack.
Now, on our side, there isn't that.
There isn't anybody.
There is nobody.
I mean nobody.
And I'm talking about electoral politics.
There's nobody yet.
Some people are emerging, but there's nobody yet that fulfills that role on our side.
There is not the one person that leads the team that everybody has faith in, confidence in, and wants to defend, come hell or high water, and wants to promote.
So everybody's on their own, and we are absent leadership.
And what we on our side are faced with is the internecine battle or internecine battle going on in the Republican Party, as exemplified by this.
Here you have Young Blood.
You have Rand Paul doing the filibuster, aided and abetted last night by Senators Cruz and Rubio.
And Senator Thun showed up.
There's some other people.
On the other side, we've got the old bulls, the old guard, the ruling class establishment Republicans who are out having dinner with Obama.
And they don't like what these young bucks did last night.
They're upsetting the apple cart.
So that's what we deal with every day.
We deal with the lack of unity.
We don't even, on our side, there isn't even any unity on opposing Obama.
There's nothing for people to get behind here.
There's not a single person that's the object of hero status.
I don't mean hero worship.
I mean somebody in whom we have confidence to rally around, support, and defend.
There isn't that.
There is this ongoing battle on our side that's very frustrating because for us, the enemy is the president.
The enemy is the Democrat Party.
They are the ones taking our country to places we don't want to go.
We're scared to death what's happening to this country.
They're destroying it.
And people on our side don't seem to see that, or if they do, don't seem to care.
It doesn't seem to register.
And that's frustrating as it can be.
We literally are watching the traditions, the institutions that we hold dear under assault with impunity.
There's not the people doing this damage are not paying any price whatsoever for doing it.
They have what appears to be a free road, a clear path, nothing in their way to stop them.
That makes us all feel utterly helpless and frustrated.
So we look around.
We want to attach ourselves to anybody that we have confidence in that is willing to advance the things that we believe in.
Right now, that really means standing up to, fighting, and stopping this.
And what happened last night with this filibuster is essentially, it's very simple.
One man stood up and took on Barack Obama and his party and his administration over the Constitution.
And that means over freedom and liberty and the role of government and the effort to keep it small or to, well, keep it small, just keep it out of our lives.
And now to prevent it from randomly unleashing drone attacks on us.
And look what it invigorated people.
It fired people up on our side.
Something happened last night they haven't seen.
He didn't even see it in the presidential campaign.
They didn't see it.
We didn't see it during the eight years of George W. Bush.
Our guy was in the White House, but he was under assault constantly.
There was not one day it was ever defended.
And thus we weren't.
And so there hasn't been the sense among people on our side that the people on our side even realize the threat that we all understand, that we all see, that has us all scared to death.
Many of us think that we're about to storm the beaches here at Pointu Ho.
This is it.
The Republican House is going to authorize and vote for a continuing resolution that funds Obamacare.
All we heard during the campaign, 2012, was, nope, we're going to do everything we can to defund it.
We're going to make sure that we're going to do everything we can.
We lost the presidency, but we're still getting – they caved.
We saw the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, for some reason, be intimidating into ruling this law constitutional when everybody knows that it isn't.
And there doesn't seem to be any justice in all this.
There doesn't seem to be any fairness.
The other side talks about fairness and equality and balance, and there's none.
And some people ask, what have we done to be punished this way?
What in the world have we done that we deserve our country being taken from us?
And the answer is nothing.
It's just that there's nobody that we see that has any courage to stand up to the people who are doing the damage.
Even when we have the White House, there's no standing up to the people assaulting the country.
Even when we're campaigning, the candidate doesn't stand up.
Now, I know the president's race frightens a lot of people from criticizing him.
No two ways about that.
It's just the way it is.
But Rand Paul did it last night, and nobody's calling him a racist today.
And nobody's calling him an extremist, and nobody's calling him names, and he doesn't care anyway.
But he stood up for freedom.
And so last night, people finally had somebody to rally around.
Somebody finally spoke up and reflected what you all think and what you all fear.
And somebody, in addition to speaking up, was actually trying to put the brakes on the direction this country is being taken.
So yeah, it made perfect sense people rally behind it and rally to it.
And then today, after that, we get the old guard, the ruling class Republican establishment types belittling what happened last night, casting it aside.
It's insignificant.
Violated the rules of the Senate.
Bad image.
Silly to say the president wants to launch drone strikes on America.
Well, I didn't even have to answer that question.
That's so absurd.
It's silly.
It was embarrassing last night.
That's what they're saying.
Yet everywhere you look, and the most recent, I mentioned it mere moments ago.
Washington Post ABC poll, by 61 to 33%, the American people support across-the-board budget cuts, not tiny little sequesters, but a 5% across-the-board budget cut.
6133 supported by the American people.
And in the same poll, they don't want the defense budget cut.
So another thing we know is that we actually taking the universe of the entire population, we know we're in the majority.
And then it just rubs us even further raw to learn that we're being governed by a minority that got elected because our side didn't even have the proper campaign to energize Republican voters to show up.
So angry were 4 million Republicans that they said, there's no difference.
Doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter whether I vote.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
That was what they thought.
So here's where we are.
And this is where the Republican establishment had better pay attention.
It's the laws of supply and demand.
I had a great interview yesterday with Angelo Coteville coming up in an upcoming issue of the Limball Letter.
He equated this to supply and demand.
And basically, his point was: if the existing parties do not offer, if there isn't a supply of what we as the public want, we're going to go somewhere where there is, i.e., third party.
He says it's possible.
He knows it's not the best way, but he says the law of supply and demand might create it if the Republican Party remains unresponsive.
If the Republican Party participates full bore in the full authorization of Obamacare, 61% of American people oppose Obamacare.
If the Republican Party goes along with it, why would anybody vote for them?
In other words, his point is, where is the people, or where's the party?
Where are the people in the party that are willing to reflect, stand up, and represent the majority thinking in the party?
And at some point, somebody like that is going to surface.
And it's either going to be a new party or the Republican Party is going to be overtaken.
At some point, this is going to have to happen.
You cannot have this many millions of Americans continually ignored and unrepresented in a representative democracy without a price to pay for it.
So Rand Paul does his filibuster, and people flock to it.
Even Democrats flocked to it.
All over Twitter, which is normally owned, run, and operated with the Democrats.
All over Twitter last night.
Rand Paul had people say, well, wait a minute, I understand this.
Yeah, I mean, the left should be a natural for them.
This is the kind of stuff that they would.
This is why Code Pink exists, for example, among other things.
The administration ought to be just taking it on the chin over this.
And they may be.
Time will tell.
I understand people.
My whole point here is: I understand why people are rallying to Rand Paul and Rubio and Ted Cruz.
And that's going to continue.
And the Republican establishment, as long as they continue to pretend this 1990, 98, 2000, as long as the old rules, which guarantee defeat, continue to dominate, then at some point, somebody's got to give.
We'll be back.
Let's go away.
Here is the Republican ruling class.
Here is the old guard.
This is Senator McCain on the Senate floor in Washington today talking about Rand Paul's filibuster last night.
All I can say is that I don't think that what happened yesterday is helpful to the American people.
What we saw yesterday, what we saw yesterday, is going to give ammunition to those critics who say that the rules of the Senate are being abused.
What am I missing?
How can you be more out of touch?
Which critics is he talking about?
You know, I pride myself.
I'm well aware of what's going on.
I don't know anybody that we talk about the future of the country.
I was on my golf buddies the other day, and not one of them, nobody's ever said to me that they're worried about the rules of the Senate being abused.
I don't hear that as a concern from anybody.
What happened yesterday, not useful to the American people?
You have to look long and hard to find a disconnect larger than this one.
Here's Farouk in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Farouk, hello.
Good afternoon, sir.
What an honor to speak with you.
Thank you.
I had an observation last night.
I'm a proud citizen, an immigrant, a citizen by choice.
And I had an epiphany moment watching the Ed Show.
And don't ask me why I was watching the Ed Show.
I was basically shuffling channels.
But I recognized at that moment that the threat regarding these drone strikes within our own borders was more significant than the way it's being played out in the media.
What I recognized is that there was a panel discussing who the potential targets, justified or justifiable targets for such drone strikes would be.
And these people that they were showing on their video clips were, in their words, people clinging to their guns, Americans that are becoming paramilitaristic in their approach and protecting the Constitution.
I immediately recognized that perhaps it's not just the constitutionality of the drone strikes within our own borders, but the deliberate manipulation of what the definition of a terrorist would be to this administration.
Or an enemy competitor.
Well, that's exactly so.
You watch these clowns on MSNBC.
Oh, yeah, there's some valid targets.
The gun nuts, right-wing extremists.
You'll see, we have to wipe those people out.
I didn't see that.
You're the first person telling me about it.
But for some reason, I don't doubt you.
You heard them say that.
Appreciate the call.
Back.
Fastest three hours in media.
Two busy broadcast hours in the can and already over to the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum, which you can see at rushlimbaugh.com.
▲
Export Selection