Rush Limbaugh Program - September 25, 2015, Friday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 25, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program

35:04

September 25, 2015, Friday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh today.
	More on me at theblaze.com slash Buck Sexton, the Blaze where I'm a host on TV and radio.
	Thank you so much for joining.
	We have a special guest.
	As you know, there's big news because Boehner is resigning come the end of October.
	What's going on on the Hill right now?
	Who can give us an inside look at all of the what, what and the whatnot?
	Let's get Representative Louis Gohmert with us now.
	Representative Gohmert, thank you so much for calling in.
	Good to talk to you.
	It's been a while.
	Oh, it's always great to talk to you, Buck.
	Thank you.
	Well, a former CIA operative would have a heck of a time on the Hill these days.
	It's been quite interesting.
	Groups gathering all over the place, trying to figure out the way forward.
	And anyway, we're going to end up with a new speaker.
	So, yeah, it's an interesting time.
	And, of course, what normally happens is people fall in line behind whoever was behind the current speaker.
	But we saw back in 2005, in the fall of 2005, back then, Tom DeLay had to step down, and Roy Blunt was the whip.
	He moved up temporarily, and then we had an election in January, which is when John Boehner was able to win a three-way race.
	But normally, these things happen very quickly, and people get enough momentum that people get on board.
	It's the craziest thing, though, Buck.
	You know, people participate in elections all their lives in America, and you get to Congress, and, you know, most of the time, the reason you win, it's because you're the most qualified, or you're the most likable, or you just know more people, and so they vote for you.
	But that's not it at all in Washington.
	The one who wins the top position in his or her party is always the person that one more than half think is going to win, because one more than half will always in Congress vote for the person they think is going to be their leader.
	You know, Representative McCarthy is obviously getting talked about a lot today, Representative Goemer.
	What do you think about that?
	I mean, are you seeing this as positive change regardless of who takes the leadership?
	Was it just time for Representative Boehner to hang it up, so to speak?
	Well, Buck, you're aware.
	I was the sole voice that stood up in November of 2012 and said it's time for new leadership in conference.
	And as Thomas Massey and Jim Bridenstine both told me, we thought you were the craziest guy in all of Congress.
	And six months later, we thought you were the smartest guy.
	So I've been feeling that way for nearly three years, that it's time for a change.
	So, yeah, I think most anything would be an improvement.
	I think it was very gracious the way the speaker is leaving us.
	But anyway.
	What about the fight now about defunding Planned Parenthood, though?
	I'm seeing the reports are that Representative Boehner is going to try to do whatever he can to make sure that there's a clean funding bill and Planned Parenthood does get funded.
	Is that your take?
	Is that where you see it going?
	Is there any more of a fight?
	That was before he announced what he was doing for Speaker in resigning as Speaker.
	He announced that we were going to have a clean CR.
	And you and I know clean CR is a pretty nasty bill to be called clean, but that's what they call it.
	It's clean the same way Obamacare is affordable.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, we don't have the votes to defund Planned Parenthood is what we are told in the Senate, that is.
	And so, therefore, we just need to go ahead and do at least a short-term CR, and that he's going to make sure that's taken care of before he leaves as Speaker.
	So there was a lot of people that were praising him for helping members avoid taking a tough vote by basically falling on his sword to avoid them having to take the tough votes.
	Representative Gohmer, you've been well ahead of the curve on this, as you just said, and you've been honest about what you think of the leadership right now.
	Does it take you aback a little bit that at this point, with really nothing, it would seem to the rest of the world at least.
	I know we could talk about what Representative Boehner plans to do when he's done.
	But it seems like nothing to lose, why not stand on principle here?
	Why continue with the sort of transactional go-along to get-along approach?
	On an issue of such importance, on an issue that is of our national character right now, which is the funding of Planned Parenthood with tax dollars.
	There are a bunch of us that are going to keep fighting, but it seems like much of the conference is reconciled, though.
	Thank goodness we're not going to have to fall on our swords on this thing.
	But, you know, it just seems like, Buck, if we were to go ahead and fund women's health care with more money than Planned Parenthood was getting and make sure that instead of giving it to Planned Parenthood, where they take a cut, even though they've never done a mammogram in their whole careers,
	and send that to facilities that actually do the hands-on women's health care, how do we get in trouble for having a war on women, which when we're doing more than the Democrats to help them?
	I don't see how we lose in that fight as long as we have people that will stand up and get the message out.
	Look, we funded everything you want.
	That's not easy for me to vote for.
	But we have just said we cannot continue to support and to be accessories to criminally, potentially criminally activity.
	So, Representative Gomer, you're willing, you are willing to shut down, you would be willing to shut down the government over this issue.
	I would not be willing to shut it down, but it would not be us that shut it down.
	I would be willing to say, you look, we're going to give more money to women's health care than we're getting before, and we funded everything else now.
	If the government gets shut down, it's not me.
	We've funded everything, just not Planned Parenthood.
	We funded more for women's health.
	So, no, I'm not willing to shut it down.
	That would be.
	They're willing to shut it down.
	You know, Representative Gomer, I have to applaud you for the correction there because I said that before you came on, and I fall into the trap too sometimes because you just, the media drumbeat is so loud of Republicans would be shutting it down over this.
	No, like other issues we've seen in the past, Democrats, Democrats are the ones taking the hostages here.
	Democrats are the ones who would be saying the entire government gets shut down because we refuse to withdraw taxpayer funds for all you have to do is watch the videos from Center for Medical Progress, and your stomach will turn, and you're going to have nightmares, and you'll understand why people don't think tax dollars should go to.
	So, you're absolutely correct, and I thank you for making.
	See, this is just that's the power of the messaging from the other side, Representative Gomer.
	Sometimes it even, even when you're paying attention and you know, just the words come out the wrong way.
	So, you're willing to continue on that fight?
	Do you think you have enough support that at least this will be a close one?
	Where do you think this is going?
	From what the speaker said, it sounds like he may have enough Republicans vote for it and all the Democrats, and he's willing to do that, going out on his last big vote.
	So he abandons the Hassert rule, right?
	Which is the majority of the majority has to go.
	We know he doesn't believe in that.
	Now, I guess we can come up with a Boehner rule, which is even when it costs you nothing, betray your base.
	Why not?
	If it's been good for you for years, why not?
	Why change pace?
	There, anything else, Representative Gomer, before we go into a break?
	Well, the line that is just mystifying me that we keep being told is that if we persist in giving more money to women's health care than we give to Planned Parenthood and not giving any to Planned Parenthood, then we will set back the pro-life movement many, many years.
	And so those that are willing to go ahead and fund Planned Parenthood are really sticking up for the pro-life movement.
	Yeah, I would have to say, if not now, when, if there's not enough of a groundswell of outrage over what's going on at these clinics, that we would have the political momentum and the moral courage to take a stand here, it'll have to say, Representative Government, I don't think it'll ever happen, honestly, or at least not for years to come.
	If not now, when?
	If it's not now, when would it be when there's this kind of evidence right there in front?
	Now, Buck, it does require us to get the message out to what actually is going on, but that comes with the responsibility of being in government.
	You got to message what you're doing.
	Representative Gomert, as always, good to talk to you.
	Thank you for your time.
	We appreciate it.
	I'll talk to you again soon.
	Thanks so much.
	All right, 800-282-2882.
	Go to theblaze.com slash BuckSexton for more on me or go to facebook.com slash BuckSexton if you want to talk.
	I'm talking to people on Facebook throughout the show.
	Open Line Friday continues here on the EIB.
	I will be back in just a minute.
	Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh today on the EIB.
	Open Line Friday continues on 800-282-2882.
	If you're a little shy and you'd rather type, you can go at BuckSexton on Twitter or go to facebook.com slash BuckSexton.
	And to download podcasts of mine, go to theblaze.com slash Buck Sexton.
	All right, let's take theblaze.com/slash Buck Sexton.
	There we go.
	I needed to slow that one down a little bit.
	Too much caffeine today.
	Let's take Linda in Alexandria, Virginia.
	Linda, you're on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
	Thank you.
	Hi, Buck.
	Well, thank you for your service in the military.
	Oh, no, I only served in the intelligence community, madam, but thank you for your kind words.
	I served for the CIA, never the military.
	Okay.
	Well, in listening and waiting, I have just come to the conclusion.
	I mean, when we got the majority in the House, supposedly Republicans, in the Republican Party, it seems the Democrats are more united.
	Republican Party is moderate and strong conservatives.
	And so nothing's getting done because of that.
	And that's why it's not just John Boehner, although evidently he's a moderate.
	I'm from the state of Ohio originally, but I have never known John Boehner or voted for him.
	But, you know, so you're saying the Democrats are more unified in, right?
	Is this kind of the underlying point here is that the Democrats always put party first, they stick together, and they have, look, they have a discipline that would make, you know, a 19th century Prussian blush.
	I mean, they're excellent when it comes to being disciplined and moving forward with the agenda.
	You'll notice that there's not a lot of these sorts of squabbles.
	There's ideas, but when it comes to getting stuff through, look at the lockstep voting you see from Democrats on issue after issue, whether it's Planned Parenthood or Obamacare.
	There are so many things where you see very, very few breakaways.
	And when there are breakaways from the Democrat Party line, it's acceptable within the party because it's in a state where it's tough for the Democrat to keep his seat or to keep his job.
	And so they'll give sort of, again, a dispensation.
	Democrats go, okay, if you need to fool people in Colorado or you need to fool people in Maine, you can take this vote this time.
	But they have to get the blessing first.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I know it's depressing.
	Linda, thanks for calling in from Virginia.
	Good to talk to you.
	We have Mark in Santa Cruz, California.
	Mark, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
	You're speaking to Buck Sexton.
	Hello, Buck.
	It's a pleasure.
	Hey, right to the point.
	The Pope was lecturing us on humanitarian issues, and speaking of humanitarian issues, you've missed the most obvious of all, I believe, and that's this ongoing holocaust in Mexico.
	Do you know what I mean?
	No, actually, I don't.
	Okay, well, for some reason, the politicians and the media doesn't express it very much.
	But our drug culture, our dollars, are financing and sponsoring cartels, which in turn have killed something and tortured something like 100,000 Mexicans to date.
	And it's an ongoing thing.
	It's for some reason subdued topic, but these are atrocious crimes.
	Well, these are atrocities committed by people in the cartel, by Mexicans against police officers, against other Mexican citizens, against other people in the cartels.
	I'm not sure.
	I know.
	Are you taking the position that because the biggest market for the drugs is America, that all the violence in Mexico is on us?
	It's all connected.
	We're buying the drugs, we're using the drugs, and they're killing each other to get it to us.
	But whether we're buying the drugs or not, no one in this country is forcing cartel soccarios, cartel assassins to cut off people's heads and do.
	I mean, this is the violence in Mexico, and this is another topic that would require, I think, a more in-depth discussion than perhaps we have quite the time for now.
	But the violence in Mexico is a result of a lot of problems inside of that country.
	And I don't think that it's fair to blame.
	Look, you can always try to blame America for everything anywhere, right?
	Either we're not doing enough to stop it, or we created it, or we inherited the mantle of the British Empire or whatever.
	Post-colonialism depends on how you want to take it.
	But the fact of the matter is that the violence in Mexico is that country's problem and comes from within that country.
	I mean, it's our problem too.
	Don't get me wrong.
	I know it comes across the border and we have cartels here.
	But if you're looking for the cause of it, I would put the cause across the border.
	I mean, there doesn't need to be the vast violence.
	If Mexico's government and if it's police forces and if the Federalists and everything didn't have such a legacy of corruption to begin with, I think there'd be a lot less of that violence.
	But, Mark, thank you for calling in.
	I know that there was, we used to hear about the violence in the drug war.
	We used to hear about 50,000 killed.
	That was some years ago.
	I know the caller just gave us a number.
	That was 100.
	But you don't hear about it anymore, which is interesting.
	There are some different possibilities as to why that is.
	Maybe because of the party in power now in Mexico taking a softer, a softer touch with the cartels, as long as they don't cause a lot of problems on the southern side of the border, they won't get hammered quite as hard.
	But again, I would never blame, I would never be able to blame America for the problems the cartels are creating to the South.
	All right, we'll take Marina in El Paso, Texas.
	Marina, you're on the Glenn, I mean the Rush Limbaugh program.
	You're speaking to Buck Sexton.
	Hello, Mr. Sexton.
	Thank you, Sexton.
	Thank you very much for taking my call, and you are doing superbly as a stand-in for the maestro.
	I really appreciate that.
	Thank you.
	Regarding the Pope's visit to the U.S. and regarding the Pope himself, I think he's an astute, anti-American, poker-faced head of state, and I don't mean that as a derogatory thing.
	Continue.
	You're talking about the Pope.
	You say he's astute.
	Why?
	Well, regarding the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba, the Catholic Church is opening three convents, one school, and one seminary in Cuba, which were closed by the Castro brothers.
	And the way I think the Pope sees it is if there's good diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba, the Catholic Church will work a little bit more unfettered in Cuba.
	Now, mind you, not without complete freedom.
	But the Pope thinks, but in spite of his anti-Americanism, I think the Pope thinks that his people will be better protected in Cuba with normal diplomatic relations.
	Marina, it just seems to me, though, that this island thugocracy with the Castro, the Castro regime oppressing people and not allowing freedom of association and free political expression and free speech and all the rest of it, somehow they never have to concede anything.
	And you have now in the Obama administration, and of course, look, I can understand why the Pope extends a hand in friendship to basically anybody, although I wish he would also have sort of a stern few words to say after that.
	But this administration clearly has decided to, once again, I don't see how you could see it other than a capitulation.
	And we've had now decades of a policy meant to bring the Cubans, bring the Cuban regime, I should say, bring the Cuban people freedom and bring the Cuban regime to at least make some concessions.
	No concessions have been made, and yet they're getting what they want.
	So it starts to feel a little bit like the Iran deal, which is, well, if we give them enough and we're nice enough to them, maybe they'll get better and things will go okay.
	That tends not to work very well with the dictators.
	That tends to be a dangerous game.
	No matter what stripe they are.
	Yeah, no matter where they're from.
	Thank you for calling in, Marina.
	I appreciate your kind words.
	All right.
	We have time.
	No, actually, I know we only got a minute, so I'm going to have to just tell you more of what I think.
	I want to talk to you about the cyber summit that happened with President Obama.
	It wasn't just cyber.
	It's one of the main issues they're talking about.
	You have the Chinese Premier Xi Jinping and President Obama today.
	They're in the Rose Garden having a bit of a chat.
	There's some news items that attach to that as well as to recent cyber breaches that I think are worthy of some more attention than they've gotten because that's an ongoing dispute, an ongoing problem that we don't really see and feel, and you don't hear enough about it, but it is very, very real.
	And there's a historical precedent for what's going on now with the theft of our technology, our military secrets, our commercial proprietary information.
	There's a historical precedent that's very troubling and I think gives you a view into what's coming in the future.
	I'll get into that in just a minute.
	Indeed, the buck is back.
	Thank you very much for staying with me.
	800-282-2882.
	Also, go to theblaze.com/slash BuckSexton for more on me, and you can download my stuff there.
	I want to talk to you about a meeting that's overshadowed by, well, by the Boehner resignation, of course.
	I know.
	Dry your tears, my friends.
	By the Boehner resignation, and also, of course, by the visit of the Pope.
	And that is the Chinese Premier getting together with President Obama, President Xi Jinping.
	And Obama has announced that they have reached, and this is a quote, a common understanding.
	You could say perhaps they've reached common sense cyber espionage reform because they agree that they will not conduct economic espionage in cyberspace.
	I suppose that also leaves open non-economic espionage in cyberspace, which they're just going to let that one stay out there.
	But this just goes, yeah, he doesn't want to take all the fun away, right?
	At least some options on the table.
	This goes to show you that there are really no limits to the, I don't know, is it naivete or is it just indifference?
	Or does the president view this as worthwhile payback for all our imperialist transgressions over the years as America?
	Because this is not going to work.
	This idea that somehow there's going to be an agreement with China that will end any espionage, cyber espionage efforts going on.
	When you look, by the way, at I mentioned before a sort of a historical comparison, people say, well, how did the Soviet Union, yeah, they had a big government-funded science program, but how were they able to sort of reach him?
	This is a place where the glass factories couldn't make glass.
	So why were they able to have at different points weapon systems that mimicked our own?
	You know, where did they get?
	Oh, that's right.
	There was a massive and sustained decades-long campaign of economic, military, and diplomatic espionage against the United States by the Soviet Union.
	It's a book that I think is out of print, but you can probably still get it if you can go online and look for it.
	I'm sure you can find copies.
	The Matrokin archive, or the KGB archivist buried the KGB archives.
	We have access to it.
	We can see what the KGB was up to.
	And when you read through this thing, if you're not somebody who's studied this period and not studied it from the sort of leftist, oh, well, you know, communism was a great system.
	It just had a few kinks they failed to work out, but we should try it again, which you get from a lot of places, by the way, a lot of places of higher learning, a lot of campuses and universities.
	If you really know the history, then you'll see that the Soviet Union was able to steal vast troves of very sensitive information from us through penetrations, through agents that they had deployed, through all the sorts of means, all the trickery that the KGB, you know, the NKVD and all the different apparatuses of Soviet intelligence were able to get from us.
	The GRU.
	I mean, they change over time.
	They have all these different acronyms, and depending on when you're the period you're talking about here, but this was an essential part of their ability to at least project force and to have some near-military parity with us at different points in time, right?
	I mean, I know it depends on which decade and which year, but some of their most advanced weapon systems were stolen from us.
	So this has something that's already happened, and I don't think enough people are aware of how vast that really, how vast that effort was and how fruitful it was for the Soviets, right?
	We know about the nuclear espionage, but there was a lot more than just that.
	And they didn't have the thing is, of course, not everything was sort of all interconnected.
	In a cyber-dependent world, now you don't even have to risk putting some guy, you know, having some penetration, a human plant, a double agent or somebody who's a turncoat, a spy.
	You don't have to have them in the Pentagon or in Langley or in the State Department.
	You can just do this from the privacy of your own home.
	If you're some foreign government-backed hacker group, see, this is also part of the complexity here.
	Well, if a hacking occurs, if it's from foreign soil, is it the do we blame the host government?
	Well, of course, that starts to get very difficult, doesn't it?
	Do we have a moment where we say, well, you know, clearly you're not doing enough here.
	We're going to hold you responsible.
	Remember, there is a doctrine out there now that acts of cyber warfare can be responded to as actual warfare, meaning with conventional means.
	So the possibility of this becoming an issue that doesn't just turn into data going over different wires and different systems and satellites and all the rest of it, but actually missiles, bombs, and guns is very real.
	And people are taking it seriously who look at the issue.
	But that Obama is telling us that, well, they've reached an agreement with the Chinese premier that they're not, they're just not going to do this anymore.
	I mean, come on.
	If you even put aside everything else we know about this, we know about how Obama has, in real terms and metaphorically speaking, you know, bowed to dictators around the world.
	If you put all that aside for a second and just look at the climate change conference, we're back to climate change again.
	The climate change conference that's going to be taking place, what is it, in Paris at the end of the year?
	Yeah, in Paris in December.
	And the president really, really wants, because you can't have a serious, quote-unquote, serious climate change agenda conference if the Chinese, the largest polluter in the world, don't sign on in some capacity.
	So just as everything else was put aside, for example, in the Middle East, because President Obama wanted to get that Iran deal signed, because, you know, Obama legacy.
	We see now with China this meeting, they're talking about getting rid of cyber espionage.
	But really, at the end of the day, what's President Obama's most important point, most important point here?
	That there's going to be cooperation with China on climate change issues.
	Everything else is secondary to that.
	Doesn't matter.
	And those of you who want to get a window into just how crazy it gets and left, you have Hillary opposing Keystone XL pipeline.
	And at one point, there were worries.
	You can go back six or eight months ago, and they were saying, well, Hillary's waffling on Keystone XL because she realizes that it's a to oppose it is nonsense.
	Even if you believe in the climate change, the climate change religion as such, it's going to come out of the, it's going to come out of the ground one way or another.
	It's just a question of where the pipeline goes.
	But Hillary wants those big money donations from environmentalists, so she comes out against Keystone because, one, it allows her to come from Bernie's left, so to speak, which is pretty astonishing that that's even theoretically possible, or at least she's trying to do that.
	And the other side of this, though, is it just shows you that this is an issue of mobilization for a very important part of the base, right?
	For the big check-writing donor base of the Democratic Party.
	And it's a legacy issue, too, because I think Obama actually does believe it.
	I think when he goes to the Coast Guard Academy and gives a speech and says to those who are serving their country, who are trying to keep the coast safe to try to do the things the Coast Guard does, that the biggest threat they face is climate change.
	That's so crazy as to be beyond political.
	Climate change is one of the places where you'll see the Democrats do things that don't immediately benefit them in the sense of with the voters, right?
	They will actually do things that are politically damaging because they believe it and because there are some very, very rich people that write very fat checks to those who will go along with this nonsense.
	But even when it comes to an issue like cyber espionage, which is allowing for other countries too, people talk about China and its role in this a lot, but it's not the only one.
	There are others who are certainly trying to do this, and we don't really even know how effective it is because the government, of course, doesn't want to, you know, foreign governments that get access to our stuff, well, they know about it, but we're not necessarily allowed to know about it because we can't know that the government's doing a really poor job of protecting our secrets.
	I mean, you will see things like this item from this week in Reuters that 5.6 million fingerprints were stolen in the U.S. personnel data hack.
	So not only do they have the personnel files on government employees now, but they also have fingerprints too.
	Gee, I wonder what they could do with that.
	Do any of my counterintelligence experts out there, any of my friends from the counterintelligence side of the IC, the intelligence community, want to just weigh in on that one?
	Because let me tell you, if you could get a huge roster of all the government employees from some country that you view as at least in opposition to, if not an enemy of your own state, that's a pretty big win.
	That's kind of an effective thing to have.
	And you get their fingerprints too.
	I wonder what you could do with that.
	It's definitely not going to work to put on a mustache and just sort of walk around and say you're somebody else if foreign government entities have your fingerprints, right?
	And people say, oh, well, who knows what these hackers are going to do or where the hacker comes from?
	Well, if the hackers know what they have is valuable, you know what they can do?
	No matter where they are in the world, they could always sell it to a foreign government, right?
	It could be very, very valuable.
	It could be an intelligence scavenger.
	You sort of pick off what you can.
	You sell it to the highest bidder, right?
	I know it sounds like some sort of James Bond villain conspiracy, but it's a pretty straightforward proposition.
	All of that, though, all of that secondary for the president right now to the issue of making sure that he earns that second Nobel Peace Prize, which you know is coming by getting a deal or some sort of agreement or whatever, some sort of a camera, a camera-worthy moment at the Paris climate change peace talks at the end of the year.
	All right, we'll take a break here.
	Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh.
	Back in just a minute.
	Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh, 800-282-2882.
	Also go to facebook.com/slash BuckSexton.
	If you wouldn't mind, check me out.
	I'm the national security editor and host on radio and TV ontheblaze.com, TheBlaze TV.
	You can check all that out when you get the chance.
	Please do.
	I wanted to point, actually, no, we have time for a call.
	Let's take Don in Cincinnati, Ohio.
	Don, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
	Thank you for calling.
	Hey, Buck, thanks for taking my call.
	Just wanted to tell you that I just saw on CNN, and I've seen you on CNN, and thank God you bring a conservative perspective from CNN.
	Thank you.
	And speaking of CNN, Peter King just came on and said that the John Boehner leaving was caused by a bunch of crazies in the House.
	And I kind of take offense to that because I guess that's crazy who's voted some of these people in.
	So I just wanted to get your take on that.
	Well, on Peter King saying this?
	Yeah, I mean, he's always been a very good representative, and he's always been very good on Homeland Security.
	But, you know, this is crazy, him saying that.
	Yeah, I'm just used to hearing it's sort of like him and Lindsey Graham have a competition for who tells us how much they hate ISIS more.
	So when he weighs it on something else, I'm like, oh, there's something else he wants to talk about.
	Yeah, if it wasn't been for the Tea Party and I guess us crazies, they wouldn't have control of the House or the Senate.
	So, you know, I think that's the only thing that's happening.
	But this goes back to the initial point.
	The thing that we could learn that conservatives, that the GOP must learn is stop betraying the base.
	The left does not do this.
	Yeah, they always stick together.
	Yeah, they respect their base.
	They don't play these games.
	They have discipline.
	If the Republicans would do like the Democrats, say, okay, you can go behind house doors and talk like that, but you can't come out and attack fellow conservatives right in front of the news cameras.
	Come on.
	But this is, again, people talk about, well, why is it that we lose sometimes when you look at the inability of Republicans of the GOP to understand where the people that they rely on for the very positions they have, where they stand on these issues, and to respect them on those issues, right?
	It's one thing to know.
	It's another thing to care.
	Maybe they know, but they don't care.
	I think some of them, by the way, don't even really know.
	They're so out of touch with it.
	They're so sort of enmeshed.
	They're so intertwined in that Beltway machinery.
	But yeah, Peter King is, look, he's, to put it simply, I think he's just wrong on this issue.
	I think that John Boehner, it was time for him.
	It was time for him to go.
	Clearly, Boehner kind of agrees.
	And hopefully we'll have some conservative leadership taking the reins.
	It's actually going to do.
	I'm not going to hold my breath on that, though.
	I mean, I'm not going to join in sort of the névete that often defines the Obama administration.
	So I don't think that's going to happen.
	Thank you for calling in, though, Don.
	Good to talk to you.
	And do we have time for one more?
	Or should I go?
	I think we have time for one.
	Yeah, we have time for one more.
	Let's do it, shall we?
	Bill, in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, you are on the Rush Limbaugh program.
	You're speaking to Buck Sexton.
	My point real quick is that the liberals have tricked us so that we can't make a moral argument when that's all they do.
	That's why they're so united on everything they do is because they're humanist and everything they want to progress is that our rights come from humans.
	Whereas with conservatives, we've given up the right to make the moral argument that our rights come from God, our creator.
	And so like, you know, the biggest way it's being undermined is with something like abortion, but it just stems all out from that.
	We can't make a moral argument.
	Our hands are tied because our government won't allow that, which is untrue.
	Well, everything they do, all their social justice, all their global warming, it's all about what's right for them.
	You know, they know what's right for you.
	They know how to fix your life.
	Yeah.
	One of the moral arguments.
	You know, Bill, thank you.
	Thank you, Bill, for calling in.
	One of the things that I think is frustrating for conservatives is that you have this sense, if you're just sort of paying attention and looking at recent history, that progressive victories are forever and conservative victories are temporary, right?
	That we're in a constant holding action, that we're always sort of defending in the red zone at this point because it's so much easier to make promises.
	It's so much easier to spend other people's money via taxation or via the other mechanisms of government redistribution, right?
	It's just easy to do those things.
	It's easy to make promises that you don't have to keep, that other people will, that future generations will.
	And so even if there's a sort of holding action, even if you had conservatives holding the line on these issues, which I think would be being far too charitable to them, overall, talking about the Congress, even if there was a united conservative front in the Congress right now, you could expect that it would be temporary based on what we've seen in the past.
	Where's the enduring conservative victory via government action?
	I mean, you could say inaction, but then you're definitely setting yourself up to be disappointed because that's always temporary.
	Where's the enduring conservative victory in recent years?
	In the last 10 years, the last 20 years.
	You tell me.
	We don't see it.
	Progressives have a lot that they're celebrating.
	The fundamental transformation of this country is in full swing.
	And that's part of why people are so upset with the lousy leadership coming in the Congress and other places, people who are supposed to be willing to fight, not find the quickest way to grease the most palms and make everybody who has access and cash to throw around happy.
	That's not what the GOP is supposed to stand for.
	And that's why people are finally saying enough.
	All right.
	I'll go to a break here.
	Buck Sexton.
	Be back in just a second.
	Buck Sexton here closing it out in for Rush Limbaugh on the EIB today.
	Quick poll.
	72% of Americans, according to Bloomberg, say that the country is not as great as it once was.
	You know, this is a point that I think the rest of the GOP candidates, other than one, should understand that when you talk about America being great and you all should be talking about it, don't make it sound like you're saying great like, yeah, honey, the meatloaf was great or you're in a pageant or something.
	Speak about what that actually means.
	Say why that's important.
	You say why you think that.
	Talk about how it means actually being proud, how it means winning, how it means achieving, how it means our allies and friends know they're on the good guy team and everybody else knows they should be worried.
	That's what great should mean for the rest of the GOP candidates out there.
	All right, so I just wanted to get that out.
	Also, please go to facebook.com/slash BuckSexton and follow me on Twitter at BuckSexton.
	I'll be on theblaze.com/slash radio all week.
	Coming up, thank you as always to Rush and his team.

▲