All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 5, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:37
January 5, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, how are you?
Rush Limbaugh, mind over chatter, starting a million conversations each day and revitalizing the American news cycle, frankly.
Face it, when I'm not here, it's just kind of boring out there.
I've had so many people tell me that.
I mean, the liberals even make up less news when I'm not here.
But I'm back now, so the cycle of normalcy has resumed and all is well.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program, the email address, lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
You know, I find it just, I don't know, some days this stuff bores the hell out of me, I have to be honest.
Some days it fascinates me.
And today, it mostly fascinates me because I remember we had the story, the Democrats made a tactical decision not to say Obamacare will lower the deficit.
As they were moving toward trying to get this thing voted on and passed, they had made a, it was a strategist for telling the Democrats to drop this claim that Obamacare would lower the deficit because nobody believed it.
They were doing focus groups and polls.
Nobody believed it going into the final stretch of the 2008 campaign.
And Eric Caddor said, you got 10 years of tax increases.
You got six years of more and ongoing benefits.
Of course, it makes it look like the reform lowers the deficit.
On top of that, Ryan said that they were double counting revenue in that televised meeting with Obama on the healthcare summit was total hooey.
If you remember, the CBO's estimate, financial estimate on the whole thing was based on new taxes included in the health care bill.
If the bill is repealed, those taxes go away.
Now, the CEO figure was this whole business of $143 billion saved.
Obamacare saves $143 billion.
That figure was obviously made up out of whole cloth just to give cover to members of Congress.
Even Pelosi said they're going to have to pass the bill to find out what was in it, and it was in her bill.
So how on earth could the CBO be expected to project how much it was going to cost?
They just made it all up.
Remember, the magic number was $1 trillion.
They had to keep the cost under $1 trillion.
Otherwise, they thought they'd lose the PR battle.
Yeah, they played all kinds of games.
Everybody knew the smoking, but why do 65% of the American people oppose this?
Because they know it's all a lie.
And so now all of a sudden, when the debt ceiling, the debt ceiling is a subject again, and deficit spending and getting it under control, all of a sudden now, we're back to this thing the Democrats wanted no part of in the first place was that Obamacare is going to reduce spending.
And it's going to reduce the news.
I mean, even the CBO folks admitted that the only way the health care bill would save money was if the health insurance penalty or tax was really high.
You know, the requirement that you pay 15% or more of your income for health insurance or go to jail.
That's the single most hated provision in the bill.
It's almost certainly unconstitutional, to say nothing of other aspects of it.
So just I'm glad they wait till I get back to start trying these tricks.
I really am.
I'm beginning to get my, it's probably very boring for people, not just this audience, probably very boring for everybody in the news cycle when I'm not here.
Because none of this stuff happens.
Sometimes big worldwide events take place, but I mean the normal hustle-bustle day-to-day stuff sorts of takes a break.
Now, back to this, and we're going to get to your phone calls quick here, I promise.
The Democrats are upset about so many things.
The Constitution's a fetish.
Scalia is going to come talk to members of the House about separation of powers.
They can't stand that.
And here from the New York Times.
Companies spend millions of dollars every year complaining to Congress about burdensome laws and regulations, pressing their concerns in public campaigns and private meetings.
They rarely wait for invitations.
But last month, a senior House Republican, Representative Darrell Issa, California, nevertheless dispatched letters to 150 companies, trade groups, and research organizations asking them to identify federal regulations that are restraining economic recovery and job growth.
Mr. Isa said the concerns of businesses had been ignored by the regime as it pursued what he described as an unprecedented regulatory expansion.
The responses have been predictable, but in asking, Mr. Isa also is underscoring the commitment of the new House majority to help bidness by curtailing government.
Kurt Bardella, spokesman for Mr. Issa, a lot of people have felt shut out of the process the last few years, and they have welcomed the opportunity to give input.
The rejoinder from Democrats was predictable.
Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee said in the statement, this is even more evidence that House Republicans are in the business of protecting corporate special interests instead of creating middle-income jobs.
Isn't ISA doing exactly what our elected representatives are supposed to do?
You know, when the Democrats reach out to their constituents, it's called listening or buying, listening tours, all that rot.
And now that ISA wants to hear from American business, what can we do to lower the burdensome regulation here and help you create jobs?
Somehow they get twisted around to pursuing corporate interests at the expense of jobs, according to Democrats.
So once again, the Democrats' hatred for the private sector surfaces and is on full display.
The White House apparently has flip-flopped again.
Last week, they were caught trying to sneak in the death panels, essentially.
A federal rule that Medicaid doctors, in order to get paid by Medicaid, Medicare, had to have end-of-life discussions with their seasoned citizen patients once a year.
What's an end-of-life discussion?
An end-of-life discussion is, all right, the day is going to come.
We're going to die.
And you may know you're going to die before you're going to die.
And we want you to figure out when it is you want to die so we pull a plug.
It won't be a burden on society on Obama or Obama's health care plan.
We got a lot of money to spend on a lot of people at some point.
Essentially, this would not be the words, of course, but the doctors have to say, look, at some point you're going to become a burden.
You're not productive.
You're old.
You're going to die anyway.
The money spent on you is not going to be spent on you because it's being wasted because you're going to die pretty soon.
So we'd rather spend health care money on younger people, have more of a chance to be productive and maybe vote for Obama a lot more times than you're going to be able to vote for Obama because you're going to die.
And people got wind of this and said, aha, ha ha.
The death panels are back.
Death panels are back.
And the regime said, no, they're not.
No, they're not.
Apparently, the criticism held because the regime has pulled out that requirement again today.
So, the New York Times U.S. alters rule on paying for end-of-life planning Obama dumps death panels as GOP prepares to go after Obamacare.
Of course, the question arises: why drop something that isn't there?
I mean, who was it that came up with the term death panel?
Do you remember, Dorne?
Sarah Palin, right?
Sarah Palin came up with the term death panel.
I think it was on her Facebook page.
And you know what people say about Sarah Palin?
She's an idiot.
Sarah Palin, don't make me joke.
Don't make me Sarah Palin.
She's inelective in a Pennsylvania.
Sarah Palin, never going to be president.
Sarah Palin, are you kidding me?
She isn't clueless.
Don't make me.
Sarah Palin came up with the term death panel.
Sarah Palin accused Obamacare of having death panels.
They denied it.
No, there aren't any death panels.
But yet the White House has now said, okay, we're going to get rid of the death panel rule.
How can you get rid of something that wasn't there?
Proving once again how stupid Sarah Palin is.
Hi, we're back with El Rushbow.
As usual, half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
I went to the emails during the break.
People, some people, not a lot, always focus on the people who have problems because they're the most fun for this purpose.
You really think doctors talk that way to their patients?
How dare you?
How dare you say that doctors talk to their patients, their senior citizens' patients?
I said they don't use those words.
Well, what's the point?
If you're going to have a federal requirement that doctors, in order to get paid by Medicare Medicaid, have to tell seasoned citizens about end-of-life counseling.
What do you think the conversation is?
About how long they're going to live?
Why does they even care about this?
What people found objective is the hard truth.
As Obama would rather spend money who are going to vote for Democrats a lot longer than senior citizens are going to vote for anybody because they're going to die.
Everybody knows these death panels were in there in the first place.
It's rationing.
It's the only way it can be done.
Everybody knows this.
And once again, the interesting thing about this is who is it that gets all the credit all the time for Democrats being so concerned about seasoned citizens and their social security and their health care?
And yet who is it?
I can't wait for them to get out of the way.
So they have to spend money on them because they're no longer worthwhile to anybody in terms of voters.
Don't doubt me on this, folks.
It may have been a little coarse the way I explained it, but that's the message being conveyed.
If you don't have the money to spend on your own health care, we don't either.
We have our priorities.
You better think about how you're going to go, when you're going to go, and who you want to be there when you go and who you want to know about it.
What is end-of-life counseling?
Remember when it was first brought up in the bill?
That phraseology was an end-of-life counsel.
What the hell is that?
Everybody knows what that is.
How many people dying do you think need to be told about it?
Well, what kind of counseling is there?
Well, I mean, there's the kind of counseling to deal with it emotionally, but politically?
And that's what this is all about.
Everything about this healthcare bill is political.
Don't for a moment think there's any compassion in this.
This is great.
This is from the blog at the Investors Business Daily.
Stenny Hoyer offered insight into the psychology of the Tea Party movement.
Here's what he said.
There are a whole lot of people in the Tea Party that I see in these polls who don't want any compromise.
My assumption is they have unhappy families.
All of you have been in families, single parent, two-parent, whatever.
Three-parent, same parent, multiple parents, stepfather.
Fact is, life's about trying to reach accommodation with one another so we can move forward.
It's certainly what democracy is about.
So if we're going to move forward, compromise is necessary.
You know, it's a compromise only necessary after Democrats lose.
But now, okay, Stenny, go ahead, just keep insulting the people that shellacked you and then wait for 2012 to come along.
Okay, so the Tea Party, rigid nonconformist ideologues, refusing to compromise, come from bad families.
I didn't think there were bad families, according to Democrats.
Family is anything you want it to be.
Family can be you and your goldfish, which is a carp, by the way, if that means anything to you.
To the phones, as promised to Jacksonville, Florida.
Rob, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello, sir.
Happy New Year and happy birthday, Rush.
Thank you.
Hey, I wanted to, you were talking about the Congress, Democrats, Congressional Democrats, and their arrogance and disdain for the Constitution.
I think that's fundamentally a religious problem.
They acknowledge no authority except themselves because they won't acknowledge God as the Creator and they won't acknowledge the Constitution and the people of the United States as their boss.
They are fundamentally arrogant.
They lie through their arrogance.
They will do anything to subvert this country and subvert the Constitution.
Well, I think you've got a basic understanding of who they are.
I mean, they're not godless.
It's just they have a different God than you and me.
The other question I had for you is, you know, even our so-called Republican conservative representatives, they always want to seek accommodation with them, even though we've told them we don't want accommodation.
We want you to say hell no to everything that's been going on for the last two years, and we don't want you to get along.
We want to overturn fundamentally everything they've done.
Be that health care, be that the curly light bulb stuff.
We just don't like what they've done, and they've got to answer to us, the bosses of the Congress and the president.
Oh, no, no, no, no.
They have answered.
They got shellacked.
But that only makes them hold you in more contempt.
That only makes you a bigger target for the next time they get their power back.
They find out you're a Tea Party.
If you're not from an unhappy family, they're going to make sure yours ends up unhappy.
Oh, you're right.
You're right.
Arrogance, condescension, part and particle of liberalism.
Sophia in my adopted hometown of Sacramento, California.
Here I talk.
Happy birthday next Wednesday.
I hope you enjoy it.
Thank you.
Well, Sophia, I just saw you.
You're 14 years old.
I just saw this on the computer screen.
Yeah, that's right.
14.
And you know when my birthday is.
Well, I am a rush, babe, so.
Well, thank you very much.
You sound like a very mature 14-year-old.
Why, thank you.
You're welcome.
So earlier we were talking about that you had a few clips of the, I don't know her name, sorry.
The lady who was talking about the Constitution and how people were like saying biblical, like how she was saying how that they were, she was like mocking them basically in the way that she was saying, oh, they were using it as biblical text.
Well, honestly, the Constitution is like what this country is.
And if it weren't for this country, she wouldn't have been able to even have said that without being persecuted probably severely in many other countries.
This country made her everything she is, and she dares to mock it.
It really, really, really grosses me out.
For example, like you, for example, are a great example.
You are just like, great, because you live the American dream, which is just fantastic.
Sorry, I'm kind of getting nervous here.
No, you're still doing great.
You don't sound nervous at all.
You just sound like you're in awe of me, and you don't need to be.
Well, I just like the Constitution is everything this country is.
Like, if it weren't for that, what would we be?
You know, like, how would this country have built anything?
That's exactly right.
If it weren't for what we were, we would be a dictatorship tyranny of some kind, like most of the people in this country have to live.
Honestly, if it weren't for America, Benjamin Franklin, I mean, not Ben, sorry, he's the one who like, yeah, invented electricity, like we still would be in, like, cavemen, you know?
I mean, we would be nothing.
Well, according to certain women, men still are, and you'll learn that as you grow older.
But I know that's not what you're talking about today.
Yeah, so I just, it just really grosses me out when people dare to mock the Constitution when it's everything they are.
If it weren't for the Constitution, they would be nothing, and they mock what they are.
It's an oxymoron, honestly.
Why do you think they do that?
I guess they think it's more powerful.
I guess they think that they're cool.
I don't know.
That's because they're afraid of it.
They are the people you're talking about, the Democrats, liberals, whatever, they will tell us who and what they fear by what it is they seek to destroy or what it is they endlessly criticize.
So they fear the Constitution, and they fear it for the very reasons that you have stipulated.
The Constitution, this is the cut-to-the-chase way to say it.
The Constitution is the greatest obstacle in their way.
What does the Constitution guarantee and preserve liberty and freedom for the individual?
That's the biggest obstacle to the left, not just in this country, but anywhere around the world.
Liberalism is liberalism, socialism is socialism, communism is communism, wherever the people who believe in that stuff are.
And individual liberty and freedom are the biggest threat to big government statists, liberals, and Democrats.
So, I mean, your education on this is superb.
Don't let anybody change your mind as you grow older.
And your instincts are profound.
Your parents have to be like we, we're extremely proud of you, I'm sure.
And I'm glad that you called.
It's great to have you on the program, and we will be back.
Constitution is a limit on government.
That, ladies and gentlemen, drives the left insane.
The limit on government.
They just can't abide it.
Drives them absolutely wacky.
Philip in Dallas, your turn.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Rush, I want you to take these people's contempt for the Constitution.
I want you to wield it like a club.
I want you to beat them over the head with it.
I wanted to remind you of, I don't know if you remember this, but in 2007, a left-wing publisher began putting warning labels on copies of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Paine's Common Sense, the Federalist Papers.
This was wilder publications.
And they put out a warning stating that this work is a product of its time and does not reflect the values as it would if it were written today.
The disclaimer goes on to warn parents that they might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this was written before allowing your children to read this classic work.
These people hate our country and our founding documents so much that they're putting warning labels on the Declaration of Independence.
Now, my brain's churning here, and I don't recall.
Maybe my memory is pretty good.
I don't remember.
I've been recording by Fox News in June of 2010.
I must not have been watching Fox News in June of 2010.
Well, no, I wasn't.
I got much more important things going on in June of 2010.
But I'm listening to you describe this, and I'm trying to suppress laughter, although it's outrageous.
Warningly, I mean, what a great parody that would be, except that they're already doing it.
Rush, I want you to take this issue, and I want you to beat them over the head every day with it.
I want you to embarrass them with their own contempt for our Constitution.
You think they're embarrassable over contempt for the Constitution?
If you found them every day, they are.
You can make these people look even dumber than they already look.
Well, if anybody can do that, it's certainly me.
Can I make one comment about the Mount Soledad War Memorial?
Oh, yeah, this is the found unconstitutional.
Yeah, go right.
This is the cross and the memorial that's been found unconstitutional.
Yeah.
Yes, memorial to our fallen war dead.
Hi.
Couldn't help but note the irony that in the same week, Al-Qaeda on their international websites had been circulating ideas on how Muslims could destroy the cross.
And I thought, what irony.
Al-Qaeda and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals are kind of working toward the same goals.
This is who they are, Rush.
Well, it's like, I know, I know it's when I've chronicled how I have heard Mahmoud Ahmadinezad talk about America, and I can swear what's the difference in that and Obama or Stenny Hoyer or any other Democrat.
The talking points between the totalitarian regime enemies of this country and the Democrat Party are identical in many ways.
Not just about policy, but about people.
You listen to your average Democrat talk about Bush.
It's no different than what Ahmedinezad says about Bush.
And I got everybody sending me that Fox story on the story that you cited out there, Philip, about warning labels.
By the way, what you read to me, you can, are you, Philip, are you still there?
Hey, Philip, or did he get well?
I'm here.
Read the warning label.
What about interpersonal relationships?
That part here.
Read that again.
The disclaimer goes on to warn parents that they might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this was written before allowing their children to read this classic work.
Classic work.
Now, when you read that disclaimer, Philip, do you conjure an image of the person who might have written it?
Not physically, of course, but who?
Yes.
Well, who?
I mean, obviously, somebody at a publishing company, individually, who is this person?
Give me a profile.
Someone who is badly in need of deodorant, a bath, probably remedial lessons in economics, probably desperately in need of education as far as American history, and someone who inexplicably supports a Stalinist version of government.
Okay.
Interesting.
I have a totally different take, but that's why I asked you.
I mean, not, you're right.
I mean, I wouldn't have thrown in the bath business, but the lack of education and the bias and the bigotry and so forth.
Yeah.
Yeah, it was written by a Democrat, Rush.
Well, of course.
Of course, there are many, many kinds of Democrats.
You could put warnings on an issue of Hustler magazine.
No, but one really isn't needed there.
Yeah, but we treat our founding documents like pornography and we treat pornography like that.
The left does.
The American left treats it.
And by the way, if you like it, how do you feel now being called one as a fetish?
Well, I had the same exact observation as you did.
They have to apply some kind of sexual stigma to any idea of fealty or loyalty to our Constitution.
They have to try to make me look bad or feel bad about it.
And these are the same people who are wanting to talk to your kindergarten child about gay sex.
It's not a fetish wanting us to adhere to the rules and the founding documents of our nation.
That's what guarantees our equality.
That's what enshrines our rights.
And, you know, if we're going to go the communist route, I'm not going to be around very long.
It ain't going to happen.
Ain't going to happen.
I mean, the American people here are awake and they are aware.
This is not 20 years ago when this program was.
If all this was happening 20 years ago, I guess take you back.
Let's go back to 1989, 90, 91.
If this exact stuff was happening, if for the first time the Democrats were talking about fetish for the Constitution, perverts and so forth, I guarantee you that the reaction to it would be much different.
There would be fear.
People wouldn't know what to make of it.
Oh, my gosh, what's happening?
But now there's so much sophistication about who the left is, why they say these things.
There's genuine, you're not getting hold of my country, pal.
You can put warning labels all over every document you want, but you're not getting hold of our country.
20 years ago, it was much different.
There was a, and even, 20 years ago, we were in the throes then of the soon-to-come upset in 1993, the 94 elections, rather.
So it's, I've been able to chronicle in 20 years how these things have changed.
And believe me, the American people, it's taken a while, but they're up to speed on what they're up against now and who's actually opposed to them.
So the more this stuff happens, and I remember 20 years ago when stuff like this was happening, I can't tell you how alarmed I was by it.
Scared.
No, my God.
And I go talk to people older than I who had lived longer than I and without fail.
Mr. Buckley was one of these things.
Don't worry about it.
The American people get up to speed on this eventually.
They're never going to get away with all they want.
And when the election of Obama came along, face it, everybody thought, oh my gosh, now they've finally done it.
But look, after two years of pure undiluted openness about who these people really are, look at the degree of opposition to it.
I mean, this election, again, I cannot emphasize what a genuine, overwhelming spanking this was for the Democrat Party all across this country.
Now, there need to be repeats of this for many elections in the future, not just this one time.
But it's a far cry different today, the reaction to this kind of stuff than it was 20 years ago, 20 years.
I can't believe this.
How dare they?
Who do they think they are?
What are we going to do about it?
Now it's a total, the outrage is still there, but there's not fear.
There is a determination to stop it.
And there is a, in some cases, laughing at these people.
And more and more of that is also starting to take place.
I must take a break, Philip.
Thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
We'll be back before you know it.
On the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Limboy here behind the golden EIB microphone.
ESPN has fired Ron Franklin.
You know who Ron Franklin is?
He's a college football announcer, radio and TV for ESPN.
He got fired for calling a female reporter sweet baby.
And not on air.
They were having a conversation off air about something, and she wanted to be part of the conversation.
And he said something like, This is for the men, sweet baby.
And she said, Don't speak to me that way.
Her name is Jean Edwards.
Don't speak to me that way.
I don't like to be spoken to that way.
He said, Okay, then this is for us.
Leave us alone, a caller, a bodily orifice.
And a colleague reported to him to ESPN.
He's canceled, he's pulled off a couple telecasts or radio broadcasts.
And then he issued an apology, but not to her personally.
So Ron Franklin is gone at ESPN.
Parting won't be sweet sorrow for the ESPN sports anchor.
No, it's not an anchor.
He's a play-by-play game telecaster.
He was fired after insulting a female colleague.
The ESPN spokeswoman told Game On that Ron Franklin's out because of his actions toward fellow announcer Janine Edwards last week during bowl game preparations based on what occurred last Friday.
We have ended our relationship with Franklin.
Franklin's 68 years old and still doing play-by-play in the ESPN booth.
Franklin issued an apology to Edwards for calling her sweet baby.
And then when she objected, amending it to that bodily orifice word begins with an A, which is probably worse than sweet baby.
I remember once, folks, I was severely reprimanded for calling a co-anchor on the news in Kansas City dear.
Yeah, I said, just we had a decent relationship.
Called her.
She didn't complain.
Somebody else did.
And then they said, if you say therefore one more time, you're fired.
I said, what?
Yeah, therefore, colors clutters the minds of the audience.
You can't say therefore.
If you do that, you're gone.
Anyway, they said that Ron Franklin's level of contrition was not satisfactory.
He wasn't sorry enough.
He didn't feel so bad about it to apologize to her personally.
He just issued an apology.
So he is going.
I can't, but sweet baby.
I mean, that wasn't on the air.
She's a sideline reporter.
Good Lord, what is she here down there?
Anyway, that's as far as I'm going to go with this.
You know how it is with ESPN.
You never know.
Roger Stephner, Florida.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Great to have you here.
Yeah, Rush, first-time caller, long-time listener.
I just want to make one point.
All the Democrats being interviewed on television today were saying how they wanted to focus on the economy, and the Republicans wanted to focus on health care.
Isn't that what they did last year at this time, right after Obama said he was going to focus on the economy like a laser?
That's what he said yesterday, too.
He said it yesterday, too.
Yesterday, Obama said jobs is his new focus.
This is about the fourth time.
He said jobs is his new focus, and he said he's going to listen to anybody who has a good idea about how to create them, which he said that before.
It's all smoke and mirrors.
But see, you're right.
You're catching it.
The Democrats care about jobs all of a sudden.
And Democrats claim the Republicans talk about health care is not focusing on the economy when it looks.
Nobody is being fooled by what the Democrats say now.
Everybody's catching it.
You're calling to comment on it.
Nobody's being bamboozled by it.
They don't get away with this like they used to.
That's a positive.
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
Well, I just wanted to point that out, you know, that all of a sudden they want to start focusing on the economy after they shoved that huge health care bill down our throats last year.
Well, you're right.
You're right.
Roger, I'm glad you called.
We move on.
Boehner, by the way, just, I guess election was long ago, hours ago.
Oh, oh, oh, there's Pelosi.
She's smiling.
She's opening some book.
She does not have a gun in her hand.
I just want to report that.
Boehner is standing next to her.
Look, our microphones are there.
Let's listen to a little bit of this as Pelosi introduces Boehner.
To the new members and their families, a special congratulations and welcome to you.
The eyebrows are not moving.
Great success.
Oh, they did just went up a little bit there.
Congratulations to you.
We all come here to represent our constituents.
Our respect for each other is founded in our respect for the people that we represent.
Yeah, new one.
This month we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the inauguration of John F. Kennedy as President of the United States.
As a student, I was there in the freezing cold.
For some of you, it was, you've read about it in the history books by Michael and I.
To us, it was our youth, right, Bob?
I was there in the freezing and heard the stirring address that inspired generations of Americans.
You must have forgotten what he said.
How in the world can she cite what JMK said?
1962 State of the Union address right from here, from this dais.
President Kennedy said to the Congress, the Constitution makes us all trustees of the American people.
She's a fetish.
She's got a Constitution fetish.
Did you hear this?
She is citing the Constitution.
As we take the oath of office to support and defend our Constitution, we do so as trustees of America's best hopes and custodians of America's highest value.
Okay, we got to bump out.
I cannot believe what a fetish this woman has for the Constitution.
She's referring to this as almost like it's a sacred biblical text.
I can't believe what I'm hearing.
I guess I guess JFK was a fetishist, too.
She's quoting JFK in the Constitution.
And we know now that people respect the Constitution.
It's a fetish that they have.
And don't forget, JFK's inaugural address was basically a declaration of war on communism.
And that's really why I find it really strange that Democrats today, well, I know why they cite Kennedy.
It's not because of what he says, because of his last name and a number of other things.
She's still up there refusing to pass everything over to Boehner system.
We're kids, first woman speaker, introducing half the families in San Francisco and all that.
▲
Export Selection