You're tuned to the most listened-to radio talk show in the country.
Been that way for 25 years and for as many more years as I think I'm going to do this.
Now from sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday.
What is so funny?
Open line Friday and the final hour of our busy broadcast today.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program's 800-282-2882.
And the email address, lrushbow at eibnet.com.
You know, we've always maintained on this program that it may be a bit of a blanket statement, but it's also, for the most part, largely true.
And that is liberals just cannot handle the truth.
And I have a great, great, great example of it here.
Breitbart had a story yesterday.
In fact, I had this yesterday.
I didn't get to it.
Five cast members of the upcoming Ferguson stage play.
They're doing a stage play about what happened to Gentle Giant in Ferguson, Missouri.
Five members of the cast quit after they read the script.
The script is based on grand jury testimony.
Therefore, the script is based on reality.
The script to the play is based on the truth.
The script recreates the shooting death of the gentle giant by the police officer Darren Wilson using testimony taken from the grand jury proceedings in the case.
Now, according to the Los Angeles Times, the cast members quit the production after learning the true circumstances surrounding the death of the gentle giant.
The playwright and producer is Phelm McAlier, probably pronouncing MacAlier, M-C-capital A-L-E-E-R.
Phelan McAlier told Breitbart News that the script is based strictly on grand jury testimony.
Nothing added, no dialogue, no characters added, just exactly what happened.
He claims that he wrote this to try to get to the truth of it, but everybody's truth is totally subjective, former cast member Verilyn Jones told the LA Times.
When you come to the matter of what really happened, nobody knows for sure because everybody has a different take on it.
It just didn't feel right to me.
Anyway, what happened is this.
Guy produces a play, writes the script based entirely on grand jury testimony.
And a bunch of cast members signed up for this thinking that they were going to be part of history and they learned for the first time what really happened.
And they were so ticked off, they quit.
I mean, to sum this up, a guy does a play about the gentle giant using verbatim testimony from the grand jury.
The cast wants him to make the gentle giant more sympathetic.
They want the hands-up don't shoot in there, even though it didn't happen.
He refuses, and they quit, claiming, this isn't what happened.
This is your truth.
Well, my truth is different, and your truth is subjective.
And is this not a microcosm for exactly what has befallen our culture?
There is no truth.
Truth is in the eyes of whoever has the credibility in somebody's mind.
And the grand jury is tainted.
The grand jury was illegitimate.
The grand jury may as well be the founding fathers of the country, for all these people are concerned.
They actually thought black cast members, Hollywood, you'd know some of these names, by the way, these actors, they thought they were going to be participating in a play that would get the story right, that would tell the truth.
Hands up, don't shoot.
The cop basically murdered the gentle giant.
There wasn't any going to be any robbery of any convenience store.
None of that.
And that's all in there, and they quit.
McAlier has repeatedly stated his play is based on a genre of drama called verbatim theater, in which events depicted on stage are a recreation of exact witness testimony and interviews.
He said, the truth is the truth.
If it doesn't fit in with their beliefs, they need to change their beliefs.
The truth is what it is.
All the people who testified that he had his hands up, it was pretty much demolished in grand jury testimony.
He didn't attack the cop.
L.A. Times.
The New England Patriots showed up at the White House yesterday amidst a little bit of controversy because the star quarterback, Tom Brady, didn't show.
And I had to laugh as I read the media report this.
Before the Patriots arrived, the stories were: New England Patriots today will visit the White House to visit President Barack Obama and share their Super Bowl trophy and so forth.
Tom Brady, with a family commitment prior made, will not be able to make the trip, period.
But he has made the trip three previous times.
So we're supposed to automatically conclude Brady's not going because of Obama.
No, no, no.
He had a family commitment, a long-ago-made family commitment he can't change.
It had nothing to do with Obama.
That's how they wrote it.
Now, nobody knows, but they were so, so, so worried that Brady, I mean, Brady's the team, Brady not showing up.
They're afraid it might mean political opposition.
Nobody knows.
So the drive-bys had to write this to quell any such thought.
No, no, no, no.
Brady's been to the White House on three previous Patriots trips.
It surely has.
Well, but I don't think the Patriots have won a Super Bowl other than this one during the Obama administration.
But I don't know.
I don't know.
I just, I found it funny how the media wrote it because they were clearly worried people would draw that conclusion.
Anyway, at the actual event, one player, and that would be the Gronk, tight end Rob Gronkowski, thought that Obama might have been drunk because of the jokes he was telling.
One of the jokes was this: Yeah, I usually tell a bunch of jokes at these events.
Well, with the Patriots in town, I was worried that 11 out of 12 of them would fall flat, Obama said, referring to Deflategate and the Patriots.
There were audible groans during that comment.
After the ceremony, Rob Gronkowski, tight end and noted party animal, was asked whether his visit to the White House this year involved any alcohol.
And Gronkowski said, No, no, no, no, there's no drinking.
Maybe the president was getting wasted from his deflate joke, smiling.
He said that, according to USA Today and CBS Boston.
We're still wondering as an organization about that, right?
Gronkowski added, turning to Patriots owner Robert Kraft and the coach Bill Belichick.
During his remarks honoring the team and various players, including quarterback Tom Brady, who skipped the event, it says here, Obama joked about Gronkowski just being Gronkowski and said that he had told the player to keep his shirt on while he was here at the White House.
He asked me what would happen if he took it off, and I said Secret Service probably wouldn't like it.
And he said, what could they do to me?
Obama joked.
The Patriots were honored at the White House when former President George W. Bush was in office after winning a Super Bowl 2002, 2003.
Yep, I knew it.
I knew that the Patriots had not been there during the Obama regime.
And right here, Brady, who skipped the event, see the drive-bys when they wrote about this, were afraid people would think that.
So they made no, left no doubt about Brady had a prior family commitment.
This next item happened yesterday, and I remember commenting on it.
And I forgot about it until I started doing show prep for today.
And here it is again.
Yesterday morning, Obama went to the Bergdahl Garden at the White House and announced that an American hostage had been killed in a counterterrorism drone strike, an American drone strike, and we had inadvertently killed an American citizen who had been held hostage.
And Obama went out to the Bergdahl Garden to announce this.
And while he took responsibility for it, the minute he stopped talking, they went to other members of the regime who then said, no, no, that's Obama being a leader.
He had really nothing to do with this.
This was way, way, I mean, individual operations like this, Obama didn't know about this.
This is way beneath the pay grade of Obama.
The underlings are responsible for this.
To which others said, wait, wait.
That doesn't jive because prior to this one incident, Obama was bragging about being the guy in charge of naming targets.
Obama was bragging about he's the guy that had the kill list.
You remember?
And a lot of leftists at the time didn't like it.
They didn't think it's cool for Obama to be sitting there running the drone program and deciding terrorist A gets killed.
I'll tell you what did it for him.
An American citizen terrorist got wiped out in Yemen.
Olaki, Shalaki, Shylocky, whatever his name was.
He happened to be a guru to the Fort Hood shooter.
And Obama took him out with a drone strike.
And Obama's been bragging about it because Democrats are well known to be wusses when it comes to power and military force.
They don't particularly like it.
So Obama started bragging, and he was in charge of the kill list.
Now, all of a sudden, an innocent American hostage is killed, and Obama is said to have had nothing to do.
And furthermore, you know who is to blame?
All of a sudden, who is it that all of a sudden has a role in this?
And that would be Congress.
Yes, sir.
I saw that yesterday morning, and I about spit.
Blaming Congress for a drone strike, saying Congress has a role in drone.
They don't have a role in anything else.
Congress doesn't have a role in confirmations or in executive action on amnesty or anything else, but all of a sudden they are culpable and have a responsibility when it comes to drone strikes.
Can anybody say pass the buck?
Here's the story as it appeared in the French news agency.
President Barack Obama's admission that a U.S. drone accidentally took the lives of two hostages has raised fresh questions about the limits and the risks of the country's targeted killing campaign.
The botched strike revealed the U.S. had no idea an American aid worker, Warren Weinstein, and an Italian humanitarian, Giovanni Loporto, were in the same compound as al-Qaeda militants when the drone raid was launched in January.
The White House also admitted that U.S. intelligence was flawed for another drone strike at about the same time, which killed two U.S. citizens who were al-Qaeda operatives, but who Washington did not know were present.
Why would our intelligence be flawed after Obama has decided to no longer capture or interrogate prisoners?
And why all of a sudden is it okay to blame intelligence after eight years of denying intelligence had anything to do with what George Bush screwed up, in their words?
Human rights groups and some lawmakers have long questioned the legality and the morality of the drone air war, citing estimates of thousands of civilian casualties caused by the strikes.
Military experts have cast doubt on the ultimate effect of the raids on extremist groups.
But Obama is our foremost moral authority and our foremost military expert.
And now he is trying to pass the buck.
I mean, I remember Obama leaking to the New York Times the news that he alone picked the people to drone, and now all of a sudden had nothing to do with it.
And here's the story about blaming Congress.
This is from the White House press briefing yesterday.
Reporter says, Lastly, on this issue of revealing what happened, there's been a flurry of statements this morning from members of Congress, not only joining the president and offering condolences, but promising rigorous oversight from some of the relevant committees.
Does the White House feel that Congress has a role to play in figuring out what went wrong here and how to possibly prevent it from happening again?
What White House official fed that question to a reporter?
Of all questions.
Does Congress have a role?
Who thinks this stuff up?
Somebody at the regime had to feed that question to this reporter.
And here's what Josh Ernest said when asked, does Congress maybe have a role?
Is there maybe congressional culpability here in the deaths of these innocent victims?
Answer.
Well, I can tell you that the president believes that Congress does have very important oversight over these kinds of programs.
That's why in the President's National Defense University speech that he delivered a couple years ago, he made clear that when these kinds of terrorism operations are carried out, relevant members of Congress are briefed about such.
Lo and behold, a reporter is fed a question.
Does Congress carry any kind of responsibility for this botched drone business?
Well, you know, now that you ask, the president believes that Congress does have a very important oversight role.
And in fact, implied here, it could well be that if Congress had been responsible, this might not have happened.
Just passing the buck 101 all of these years that Congress has ceased to exist, doesn't have any legitimacy as far as Obama's concern.
Now, when he needs a scapegoat, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner raised their hands.
Yep, yep, we'll bite the bullet for you.
And Orlando, Florida.
Jesse, thank you for calling.
Great to have you with us.
You're next on Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Love you, man.
I've been listening to you for almost 25 years.
I appreciate that.
Thank you so much.
Yeah, when I was in middle school, my parents pulled me out and homeschooled me, and listening to you was my history and my social studies class.
My, that's, I mean, good for you, too.
You could not have done better than that in any classroom.
And I say that with great pride.
Well, I appreciate it.
You need to stay around because my boys are growing up, and I want them to be old enough to listen to you so they can get the same education I got.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
Have you bought the Rush Revere book series?
Sure have, yes, sir.
All right.
Well, that's – do you have all three?
Yeah.
No, I only have one, but I'm a conservative.
I'm not looking for a handout.
I know that.
No, no, no, no.
I know.
I know that.
Don't hang up when we finish here.
So, Mr. Snerdley, get an address because I want to get to the other two.
Some other stuff, too, the audio versions, but some other stuff, too.
So don't hang up when you finish.
All right.
All right.
Well, listen, Snerdley, I think Snerdley was right.
My take on this Clinton thing is that Obama is an ideologue, whereas the Clints are opportunists.
And I don't think a true believer in ideologue would want to let an opportunist run the party.
And so I actually think Clinton's going to get it this time.
I think Obama wants to play the kingmaker, and I think he's going to hang her out the dry.
You know, that is a fascinating theory that ultimately you think Obama is going to be responsible for the Clintons finally being held accountable because he doesn't want to entrust his great achievements to a bunch of opportunists like the Clintons.
Is that essentially your theory?
Absolutely.
I mean, even Clinton tacked to the middle when he was re-elected a little bit, and Obama would never do that.
And I don't think he'd stand by as Hillary did whatever she had to do.
I think he'd rather see somebody like Warren and he can still control the strings of the party.
Well, he does, as president, there's no question, he has that power of being able to raise money and the power of fear.
And by the way, everybody knows he will use it.
He is that kind of, he'll punish people with his power, even in his own party if they stray.
So right now he would take, I think, the leadership role in fearmonger, even more so than Clinton.
But I don't know that he's more popular than Bill Clinton.
I think Bill Clinton may be vastly more popular in the Democrat Party than Obama is.
But that's...
Well, all the more reason for him to figure out the dry.
Yeah.
It's a good theory.
Don't hang up.
Mr. Snerdley will be picking up the phone.
The only potential flaw, and it's a minor one, is that I think people err when they think the Clintons are not ideologues.
Mrs. Clinton is every bit the ideologue that Barack Obama is, and so is Bill.
His act of good old boy is meant to cover that up.
Ladies and gentlemen, I was just asked a question.
There's another possibility here that we haven't considered on What's happening to Clinton's here with the revelation of all this news that's not good?
I mean, bribery and false tax returns and all this.
The question was just asked of me by the broadcast engineer.
Is it possible that Bill Clinton is actually the one behind all of this secretly trying to undermine Hillary because he doesn't want back in the White House.
He doesn't want that kind of scrutiny anymore.
And he doesn't want her ever ending up on the same level he was president of the United States.
He has no desire for her to ever equal him in that way.
So I had to pause and I had to think about that for a minute.
And I said, in the process of analyzing this one, let's put ourselves in Bill Clinton's shoes.
All right.
And may we do this honestly, folks?
Okay, here we go.
You're Bill Clinton.
You have been in an arranged, politically arranged, but loveless marriage for, well, 40 years.
Your wife, Bill Clinton has had to venture outside the marital arrangement for gratification of the kind he is addicted to.
He simply does not and cannot get it within the marital relationship and hasn't for a long time.
But he really, really down deep doesn't like that.
That's on the slide.
He can't make anything permanent in terms of plans with any of those women.
And even though the wife knows about it, that doesn't make it any better or easier when you get down to brass tax because it's still not ever consummated real.
And besides, you're going to get caught, and he has gotten caught many, many times, and his wife chews him out, not for doing it, but for getting caught.
Every time he gets caught, she berates him.
How could you be so stupid?
If you're going to get a Lewinsky from an intern, don't do it in the Oval Office, you stupid idiot.
Well, no husband wants to be talked to that way.
No husband wants to be berated that way.
No husband really wants to stray the way Bill has had to stray.
And it could be that there's a lifetime of resentment over matters like this.
So it's, I guess, within certain ways of looking at this, it may be possible that this whole thing is being undermined by Bill simply because despite whatever agreement they might have made together back in Yale when they came together, it's okay.
They reportedly made a 20-year plan that culminated in him becoming president.
That was the objective.
And whatever happened, they would both never stray from that plan.
Whether Jennifer Flowers happened, whether Paula Jones happened, whether the Rolls Law Firm records ended up being stolen, whether Webb Hubble got whatever happened, nothing was going to derail the plan.
And it didn't.
But look at where Bill's had to go.
He's had to pall around with pedophile Playboys.
He's had to pall around with supermarket owner Playboys and so forth.
I don't know.
Does he resent that?
Does he resent that he can't go permanent with any of that?
I don't know, folks.
It's a world not many of us will ever be able to relate to, much less understand or want to relate to.
But that last question, does Bill actually want the real culmination of this obvious arrangement to end up with Hillary being on the same stratospheric level of achievement that he attained?
Why are you shaking your head in there?
Oh, really?
You agree with this?
Oh, my God.
I thought you were shaking your head thinking I had stirred myself into trouble again.
You actually think that's possible?
Well, there you go.
Now we have the female point of view on this.
That it could well be that Bill doesn't want Hillary to actually end up achieving what he achieved.
Doesn't want his co-presidency business.
And particularly, the last Clinton to be in everybody's mind is present to be her.
So therefore, could he be the one undermining this?
The problem, the argument against that is, look at what he's opening up for himself.
He's every bit as exposed on this stuff as she is.
The money, no, but the money.
Now, I know they're used to being, they're used to the controversy and being surrounded with swirls and filth necks, but I'm talking the money.
The gravy train stopping.
You know, everybody thinks that once you get to a certain degree of wealth, there's a point where you say, okay, that's enough.
I don't need any more.
Has Bill Gates reached it?
Buffett, you know, those two guys are still in a competition to see who's named richest person in the world every year.
And Buffett's in his 80s.
And Buffett, they're arguing over $42 or $45 billion.
If anybody should have enough, it'd be those two, but it never has stopped them from trying to get more, has it?
And I'll just tell you this, folks.
The Clintons are sitting there.
The projected net worth of these two, the couple combined, is from $150 to $300 million.
I'm telling you, compared to the people they pall around with, that's, well, it's not nothing, but it doesn't buy them the respect of their friends.
That's, it's not that much.
I mean, they're running around with billionaires.
And yeah, they can pay their freight no matter where they go, but except they don't rely on other people.
But so no, I mean, the idea is that they haven't reached that point where either of them would say, we have enough.
And we can now go straight.
We've got enough.
We can stop playing games.
We've got enough.
We can stop playing on the edges here.
That point will never be reached with them.
In other words, their comfort level is never going to be reached.
Because these two are going to live with the constant fear that they could lose it all at once tomorrow.
And you know why?
Because of the way they acquired it.
I mean, if I were them, that'd be the big fear I would have.
I mean, why do they have this money?
They don't have this money because they've achieved anything other than being elected.
They don't have this money because they started a business and produced a product that people can't get enough of and have bought.
They're selling influence.
And if they don't have the power to pay back on this money that's been invested in them, then it's they're worthless.
If they can't somehow, I mean, there is an expectation.
Everybody that's given them money expects something for it.
And the only way that Clintons can satisfy the expectation is to have electoral power.
Secretary of State, Oval Office.
And if neither of them have that, then the money that they have becomes queasy, shall we say?
That's the word.
It's not stable in their minds that it could vanish overnight.
It could vanish as quickly as they acquired it.
So the quest for wanting more will never end.
So that's my view.
Here's Rebecca Woodmere, New Jersey.
I'm sorry, New York.
And great to have you here.
Thank you for waiting.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
I heard you earlier in the program speak about how millennials have just been brainwashed by the media their whole lives to believe that conservatives are the source of all their economic problems.
I just, I can't help but always feeling like we don't have enough success stories.
My mind always goes to the Chris Christie election, where it got so much attention, and I was so excited.
I felt like the country is going to finally see that conservative policies can take this state out of debt.
And it didn't happen.
And I'm sorry.
No, I'm saying this is actually an excellent point that you're making.
And somebody mentioned to me the other day, and I had not stopped to think of it, but of course it's absolutely true.
Do you realize that a lot of people, your age, millennials, have never had the chance to vote for a conservative president?
I mean, in terms of real conservative, like a Reagan conservative, they've had pretenders who said they were conservative, but a real doctriner conservative, you haven't had the chance to vote for one.
And your point that you haven't had any success stories, meaning electoral victory and a follow-up implementation of policy, your point is that your age group hasn't seen it.
It's all theoretical to you, right?
Exactly.
I mean, of course they blame the media.
But when we do finally have chances to show everyone how wrong they are, it just doesn't pan out that way.
And I don't know.
I can't help but feeling like they're both to blame.
We're to blame also, and I don't know why.
Why are you using, not a trick question, I'm genuinely curious.
Why are you using Governor Christie as an example?
Did he disappoint you, let you down?
Is that what you mean?
Well, I think I read last week that New Jersey is still in a severe state of debt.
Yeah.
And I just felt like that was an, you know, he was very.
Look, no, I have to agree with you again.
I look at just the Republicans before we even talk about conservatives in Washington.
And I don't, I opened the program today talking about how they're not even up to opposing.
We've got a president that's going to break the Constitution with amnesty.
They've got a chance to oppose and vote down an attorney general who said she agrees with him.
And instead, they're going to approve her.
They're going to vote to confirm her because they're afraid to vote against somebody African American or what the media is going to say about them.
I'll tell you where you're going to have to look.
There are examples of conservative success.
But you're going to have to research it because you don't live in a state where it's happening.
there are a lot of states with conservative governor success stories.
Wisconsin is one, and that would be a great case study for you.
But the states are largely right now, they're the backstop.
They're the firewall.
There are a lot of conservative governors.
Christy's not one at the moment.
But there are places you could look where conservatives have run, have run for office and have won and are implementing what they believe.
Wisconsin most recently, but Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Ohio, Indiana.
There's a bunch of places that are much better off than states being run by liberals.
I mean, hands down.
So the examples are there.
They're just local or state as opposed to federal.
But other than that, that is a, I mean, psychologically, from her standpoint, it's a great point.
We have to go out of time.
Back after this.
An excursion into broadcast Texas and a great Open Line Friday.
You all were really, really good today.
Did not mind taking the great career risk in the slightest.