All Episodes
Previous Next
June 5, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:31
June 5, 2013, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
On the cutting edge of societal and political evolution, Rush Limbaugh back at you and finally back with you here at the distinguished and prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
And it is great to be back, folks.
I mean, I was born to do this.
I'm so lucky.
I'm able to find him, be able to do what I was born to do.
I just.
Telephone number, you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
I got some emails during the break.
Rush, you've been gone a week and there's all kinds of stuff happening.
Why aren't you?
I did talk about it the first 15 minutes.
Folks, let me explain.
Susan Rice, I don't care.
I'd rather tell you what's important down the road.
The Susan Rice appointment is in your, you're supposed to be mad.
Obama is relishing you getting mad.
How dare he?
The fact that this woman lied to the country and lied to the Republicans about Benghazi and he promotes her is exactly what he wants.
James Carville's out there even says, yeah, it's an in-your-face appointment.
He wanted her to be Secretary of State, but the Republicans never confirmed her.
So this is what he's doing.
He's in your face.
All right.
He likes her.
She is him.
There's nothing that's going to stop it.
And the same thing with Samantha Power.
These people are who they are for five years.
My point in all of this, there'd better be some stand-up pushback to some of this at some point, rather than just expressing outrage.
Now, one of the reasons I want to tell you about this piece I read on California, I want to add to it, this Matthew Continetti piece.
What happened to California?
There is no Republican presence there at all.
There is no opposition to the Democrat Party, to the American left in California at all.
Whatever the left wants, they get.
And that state is exactly what this country is going to become.
And when did it happen?
After amnesty in 1986.
And that's why California is important because we're about to repeat history here.
If we grant amnesty again, back then it was only 3 million.
If we grant amnesty to 11 to 12, 15, 20 million, whatever it is, this country could end up being California.
And by that, I mean totally run by the American left and the Democrat Party with no opposition that has a chance whatsoever, which is exactly what California is.
To the outward appearance, California is a hedonist's delight.
California, the great weather, the great attractions.
You've got all of the great cities, San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, all the way up and down the coast.
You go inland, you have an entirely, abject poverty, zero education.
Everybody in that state voting for Democrats because they are all dependent on the government to one extent or another.
The government of California is in debt to the $2 to $16 billion and no hope of ever getting out of it.
And the people who run it love it that way is the point.
They don't care.
They don't see it as a problem.
Listen to it as it's described here in this piece by Matthew Continetti.
Saddled in recent years with high unemployment, high taxes, high government expenditures, and a hefty deficit.
California's economy nonetheless has generated the most money for Barack Obama.
It's not even close.
The amount of campaign money that's come to Obama from Democrats is in a vast majority from California.
From Hollywood, from Silicon Valley, from academia.
It is where all of the hypocrites in this country are.
You've got Al Gore, noted environmentalist wacko, who has become a multi-millionaire spreading a hoax.
buys a TV network that nobody watches and sells it to a bunch of oil shakes in Qatar.
Well, what about your belief that oil is destroying the planet?
Well, they do good coverage on stuff.
Utter hypocrisy.
Hollywood is what?
Hollywood is total make-believe.
It is entirely fantasy land.
Best of all for Obama, his relationship to the entertainment and tech industries has undergone hardly any of the scrutiny to which he would be subjected if he were a Republican drawing money from Wall Street or oil and gas.
In the imaginations of American journalists, so many of whom live in the contemporarily dull and humid and frigid East Coast, California occupies a special place, a picturesque landscape full of beautiful people who profit from make-believe.
Hollywood wealth in particular enjoys immunity from criticism or skeptical inquiry.
Hollywood, they can get away with whatever they want.
They are always put up on pedestals, whatever they say.
Dumb actor here, dumb actress there, can pontificate on the farm bill on anything.
It gets spread around on all the media as gospel.
It's utterly meaningless.
And yet it has become gospel.
California is the nerve center for the low information population of this country.
California is almost singularly responsible for the existence of a low information population.
Growing and growing and growing.
Because California is the land of make-believe.
It's the land of pretend.
And they can pretend to be and do anything.
But the most important thing, folks, as it relates to the future, California used to be a Republican stronghold.
And it was a powerful Republican stronghold.
And it was prosperous for everybody who lived there.
Not just for the left and the people that work for them.
The state was not in nearly the budget troubles that it's in now.
Used to be what a lot of people think of it as today.
But when amnesty hit in 1986, that was the beginning of the end of the Republican Party in California.
And with it, the beginning of the end of any opposition to liberalism, the Democrat Party, the American left, however you want to call it.
And California has become a one-party state.
It has become, for the liberals, this is important.
Remember, they set up two sets of rules.
The liberals love to tell you how they care about the disadvantaged, the downtrodden, the hungry, the homeless, the thirsty.
They lead the nation in all of that.
Criminal activity sky high in California.
Poverty sky high.
Racially segregated state sky high.
If all you know of California is the coast, it's a beautiful place.
But the point is, the liberals get to have it however they want it in that state.
And they get to tell themselves that they're the beautiful people, and they get to tell themselves that they're the most compassionate, the most caring, and the most concerned.
And they say, look at all the taxes we're paying, the help of all the poverty, and yet doesn't ever fix anything.
But they end up getting richer and richer and richer and wealthier and wealthier and wealthier and more powerful, which is all fine.
Don't misunderstand, but there's no pushback.
There's no opposition to it whatsoever.
And if it's a harbinger of what could happen, this guy's point in this piece is that the rest of the Democrat Party better be concerned as well.
The Rust Belt Democrats don't matter as much anymore.
Southern Democrats hardly ever exist.
The New England Puritan Democrats, they're called, these guys are on the downswing too in terms of influence and power.
It's California where Bergala and the boys go to get money for Obama.
It's where Clinton went to get his money and women and his good times.
It's where they all go to get the money they need to do everything they're doing in the rest of the country.
Because it's where all of their donors are.
It's where all their ideological true believers with money who enable them to do what they do, live and work.
And yet the state of California, an abject economist would look at it and said, this can't, would say this can't go on.
This can't sustain itself.
How in the world, this state may need to be bailed out at some point, is how bad it is.
And it will be, if it ever comes to that.
But my point overall is there's no push, but there's no opposition there to liberalism in the Democratic Party.
So you sit here all day long and get filled with anger over Obama throwing it back at us in our face with Susan Rice and Samantha Power, which is exactly what he's doing.
But folks, I got to keep throwing back at you the Limbaugh theorem.
None of it attaches to him yet.
So all of the IRS scandals and all these things that people think at some point, like Snerdley said at the beginning of the program, when is this stuff going to finally matter?
Well, as far as Obama is concerned, it may never touch him.
That's why the midterms in 2014 are crucial, and it's why what Chris Christie did deserves real scrutiny from the standpoint of the Republican Party.
You talk about slap in the face.
You're talking about throwing it right back at people.
Here's a chance.
Even if it is for 18 months, who cares if there's a special election?
This is politics, which means it's warfare of a type.
And there are real things that we are fighting and trying to roll back and stop.
And we need people in the Republican Party in positions of power voting against some of this stuff.
We just have a chance to have another one in the Senate.
Sorry, it'd be unfair.
I'm going to throw it open a special election to show people how moderate and partisan and bipartisan, whatever I am, and so forth, which is fine for his objective personally, whatever they happen to be.
But I'm going to end up getting a phone call.
Don't let anybody tell me that Governor Christie's a conservative.
Maybe a Republican or a rhino, but not this.
This is not.
I just, what?
What do you think I stepped in it with that?
How in the world is that stepping in it?
Tell me, Snirdly, how in the world is that stepping in it?
Because so many people think he is really even now.
All right, maybe not as many now.
Exactly right.
He's never, well, HR is whispering to me.
He's never said he was a conservative.
Let me tell you something.
There was a day, if you said on the air he wasn't one, he would call you and demand to know what the hell are you saying?
At any rate, look, I got to take a break, and I've got some bites here, and I want to get to your phone calls when we come back.
So set the table here wonderfully well.
It's now open to you and, of course, me to continue.
So we'll do all that when we get back.
Don't go away.
Okay, let me close the loop.
I mean, what is so frustrating to me here about, and it has been for a while, I just haven't spent much time telling you about it, but the whole shebang that is California and the way it impacts politics.
We had a guest on this program.
Well, actually, I interviewed him for the limbo letter, Herbert Meyer, who worked in the Reagan administration in intelligence.
And he wrote an op-ed, I guess, about a month before and maybe two months before we had him in here as a guest.
He said, the greatest unreported story in the world today is the disappearance of poverty around the world.
I read that and I said, what in the world?
That's the greatest story.
Here we are saddled in the middle of an administration which is taking this country, more and more people in this country to abject poverty, at least dependence on government.
And this guy talks about the greatest unreported story in the world today is the disappearance of poverty.
And lo and behold, the economist, just this week, in its current issue, toward the end of poverty, nearly 1 billion people have been taken out of extreme poverty in 20 years.
The world should aim to do the same thing again.
And let me give you the only important pull quote from this economist story.
Most of the credit, however, must go to capitalism and free trade, for they enable economies to grow.
And it was growth that has eased poverty and destitution.
One billion people out of poverty in 20 years.
And it hasn't been because of liberalism.
It hasn't been because of socialism.
Socialism and liberalism haven't lifted a single person out of poverty.
Socialism and liberalism sustain people in a bare subsistence and call it compassion.
Capitalism.
One of the undeniable truths of life, I think it was the second edition, My Undeniable Truths of Life, said, I forget the exact verbatim quote, said, one of the greatest problems in the world today is the unequal distribution of capitalism.
And Herb Meyer came along years after I'd made that statement with his realization that people were escaping poverty all over the world.
And it was an unreported story.
When everybody read that, when I shared it with people, what was he talking about?
Everybody thinks the world is shrinking fast into poverty.
Why?
Because the environmentalist wackos say everybody's going into poverty.
The environmentalist wackos say we're all going to die.
Scientists say we're going to die.
We're all dying from malaria.
Disease is going bonkers.
We're killing people and losing people left and right.
They paint this picture of doom and gloom and death and destruction and pestilence and disease when the truth is that around the world, people are escaping poverty because of the increase in capitalism around the world.
Now, it is an untold story.
The economist, I don't know what made them do it, but they've got it complete with charts and graphs.
Herbert Meyer was right.
Everywhere we look, well, not everywhere, but many places we look around the world, the world is beginning to behave as we once did in America.
We are going the opposite way.
Europe, in many places, has seen themselves bottom out.
They want to do something about it.
They don't quite know how, but at least they want to.
There's good news out there, but it is not because of liberalism.
It's not because of socialism.
It's not because of compassion.
It's not because of transfers of wealth.
It's not because of redistribution.
It isn't because of high taxes.
It's because of deregulated economic growth, unfettered capitalism, and free trade.
That is lifting people out of poverty in numbers greater than have ever been seen before.
Okay, to the phones, Nathan, San Jose, California.
I'm glad you called, Nathan.
I appreciate you're waiting, too.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rosh.
Yeah, I'm a lone Republican here in San Jose, California.
Whenever my wife and I go to vote, and I say I'm Republican, I get a dirty look by the election judges.
I totally understand.
Totally.
I was a California in Republican once, too.
I know exactly.
Right.
So I've been a listener of your show ever since my dad introduced when he first got your book, The Way Things Ought to Be.
And my dad would tape your TV show.
He'd have to find it like at midnight in our local Chicago area when I was growing up.
So my dad grew, you know, raised us well, you know, with Republican ideals about self-reliance and not taking anything from the government.
And I live out here in California now, and a lot of people out here have that mentality that they want to get something from the government.
But I primarily called to talk to you about the latest Apple products and about how tech here, because I work in the tech industry, I don't work for Apple, but I work for a test and measurement company that's just right down the street from Apple.
And they come to us as well as Google, coming to us saying, how do we test our latest equipment before we get it onto the shelves?
And without going into a lot of details, the future out there is going to be more and more of these mobile type devices.
And from Apple, I know you're a huge Apple, you know, Apple fan, and so am I.
And my wife is a huge fan, wanting an iPad and all that stuff.
But the future is going to be really wearable products.
And, you know, the idea is that wearable is Google Glass.
Right.
And the iWatch and things like that.
Right.
Right.
We had Sebastian Drunn from Google come to our company and he demonstrated Google Glass for us.
And we got to play around with it.
And, you know, you get to take pictures with it, wear it, but it's kind of like, you know, it's very futuristic.
You kind of feel strange wearing it.
It's like you walk into walls and stuff like that because you're doing text messaging, trying to talk into your glass.
Not to mention, you look weird.
That's true.
You look like you're like the board from Star Trek.
You look like a zombie.
That's right, yeah.
And people, if people are already walking into water fountains, text messaging or bumping into people in the hallways with text messaging, it's going to get worse with people driving cars.
Hang on, hang on, don't go away here.
Okay, we're back with Nathan in San Jose, California, who works at a high-tech testing kind of high-tech gear.
Tests and measurements, yeah, that's we make test equipment.
We were formerly part of Hewlett-Packard.
Oh, I see.
All right.
Well, you want to know what I think of you talking about Google Glass and future stuff in high-tech.
I tell you this: your call is actually kind of well-timed because you know you're talking about Google and Google Glass.
Google is in bed with Obama.
Google is instructing the Democrat Party how to use high-tech for information gathering.
And guess who they're gathering information on?
Their opponents.
Right.
I mean, Eric Schmidt and these guys, Sergei Brennan, made no bones about the fact that they love Obama.
They're in bed with Obama.
They're in bed with the Democrat Party like all of Silicon Valley is.
And they're in it for one reason, to be close to power, to be the reason for power exists.
They want to be the high financiers of power because that gives them power.
It's not about ideas.
We get so many people asking me, Nathan, don't go away there, but I get so many people asking me, but these guys are big business dipes, Rush.
Why are they for big government?
It's called crony capitalism.
It's calling being at the seat of power without having to be elected.
You buy your way in there.
And you're able to shape whatever comes out of Washington to your benefit without having to go through the work of being elected and getting into the political process at all.
You just buy your way in there.
And so it is about ideas, but you're buying your ideas and you have an allegiance to a political party.
And whatever happens to anybody else is irrelevant.
You want to make sure there's enough wealth transfer so that customers have enough money to go out and buy your Google Glass or buy the ads that Google is actually selling with all this stuff.
That's the way they make their money.
But it's insidious.
And it's a big California tech concern in bed with Obama.
Look at Apple.
Just two weeks ago, Tim Cook, CEO, brought up, here you have the most profitable business, even more profitable and bigger than Exxon.
And they are paying more taxes than any company in America.
And yet they're brought up and made to explain why they aren't paying more.
Now, what that was really all about was: hey, you know, you guys are making a hell of a lot of money, and you better start spending it here.
It's equivalent of a shakedown.
And so what happens?
What does Tim Cook do?
Within three weeks, he hires Lisa Jackson, the ex-EPA administrator, who was one of these Obama people with the fake phony email address.
This woman is an absolute tunnel visioned environmentalist wacko.
This woman believes that humanity and automobiles and carbon and all of the things that constitute growth in an economy are suspects.
She criminalizes as much of this as she can.
She ran the EPA as a rogue administrator.
She was issuing her own regulations, her own orders, her own indoctrinations to hell with it.
And she had Obama's full support.
And I'm telling you, she, in true fucking, now, I'm not saying she's an idiot, but intellectually, she's as wrong on what she believes as possible.
It doesn't matter.
To her, it's a religious belief.
And she is a classic hypocritical left.
Anyway, what Apple do?
Hired her to do what?
Supervise their green efforts because Apple has a lot of data centers to run their iCloud operation, and they're building the world's largest solar panel arrays in the country.
And so Lisa Jackson has been hired ostensibly to offer Apple guidance on how to do it right in terms of the environment.
So there's one example of how Washington works.
I hope to hell she really doesn't have anything to say about what they do with that company because if that happens, that'd be depressing.
Now, Nathan, before you go, you still there?
Good.
Apple has its worldwide developer conference coming up Monday.
Now, let's be honest, Apple hasn't had any new products.
They haven't even had an announcement in 210 days.
Right.
They're very mama.
What's up?
Apple, people have iPhones and iPads, they love Apple.
It's almost a cult, but they're worried out there because Samsung seems to have a new phone every week.
Monorola seems to have a new phone every week.
HTC seems to have a new phone, all these new features, and Apple hadn't done anything in 210 days.
So there's a lot.
Steve Jobs, they've lost their primary innovator, the Brain Trust.
They left.
So they're really looking at the power.
I don't think that's what's going on here at all.
He was such a visionary, though.
Yeah, I don't think.
I mean, Jobs was great.
Don't misunderstand.
It's a huge loss.
But I don't think that's what's going on here at all.
I just think Apple's gotten bigger than they ever thought they would get.
I don't think they can meet their demand.
I don't think they can meet the demand for their products.
I'm still bullish on Apple.
I think that the next big thing is going to be the wearable.
And if Google got the glasses, which is kind of funky, the next thing is to be.
And, you know, I'm old enough to know what Dick Tracy comics is.
Yeah, usually I watch.
Okay, look, Nathan, what I was going to tell you, I have people, because people know I'm an Apple fan.
What do you think is going to happen at the developers conference next week?
Because people, you know, there hadn't been a new iPad, a new iPhone.
They're hoping to pray.
Is there going to be some new gadget?
And so what everybody's looking at is they're going to have an upgrade on the software that runs the iPhone and the iPad.
And it's supposedly going to have a new look because the industrial designer, Johnny Ivey, has been put in charge of software design now as well as hardware design.
And if you read the bloggers, as you well know, Nathan, the bloggers hate skew morphism.
Snerdley, do you know what skew morphism is?
You don't.
Skewmorphism is on your iPad, you know, the notes application looks like a yellow legal pad.
That's skewmorphism.
And the tech bloggers hate skew morphism.
They hate the game center looking like a felt green covered pool table.
They hate the calendar with fake leather at the top of it.
They hate it.
The bloggers, the tech people hate skew morphism.
And they've been on this anti-skew morphism crusade for a couple of years.
So everybody's convinced that Johnny Ivey hates it too.
And it's going to come out with a flat, basically black and white looking operating system.
Cleaner.
And people know that I'm a big-time Apple aficionado, and they want to know what I think is going to happen at the Worldwide Developer Conference.
I'm going to tell you right now, this is what I think is going to be.
Oh, another, the Mac Pro, which is their big professional computer for video and film editors, the most powerful computer.
They haven't upgraded that thing in two years, three years, at a minor speed bump, but it's not even got the latest technology.
It's three years late on the latest technology.
Everybody thinks there's going to be a new one of those.
And I was thinking of what all could happen at their developer conference.
And maybe I think they might announce a new Mac Pro.
They'll say that it is going to be available later this fall.
They won't specify a date.
In September, they'll say that a configuration of the new Mac Pro that nobody really wants will go on sale in mid-October.
They will then announce the configuration of the new Mac Pro that everybody wants will not hit until November.
Then when it hits on November, it'll come with a shipping time of three to four weeks.
And then when three to four weeks hit, one or two will be available.
It's a well, we've got some shortages due to unforeseen demand.
And the units will actually ship in mid-December, but at a trickle.
Most deliveries delayed until January when the new iPhone 5S will finally be available.
The iPhone 5S will be announced in September with ship dates in five to seven days.
They'll sell 5 million the first three days.
They won't have any for the next three months.
And the iPhone 5S will have new quantities finally available in January.
It'll also be delayed, the 5S, because the bloggers will be upset that there's still too much skewmorphism in it.
So IV will have to go back to the drawing board and make it even flatter to satisfy the tech bloggers.
So the 5S and iOS 7, the new software system, look for nothing before December is the bottom line here, folks.
OS 10 10.9, the new software for your computer, they'll announce that and its availability sometime in July.
It'll ship on February 30th of next year.
I got to take a quick timeout.
Nathan, thanks for the call.
We'll be back with more after this.
Don't go away.
Back to the phones.
We go to Manitowoc, Wisconsin.
Greg, I'm glad you waited.
It's great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thank you, Rush.
I just want to say major dinners from the beautiful shores of Lake Michigan.
Thank you, sir.
Wonderful to have you here.
This morning I listened to CBS News, and I think I did a double take when I heard a story about Kathleen Sebelius saying no to that kid.
And I thought, holy cow, is that a shot across the bow to the public or what?
Then I hear a story about Mrs. Obama heckled at a private fundraiser and they ran audio of that.
And I'm thinking, okay, what's going on here, you know?
Well, as far as Sebelius is concerned, the value there is that, yes, Virginia, there are death panels.
And she's it.
This is where we've been headed.
We've got a 10-year-old girl who needs a lung transplant, and the government's involved.
The government says, yes, you can, or no, you can't.
And we have to, remember, do you remember that?
Does the name Jane Sturm ring a bell with you, Greg?
Jane's off the top of my head, though.
Well, I'll tell you, you'll remember who she is.
Her mother, 100 years old, needed a new pacemaker.
So Obama conducts with ABC News a special on healthcare live from the White House.
And Jane Sturm is in the audience.
And she stands up, and she asks Obama if her mother's will to live will be factored in the government's decision to pay for her pacemaker or not.
And Obama said, no, somebody that old, we can't factor something as nebulous as will to live.
That'd just be too complicated and too off the statistical books.
What we'll probably do is just give them a pill and tell them to enjoy the rest of their life.
And I'm watching it, and I can't believe what I'm watching.
We have an American citizen asking the president of the United States if her mother can get a pacemaker under his new health care bill.
Just that alone boggled my mind.
An American citizen honestly asking a question.
Folks, I'm going to say, when I grew up, medical procedure, I don't care what it is, the last place you would go would be the government asking for permission.
But Mr. Limbo, the problem is the government paid for it.
That's exactly right, Mr. New Castrati, and that's the problem.
That just blew me.
So here we've got a young girl, 10 years old.
I know there are federal regulations.
There are adults.
But it fits the death panel explanation.
The death panel is basically going to be a bunch of people in the regime deciding who gets medical treatments and who doesn't and why.
And it's going to boil down to, okay, if we're going to spend X amount of money on this medical procedure for this person, how long is that person going to live?
What's the likelihood our procedure is going to have any value?
In other words, somebody comes in 75 years old, needs this operation.
No, it'll be better spent if we spend that money on somebody 35.
They're low death panel.
And that's what this 10-year-old girl in the lung transplant is all about.
I'm still stunned by that, folks.
I'm sorry.
I know all the regulations, and I understand that it's not cheap and that individuals would not be able to afford that on their own anyway.
But just the idea that Kathleen Sebelius said it, some people live and some people die.
Now, I would hope that most people say, wait a minute, aren't you people a party of compassion?
Aren't you the people worried about maybe nobody dying?
Isn't that what you do?
What you do is you don't want anybody to die.
You don't want anybody to get this disease or that disease.
And if they do, you want them to be treated.
somebody's going to live, somebody's going to...
That's true, by the way.
I'm...
I don't think Alexis disagree with that.
But for this regime to say that, after making everybody think that they're the exact opposite.
Now, this lesbian protester against Michelle Obama, I don't think this was staged because it's been scrubbed from the White House website.
What happens is Michelle's out there, I don't even, I don't know, I don't care what she's talking about.
What was she talking about, Snirdly?
Do you know?
What kind of rights?
Oh, lesbian, gay, transgender, equal rights.
Yeah, there's a real shortage of that.
So she says, you're making a speech for gay rights.
Bangs look great, by the way, don't you think?
Michelle's bangs look, oh man, awesome.
Great wig.
Style, style, style.
Close.
So anyway, this lesbo activist stands up and starts giving Michelle a business about something.
And Michelle, in typical totalitarian, authoritarian manner, says, look, you know, I'm not very good at this.
The protester wanted Obama to sign an executive order and make it happen right now.
Gay rights, right?
Just sign it.
And Michelle, of course, she can't sign the executive order.
She said, look, I'm not good at this.
This is one thing I'm not good at.
What is she telling you?
She's not good at having conversations with people, and she's not good at listening to what other people say.
And she doesn't deal well with being heckled and so forth.
So Michelle says, all right, look, you take the mic and I'm leaving.
You people, you make up your mind.
What do you want?
You want her or me?
Because I'm out of here.
And of course, the audience was kind of divided.
The audience was divided because it's a lesbian, gay, transgender audience, and they wanted fast value.
The protester had some support.
She was not universally shouted at when Michelle said, look, okay, lesbo protester, you take the mic, I'm out of here.
It's either that or I'm going to leave.
It was not, no, Michelle, please don't leave.
It was not universal.
Michelle, please don't.
The lesbian protester had some support.
But when it was all over, they've taken that exchange down from the Obama website, so they don't want people to see it.
But in addition, I found that the funny thing was that the lesbian protester, well, she got thrown.
She couldn't believe that Michelle wouldn't listen to her.
She couldn't believe.
She couldn't believe she'd be treated that way.
She's still shocked.
She went home to commiserate with her dog.
Michelle Obama, it was a DNC fundraiser, some fat cat's house.
And that lesbian protester had paid $3,000 to $10,000 to get in there.
▲
Export Selection