RUSH: Here’s Ben in Manhattan as we stay with the phones. Welcome, sir, great to have you here.

CALLER: Hey, good day, sir. Oh, what a thrill, the EIB is an addiction, isn’t it, Rush?

RUSH: It really is. It doesn’t take long, either; does not take long. Once you get it, you can’t get rid of it. There’s no rehab.

CALLER: Well, we’re loving it, you know. We’re not liking it, we’re loving it.

RUSH: I appreciate that, sir, very much.

CALLER: Well, I called so that we may please have a discussion on three reasons why the same thing couldn’t happen here in our country where a conservative-talking fellow, Jewish or otherwise, could be elected in the face of massive election “frigging. ” Now, election “frigging”, of course, is that combination of election “fraud” and election “rigging” that has taken our elections since 1960 into the hands of the communists. And now, in this one in Israel, Soros and Jarrett –Valerie Jarrett, born in the town of Shiraz in the country of Iran — sends 67 operatives, you know? Who was this guy? What’s his name?

RUSH: I don’t know.

CALLER: Jeremy. Jeremy, you know? Jeremy… Help me here. You know.

RUSH: (silence)

CALLER: You gotta work with me on this call, Rush.

RUSH: Ian, you’re not talking about what you said you wanted to talk about. You didn’t tell me you wanted talk about communists and Valerie Jarrett born in Iran or any of that. You wanted to ask how can a conservative win in America if one can win in Israel, and I was prepared to discuss that, but that’s not where you’re going. I’m not comfortable with where you’re going about communists and Valerie Jarrett, and I don’t know where this is gonna end up. But it isn’t where you said you wanted to talk about.

Now, if anybody wants to talk about this election, you’re telling me you don’t think a conservative can win here — that’s what I heard you say — because election “frigging,” as you call it. I wholeheartedly disagree with that. Scott Walker has shown it can be done. That’s my whole point. I’m starting to sound like a broken record here. It can happen. I don’t care if Valerie Jarrett came from Iran, and I don’t care if she’s in the White House, and I don’t care if they’re screwing around with elections. They can be beat.

We beat them in 2010. We beat them in 2014. Obama’s not gonna be on the ballot again. Hillary can be beat if she is the nominee. I’m not interested in talking to people who don’t think we can win. We certainly can. There are examples of it all over the place. The recipe is very easily discerned. The real obstruction, the real problem to a conservative becoming elected president is not Valerie Jarrett and election fraud. It’s the GOP. You have to nominate one.

The nomination process has to happen, a conservative candidate has to get nominated. If a conservative candidate is nominated in 2016, we’re gonna win. No two ways about it. The evidence is clear. It has happened before. It can happen again. No matter where Valerie Jarrett is or where she came from. No matter where George Soros is and how much money he spends. This can be beaten because it has happened, and it can happen again.

Grab audio sound bite number seven, Barney Frank. What is he doing now? He quit Congress. I don’t know. Is he working for Dolce & Gabbana? Oh, he’s got a story in Politico, his life as a… I thought he was working with Dolce & Gabbana. Okay, well, anyway. He was on the Huffing and Puffington Post’s blog, or they’ve got a live video podcast or something

This was yesterday. He was talking with the host Alyona Minkovski. I wonder where she was born. Sounds like she’s from a communist country, too. Alyona Minkovski. Gotta be beware of her. She was interviewing Barney Frank, and this probably hidden communist plant, as I’ve learned from the previous caller. Alyona Minkovski said to Barney Frank, “So what are your thoughts about Scott Walker?”

FRANK: Scott Walker is dangerous. We talk a lot about diminishing inequality. That will not happen if we do not strengthen labor unions. Scott Walker is bragging about his assault on — on unions. In fact, he preposterously claimed that the fact that he’s been so tough on unions will intimidate the Islamic State and Putin. Hey, listen, I didn’t take any crap from these janitors, so you better get out of Ukraine. Ludicrous intellectually, but dangerous politically.

RUSH: What in the world is he talking about? Did you hear that? Gotta take a break, but we’re gonna come back to this.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: So Barney Frank said that Scott Walker is bragging that his assault on unions has been so tough, that it’s gonna intimidate the Islamic State and Putin? (laughing) Hey, listen, I didn’t take any crap from these janitors, so you better get out of Ukraine.” (laughing) Barney Frank.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Of course I was not kidding. I firmly believe a conservative candidate can beat whoever the Democrats nominate in 2016. Do you realize, folks, there’s, I think, a pretty hard, cold reality out there. We talk about Millennials a lot, people 18 to 34, even up to 40, do you realize people in that age-group have never had the chance to vote for a conservative Republican candidate? Reagan was it. I know George W. Bush in 2000 ran as a quasi-Reaganite, but in 2004 that kind of went off the table because events had taken over the Bush presidency, and it wasn’t in any way known ideologically.

The fact of the matter is conservatism is just waiting to explode here right in front of and as part of a new generation of people. And I think if it happened, if we get a conservative candidate who can articulate it, who has a policy record of implementation that can show success, I think it’s Katie, bar the door.

You know, a lot of people are pessimistic about Republican Party chances, understandably. The Republicans haven’t nominated conservatives. It’s not to say conservatives haven’t tried. There have been a lot of them. They’ve watered down the field, they’ve divided the vote, and the centrist or RINO, Rockefeller Republican candidate ends up getting the nomination. In some cases the conservative nominee is aced out by virtue of chicanery with other nominees. But it could happen. And if it did, I think, just as Netanyahu won a landslide, I think a conservative candidate in this country would, too.

The 2010, 2014 midterms illustrate it to me. They show the possibility. I know those are not presidential turnout years. By that, I mean the full scope of a Democrat candidate turnout doesn’t show up in midterm elections. I’m not living under any illusions. But I think one of the reasons that the left is so discombobulated today and in general, look, Obama is a failure in a major, humongous way. He does not have massive approval numbers. He does not have overwhelming popularity. He may be succeeding implementing his agenda, but people don’t want it.

The left has to be happy with the fact that Obama’s found a way to do it without public support, but, believe me, they would rather have — well, not rather. But they would love to have public support for this. They don’t have it, and they know it. They know they’re against the grain. They know they’re constantly governing, campaigning, implementing against the grain of the American population.

Now, that’s not always gonna be. The American population is undergoing massive demographic change. That’s why the Democrats are so eager for amnesty. This is one way, one of many ways, that they can eventually, in their minds, anyway, get to the point where they have a genuine majority of support for what they’re doing. Right now and up ’til now they’ve always had to govern, for the most part when they get in gear, against the will of the American people.

Now, I know you’re thinking, “Well, how do they keep winning elections?” Well, you know as well as I do. They don’t campaign honestly. They don’t tell people what they’re gonna do. You think if Obama had been honest about his intentions, he would have won? There’s no way, folks. And I’m not living in fantasy land with this. There’s simply no way. Otherwise Obama would have been honest. They can’t be yet. They haven’t gotten there yet. There is still time to beat this back. It’s one of the reasons I remain optimistic about it.

I want to go back to this Barney Frank, these two sound bites. He’s on the Huffing and Puffington Post, and he was asked — they’re worried about Scott Walker. Why are they worried about Scott Walker? Here’s an obscure governor from Wisconsin that’s in the northern middle part of the country. They look at him as kind of a geek. He’s a nerd. Scott Walker, who is he? They’re discombobulated by it because the guy has handed their hat to them three out of four elections, big time, and they are worried about it.

So that’s why Barney Frank is being asked about it, about Walker’s candidacy. Are we worried, Barney? Should we be worried about Scott Walker?

FRANK: Scott Walker is dangerous. We talk a lot about diminishing inequality. That will not happen if we do not strengthen labor unions. Scott Walker is bragging about his assault on — on unions. In fact, he preposterously claimed that the fact that he’s been so tough on unions will intimidate the Islamic State and Putin. Hey, listen, I didn’t take any crap from these janitors, so you better get out of Ukraine. Ludicrous intellectually, but dangerous politically.

RUSH: All right, now, let me go through this just a second here, because Barney meant to say every word he said here. “We talk a lot about diminishing inequality, but that will not happen if we don’t strengthen labor unions.” There’s the first myth right there. Labor unions don’t hold nearly the percentage of jobs in America that they used to. They’re at an all-time low and they’re losing even more.

Walker just signed into law right-to-work law in Wisconsin, which means that union workers’ dues are not automatically disbursed in ways the union member doesn’t approve of, and a number of other factors of course in right-to-work. Walker has been extremely effective in eliminating the political chokehold in Wisconsin that unions have, even with their deteriorating numbers.

Now, the private sector union membership is way down. Government sector is huge. That’s where unions today still maintain a stranglehold, if you will, but he has dealt serious blows to both segments of unions. So here’s Barney saying, well, we talk a lot about diminishing inequality, meaning getting rid of the inequality of income and wealth and all that. And he says it won’t happen if we don’t strengthen unions. Well, that’s a myth. People who are members of unions do not — I’ve gotta be very careful here because I’m a free choice guy.

If you want to work for a union, be a member, fine and dandy. I am not the guy to tell anybody you can’t, shouldn’t, don’t want to do anything. But that’s not the route to getting rich, unless you run the union, and you have your hands on all the money before it gets disbursed. But as a unionized employee, unionizing people is not gonna change the gap between the rich and the poor. Entrepreneurism is gonna do that. Productivity’s gonna do that, not unions.

But Barney has to be loyal to unions ’cause they send so much money to Democrats. That’s what the real fear is, is with the reduction of union power and the reduction of a union workforce, the amount of money that can make a beeline to the Democrat Party is gonna — Look, unions are just a money laundering operation for the Democrat Party is really what it is, and that’s what’s threatened. And I don’t mean it’s a criminal enterprise. It’s just union money ending in Democrat campaigns, it’s a money-laundering operation in effect.

Works this way. Let’s say you’re Barack Obama. You can’t yet go to the Treasury and just write yourself a check. You can’t just go to the Treasury and write a check to the Democrat Party for campaign money. That day may come, but it isn’t there yet. So how do they do it? Well, Obama comes up with something called stimulus, 700, $800 billion, almost a trillion dollars. And he lies, tells everybody the money is gonna be used on rebuilding roads and bridges and schools, infrastructure, and it’s gonna create jobs, and it’s gonna help us come out of our recession.

So people go, “Yay, yay, stimulus, baby, right on, dude.” But no schools get built, no roads get repaired, no bridges get repaired, and no jobs are created. So what happens to the money? Ahhh, where does it go? It went to the unions! It went to state employees, members of unions. It kept them employed during the recession. Those union people needed to remain employed so that they would continue to pay dues. How much of that $700, $800 billion stimulus actually came back to the Democrat Party in the form of union contributions?

That’s what I mean by money laundering. I don’t mean a criminal enterprise. It’s just Democrats need some campaign money, funnel it to the unions under the guise of the stimulus program, and that’s what it was. And it’s not new. They’ve been doing it forever. If they day ever comes where a majority of people figure that out then the Democrat Party’s gonna be in trouble, and that’s why they’re so protective of unions and that’s why they’re so loyal to them. It has nothing to do with people staying employed for — it’s all about Democrats getting money. Free money. It’s essentially the way the Democrats raid the Treasury.

So Scott Walker comes along and implements a whole bunch of policies in Wisconsin that strip unions, public and private, of a lot of power. And that sends chills up the spines of Democrats. And that’s why they’re scared of it because they tried to take him out any which way they knew. Three different times. They attacked him and his family, and you know the drill. He hung in there, we won every election, and after he won the election he had the audacity to actually implement his agenda.

And then, to add insult to injury, his agenda actually did what he said was it was gonna do. He cut taxes, he created a state surplus, and he ended up cutting taxes for people, all the while expanding the number of people with jobs. Conservatism. Works every time it’s tried. Therefore, Scott Walker is somebody they really, really are afraid of, because, among many other things, they’ve discovered they cannot intimidate him.

Now, I don’t know if Scott Walker actually is running around saying that he’s been so tough on unions that it will intimidate the Islamic State and Putin, but I wouldn’t mind if he were. I think it’d be hilarious. And Barney’s reaction, “Hey, I didn’t take any crap from these janitors, so you better get out of Ukraine,” that’s his interpretation of what Scott Walker means. Is a union job a janitor, Barney? Is that what you really meant to say? It sounds like you’re kind of cutting down that line of work.

I thought union members were God’s gift? I thought union members were the backbone of America. Why do you call ’em janitors here, Barney? At least call ’em custodial engineers, vision control coordinators or something. And then get this. The next question from the host on the Huffing and Puffington Post, Alyona Minkovski, “Barney, would you support Elizabeth Warren if she ran for president 2016?”

FRANK: I do support Elizabeth Warren in 2016. That is, I support her very intelligent decision not to run for president. I think they do her a disservice because she is a tremendous force for good. If she were a presidential candidate, she would lose a lot of the credibility that she now has. People in the media and others would be discounting her as just, oh, one more self-seeking politician. At this point, she’s a very independent voice occupying that important position.

RUSH: Really? Is the institution of the presidency now so damaged that it’s a step down? I mean, old Barney here said that if she were a presidential candidate, she would lose a lot of the credibility she now has ’cause people in the media would be discounting her as just one more self-seeking politician. At this point, she’s a very independent voice, occupying an important position.

In other words, Elizabeth, don’t run. We don’t want to lose you, babe, don’t run. Does this make sense to you? Running for president will diminish her? Running for president will reduce her impact, lessen her impact and power?