The case for Term Limits

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Okay, it's official. Now the Republicans have retained control of
the House of Representatives. They have hit the magic number
of two hundred and eighteen. They will have a majority.
So it is a complete clean sweep the House, the Senate,

(00:23):
the Presidency, and of course the Supreme Court. Every branch
of government is now not just in Republican control, but
in maga Republican control. And that's why we want to
make sure that Soon and Cornyn are not voted in

(00:43):
as the next Speaker, as the next forgive me majority
leader in the Senate sixty one seven two six six
sixty eight, sixty eight. You can also text us seven
zero four seven zero. This is from Vicky on messenger
and this is what she messaged me. Jeff, you mentioned
you didn't know why McConnell didn't schedule this vote earlier,

(01:06):
like a couple of days after the election. Remember he
couldn't he thought they'd still be counting the votes to
confirm Kamala. I'm sure he was totally surprised when they
called the elections so quickly. Bingo, VICKI absolutely, you're right,
because if he could have set this up on Thursday

(01:28):
or Friday of last week, McConnell would have done it.
Many of you are asking me very quick, Jeff, what
are Thune's positions and mccorn's positions on things like Ukraine
and war. They're both warmongers. They're both big supporters of

(01:48):
unlimited aid to Ukraine. They are both considered neo conservatives.
Both of them are. Cornyn is actually even wre in Tune.
Corn In is pro gun control, corn In is open borders,
corn In is pro amnesty for illegals. Thune is not

(02:11):
quite that bad because he comes from you know, South
Dakota is a solidly red state. Texas is redish, it's pink,
but South Dakota is rock hard red. And so there's
stuff that Cornn you know, can get away with that
Thune can't. But they are both warmongering neocons who want

(02:35):
war in Ukraine, war against Iran, war all over the world.
And that's another reason why we can't have them become
the next Senate majority leader. How in New Hampshire, thanks
for holding hal and welcome.

Speaker 2 (02:52):
Hey Jeff, Hey, Jeff, Yeah, I want to have to
disagree with you on the term limits, and there's quite
a few reasons why. Of course, it sounds very appealing
at first view, but if you give it some consideration.
First off, it will give us a permanent lane duck Congress,
which would be kind of a dangerous thing. That's I
think one of the major issues of that. It also

(03:15):
gets the good with the bad, so you got guys
like Rand Paul that will be limited out just as
much as Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. And the other
thing is it doesn't change the ideological makeup because you
get rid of Nancy Pelosi, you're not going to get
a Ron Paul to fill her place. You're gonna get
someone probably just as bad. And look at Maine, for example,

(03:38):
they have term limits at the state level, and they
had a pretty good governor, PAULA. Page. He was limited out,
and now they're stuck with this horrible governor and they
don't seem and she'd be out next term, but you
know she's done her damage. So it sounds appealing, but
when you give it a little more thought. But you know,
our founders were brilliant, and I think you agree with that.

(04:00):
They gave us term limits at the ballot box every
two years. We can we can have a complete new
house and one third of the Senate and of course
state and local office as well. So I think the
dangerous thing with this term limit movement is a call
for an Oracle five convention, which could be very dang

(04:20):
And that's what some of these term limit people are pushing,
and they're working with left wing groups to do that.
You can I sat in and testified again and show
evidence of that. You know these people work. There's a
group called Wolfpack out of by Chink Yuger that's promoting
an arc of five convention, and these people with term limits,
you will say, are actually working together with that pulsive

(04:43):
human being.

Speaker 1 (04:44):
Hell, look, this is I mean, you're making obviously a
very intelligent, very coherent, very logical, honestly very reasonable argument,
and people can agree to disagree. The reason why I
support term limits is I go back to our founding fathers. Now,
it wasn't encoded in law. You're right, but you know

(05:04):
George Washington came out and said, no, I'm serving two terms.
That's it. Two terms is enough. And the reason why
he said two terms is enough he goes anything more
than two terms begins to have a corrupting, corrosive influence.
And Thomas Jefferson followed and then James James Madison, and
that was the standard, the precedent that existed until FDR,

(05:28):
who served, as you know, four terms, four three and
a half. He died very early in his fourth term.
And I would argue he was the worst president we
ever had. Really, I could easily make that out. Now
Biden has probably passed him. But if you look at
what FDR did, FDR did incalculable damage, almost irreversible damage

(05:49):
to our constitutional republic. Okay, many of you are texting
the Kooner Man again. You can text us seven zero
four seven zero seven zero four to seven zero saying Jeff,
please can you give out that number to call the
Capitol Hill switchboard. We want to talk to every Republican
senator we can before the all important vote tomorrow two

(06:12):
oh two two two four thirty one twenty one two
zero two two two four three one two one. Light
up their phones. A lot of you are getting back
to me saying, Jeff, it's going straight to voicemail. That's
no problem. Just leave a Please be polite, but firm,
and just you know, let them know who you we

(06:34):
want Rick Scott and if you vote for Thoon or
Cornyn We're gonna remember, we want to change the way
Washington works, and the swamp must be drained. And to
drain it, we don't want swamp creatures to run it.
It's really that simple. Six one seven two six six
sixty eight, sixty eight agree, disagree, Janet in brain Free.

(07:01):
Thanks for holding, Janet, and welcome.

Speaker 3 (07:05):
Good morning, Jeff, Janet. I have I have a question
about the the vote for term limits. I'm not to
vote for term limits.

Speaker 1 (07:16):
But Senate leadership, but the term.

Speaker 3 (07:19):
Limits in general and things like pay raises. Uh, why
do we leave this in the hands? You know, these
decisions in the hands of Congress. They are our employees
and and I understand that there are the greedy and
the power hungry who want to be able to control

(07:41):
these decisions. But why can we not rest that control
from them?

Speaker 1 (07:49):
We can? We just don't.

Speaker 3 (07:52):
How how can we? I mean, we've we've voted Trump
and we've given him a mandate. We can make these
phone calls and push them to elect a leader who
is in line with the policies that we voted for.
Other than that, I mean, why is that? Why is

(08:13):
this not on the ballot?

Speaker 1 (08:18):
Well, I mean, look, I mean, look Trump can only
do so much in four years. But to get to
your point, this is now what I mean, have a
This is a once in a generation chance, and I
don't want to blow it. I really don't, and I
don't think we will. By the way, I think Trump's
going to be incredibly successful because what comes after Trump

(08:38):
is going to be JD. Van's I mean, I don't
want to look too far into the future, but he
is the presumptive heir, he's the vice president. He agrees
with so much of Trump's agenda. He's particulate, intelligent, a
great spokesperson. We're looking at twelve years of MAGA rule,
America First rule, and I think term limits will come.

(09:02):
I think it's inevitable. Now. I think most people, most
voters are going to demand it. They're going to insist
upon it, and they're going to demand that it get passed,
both in the Senate and in the House. And I
think the American people are going to say enough is enough.
We don't want politicians to be there for an entire lifetime. Now, look,

(09:23):
the counter argument, Janet is what what how made? And
he makes a very good argument. And look, it goes
back to the nineteenth century, just very quick. There were
three outstanding senators. They're called a great triumvirate, Daniel Webster
from Massachusetts, Henry Clay from Kentucky, and John Calhoun from

(09:43):
South Carolina. And the reason why they almost like dominated
American politics for forty years because they were actually better, smarter,
and more well known than any of the presidents during
which they lived, and they so defended and articulated the
interests and values of their regions. Calhoun the South, Webster

(10:07):
the Northeast, which was now really the economic power in
the country at the time, and Clay the rising West.
So the argument that people made was, well, if you
have term limits, you're not going to have a Henry Clay,
You're not going to have a Daniel Webster, You're not
going to have a John Calhoun. Or today they'll say, hey,
you're not going to have a Ran Paul. Right, you're

(10:29):
not going to have But you know, the counter argument is,
those are the exceptions that prove the rule. We're talking
about three men in the entire nineteenth century. We're talking
about what, let's throw in Josh Hawley, and we can
throw in a few more, but basically, what are you
looking at four five members of the Senate out of

(10:51):
a body of one hundred. Let's look at the House
of Representatives. You can throw in what maybe ten fifteen,
let's really stretch it. Truly honest, decent, patriotic members of
Congress who aren't there to line their pockets or corruption
or power, or that really are there to do the

(11:13):
people's business. Well, that leaves another four hundred and twenty.
So you're looking at four hundred and twenty corrupt individuals
just in the House, ninety to ninety five in the Senate.
And you wonder why we're in the mess that we're in.

(11:33):
And Janet, that's why to me, term limits. I'm not
saying it's the magic bullet. I'm not saying, oh, we
have term limits and oh, you know, it's a utopia
in America. But if you're only going to be here
for two terms or I don't know, let's say three
or four terms in the House, let me tell you
what this prevents, which is what you're seeing now all

(11:54):
the time. What are called political entrepreneurs. That's what Lizabeth
Warren really is. That's what Mitch McConnell at his core, really,
John Thune, Corn and Pelosi, I could go on and on. Oh,
I really want to be I want to be incredibly wealthy,
rich and powerful. Huh. Well, I'm not really that smart

(12:18):
and I really can't invent the product.

Speaker 4 (12:21):
Naw.

Speaker 1 (12:21):
I'm really horrible at the private sector. Nah, I don't
want to work that hard. Uh you know, how do I?

Speaker 4 (12:27):
So?

Speaker 1 (12:28):
How do I do it? Ah? Get into politics. And
if I can just lie enough and be brazen enough,
and be sleazy and corrupt enough, have no conscience, no scruples,
and screw my country and my constituents, lie at their faces,

(12:49):
I can become fabulously rich. So Janet, for example, I
mentioned Elizabeth Warren. Do you know how hard it is
for someone to make sixties to be worse sixty seven
million dollars? Like just the business people out there. I
mean I'm talking contractors, I'm talking people who break their back. Okay,

(13:13):
running a business, a successful business. They're putting in eighty
ninety one hundred hours a week. They got to meet payroll,
They're dealing with employees, they got to deal with the government, regulations, paperwork, stress.
I mean it's and and you know, if they make
a couple million, they're like they struck it rich this

(13:35):
sixty seven million, easy money. You just got to be
a whore, or, to be more accurate, a political mercenary. Okay,
because I don't want it to complain to the FCC
and have them now want me off the air, because
God forbid, I called them for what they are. So
if you're willing to prostitute your country, and you're willing

(13:58):
to essentially prostitut yourself, you can make a ton of
money in politics. But you need time. You got to
be on this committee and that committee, and Greece this
person and Greece that person and cut this deal and
cut that deal. You can't do that in a year
or two or three or four. So what happens is
once you have term limits, it's sort of like we

(14:22):
I got two terms. I'm not going to make a
lot of money. So they go somewhere else. Now wherever
they go, I don't care what it is. At least
they're not stealing from you and they're not stealing from me.
And that's why I think term limits is to me,
a necessary reform. Final word to you, Janet, I actually.

Speaker 3 (14:45):
Agree with you. I support term limits because I believe
that that it will attract people who truly want to
serve the American people. But my point is that I
don't believe the decision, these types of decisions should be
left to these people because they are so corrupt. Right now,

(15:09):
we need the American people need to have a say
at the ballot box on this. When they want to
raise their pay one more time on our backs, we
should have a say as to whether or not they
get to do that, because twelve years down the road
after JD Vance, what if we get a Democrat in

(15:31):
office again, and which it will happen and they get
a mandate. What happens when they have a mandate and
then they get rid of term limits. So I believe
that as the employer, we should decide whether or not
we want to keep, you know, give these people more

(15:54):
and more chances.

Speaker 1 (15:56):
Agree to cheat. I so agree, Jenet, And that's why
I think we need a constitutional amendment. I think that's
the way you make it really rock hard, permanent, and
you know, and if the people want it, and I
think they do, then I think it's time for us
to mobilize and achieve it. Because you're right, we need
term limits, and you know, think about it, it's like,

(16:18):
you know, the the fox is guarding the Henhouse. All
these corrupt politicians were going to depend on them to
limit themselves. I mean, you know, look, I'll tell you.
When I was covering politics for the Washington Times for
over a decade, common expression on Capitol Hill politics is
a license to print money. Okay, Trump has now done

(16:40):
the impossible. He not just has pulled off the greatest
political comeback in American history. He not only has he
flipped the Senate back into Republican hands, but they've actually
now held this the House of Representatives as well. So
it broke late last night. The Republicans have finally hit

(17:01):
that magic number two hundred and eighteen votes in the House.
So under Trump, when he is inaugurated, they will control
the House. They will control the Senate, the White House obviously,
and the Supreme Court, every single branch of government. Trump
now has a unique chance, a window, an opportunity once

(17:26):
in a generation to turn this country around decisively. Six
one seven two six six sixty eight sixty eight. That's
why fingers crossed. Let's get the right Senate majority leader
in there tomorrow. All important closed door secret vote. Three

(17:48):
candidates to replace Mitch the Squish McConnell turtleneck, as I
call him. It is John Thune who's now believed to
be the presumptive front runner. He is basically a McConnell
clone rhino. John Cornyn from Texas is apparently running in
second place, and Trump conservative Maga conservative Rick Scott is

(18:13):
now running third. Apparently he's got the support of only
eleven senators. You need twenty seven to win the Senate
Republican leadership. So let's melt their phone lines. People have
been calling all morning. This is the Capitol Hill switchboard.
You can call or speak to any Republican senator you want.

(18:36):
Go after him. I mean politely, nicely, obviously, but let
them know that the days of the swamp are over.
The days of the rhinos and the globalists are over.
Thoon and Cornyn must not be allowed to win. We
want Rick Scott. Two two two two four thirty one

(18:57):
twenty one is the number to two two four three
one two one. Sandy in New Hampshire. Thanks for holding, Sandy,
and welcome. Did we lose, Sandy? Okay, let's go to
John in New Hampshire. John, thanks for holding and welcome.

Speaker 5 (19:21):
Hey, thanks for having me today.

Speaker 1 (19:23):
Go ahead, John, flora is yours.

Speaker 5 (19:26):
I'm a unique perspective. I'm a Republican. I'm also a
support of the Trump administration. But I wanted to briefly
touch on my perspective on the plans for mass deportations.

(19:46):
I know quite a few immigrants and people who have
come here in the last few years, and some of them.

Speaker 4 (19:52):
Their stories are really unique and they came from horrible
living experiences back home, particularly Latin America for example. I
am in total agreement with departing the criminals and those
people who are here who are breaking law and abusing

(20:13):
the system, and who are terrorists, especially the known terrorists,
the people that we've allowed in this country. But to me,
we have a unique opportunity to allow some of these
people to stay here and turn them into Republican voters.
And from my perspective, these people they were encouraged to

(20:34):
come here by the Democratic Party and mayorcists, etc. So
for me, my point is, let's not send all of
these people home, back to their terrible lives back wherever
they came from. Some of them are here to work,
to pay taxes and for a better life, and for me,

(20:55):
it would make sense to turn them in to Republican
voters because of right now, obviously we know that they've
been allowed into this country, they've received benefits, not all
of them. I know for a fact that not all
of them are getting benefits. One person in particular, I
know she's working. She's saying tax is making fourteen dollars

(21:17):
an hour. She has not received a free telephone of
no payouts of any kind. She just wants to work
and have a better life, escape the violence that she
experienced back home. So again my point is why.

Speaker 1 (21:31):
John, Sorry, I don't mean to cut you off. Is
she here legally or illegally?

Speaker 4 (21:37):
She entered the country illegally.

Speaker 1 (21:39):
So how is she able to work?

Speaker 5 (21:41):
Then?

Speaker 1 (21:41):
Does she wants to have a fake Social Security number? Correct?

Speaker 4 (21:45):
No, she has a real Social Security number because she's
gone through the legal process of having her status changed.
So she's here legally now. But her circumstance when she
came here was you know, illegal entry. But she did
go through the process, the legal process of correcting that
and having her status changed through the courts.

Speaker 1 (22:10):
John, We're going to tackle that tomorrow.