All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 2, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:51
December 2, 2013, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yep, that's me.
I spent the first hour of today's program talking about how everything that we have going on with Obamacare is going to get worse.
Everything.
Let me make a prediction.
By the end of next year, fewer people will have health insurance that have health insurance right now.
And collectively, Americans will be paying more for health insurance than we are paying right now.
In other words, we will have fewer insured and we will be paying more for it.
The two goals of the so-called affordable care act was to get more Americans insured and to make health care more affordable.
It will turn out not only not to help in those two areas, it will make both of them worse.
That's my prediction.
And if I'm wrong, just don't invite me back ever to do the program again so nobody can say I told you so.
And now here's one for you.
This is a good one.
They're finally acknowledging that using your cell phone on an airplane isn't going to make the plane crash.
I'm doing the program in New York today.
Flying out yesterday.
They're now telling you you don't even have to turn off your electronic devices, you just have to put them on airplane mode.
You can still use them as your taxing, taking off up in the air.
The next thing is going to be not even having to do the airplane mode.
You can actually use your cell phone while in the air.
The FCC is considering making a change to the current ban on the use of cell phones in the air on commercial aircraft.
I've got a story here in the New York Times, quoting a bunch of people objecting to this.
Tony Robbins, remember him?
Mr. Motivation?
He went on Twitter.
Do we really need this?
Also in the New York Times.
My inbox is flooded was flooded with angry messages.
I already hate my fellow passengers.
This would only make it worse.
On social media, overwhelming opposition to lifting the ban.
Not because anybody's afraid that cell phone communications are actually going to interfere with any of the systems that the jet aircraft needed, but because people are mortified at the idea of being on a plane sitting next to or in front of or behind or even close to somebody talking on their phone the entire flight.
There's something about cell phone conversations that drive people crazier than listening to any other conversation.
If the person, let's suppose you're on one of those three by three plates.
The person next to you is talking to the person in the third seat, the whole flight.
Okay.
Not very pleasant, but it's probably not the end of the world.
You can handle it.
Somebody on a cell phone the entire flight.
You now see why people are opposed to this, why they're afraid of it, why they don't want it.
People talk too loud and they talk about such stupid things.
My own theory is that most people who talk on cell phones publicly are people who are starved for attention and want others to be listening to them.
That's my theory.
I don't know if it's right or wrong.
I'm going to ask the Rush audience.
Do you want them to continue the ban?
Should people be able to use their cell phones in flight?
And if we allow them to do so because there's no good reason not to, other than that they annoy people.
How far are we going to go to protect people from being annoyed?
There are a lot of other things that are annoying in this world that we're going to make all of them illegal.
1-800-282-2882 is the phone number at EIB.
The use of cell phones on aircraft.
As it is, people have to jam it all in to the period between before you know before they close the doors, that twenty minutes in which everybody's boarding on the planet and you're sitting down, they'll make all of their calls, and then the instant that you land, when they allow you to use the cell phones, everybody gets on the thing.
But you can't do it in air.
That twenty minutes before takeoff is very, very obnoxious.
Every sales guy in America has got a call got to make the one last call.
The executive producer of the program argues that it's mostly women because when women get on phones, they'll talk about anything stupid that they don't.
What was your exact quote?
Wim Women will use cell phones to talk about all of the things that they don't need to talk about or they have nothing to say, but they so they so enjoy talking that they'll that the cell phones give them the opportunity to do more talking about things for which they have nothing to say.
That is not my point of view, that's the point of view of of HR.
Then you've got the whole what's the role of the government to be.
Do we really need the government to protect us from this?
Here's my position.
I think the FCC should allow you to use your cell phones on planes.
The federal government of the United States shouldn't be out there passing rules to try to stop obnoxious people from talking too long too long on airplanes.
This should be left to the airlines themselves.
If airlines want to allow it and have an entire plane full of angry passengers upset about it, fine.
There isn't an airline in the United States that can't impose a rule that says that they're going to ban cell phones, they can control their own planes, they can say you can't do it.
And if most of them allow it, I guarantee you one or two airlines are going to ban the use of cell phones during flight in an attempt to get business from those passengers who can't stand listening to anyone else.
I think that this is a situation in which we should allow the free market to work itself out.
And while I hope airlines discourage or ban the use of cell phones during flight, I don't believe that it should be the role of the federal government.
That's my opinion.
Let's go to Hoboken, New Jersey.
Randall Randall, you're on EIB with Mark Belling.
Yes, Mark.
I think those people who use cell phones on airplanes are like cigarette smokers.
I think they have to be Scots.
But I'm also for the minimum wage to be raised, so maybe I disagree with you on everything.
Well, that might be the case.
The difference between the two is is that raising the minimum wage is the government artificially jumping in to uh uh jumping into something in which the private market can take care of itself.
The problem with regard to the use of cell phones is is that there's nothing people can do about the situation.
If I'm in a grocery store and somebody's yakking too loudly on their cell phone, I can go to another aisle, I can move to a different place, or I can even leave the store.
If you're sitting in an airplane and somebody next to you is talking too loudly, and trust me, I think the people who are talking too loudly, they know others can hear them.
They know they're being annoying, they enjoy doing it.
So you had to sneak in that minimum wage crack in the middle of the cell phone topic because you couldn't resist it, right?
Uh right, Randall.
Hey, um you know, some people have five houses and some people sleep in the streets.
Are you okay with that?
I I thought so.
So you actually use this topic here on the cell phone to work in the lefty comment that you couldn't get through in the last hour.
I will give you this.
Clever strategy.
Thank you for the call, sort of.
To Dayton, Ohio, and Barb you're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Hi, Mark.
Um, I'm a flight attendant for a major airline.
And I don't care if you have your cell phone, but the whole thing is when I'm doing my safety demo and you're talking over me, you know, I really don't like that.
So I don't need to do my safety demo.
So you're worried about your part of the flight as opposed to the whole rest of it.
No, no, you know what, Mark?
I'm at my door.
I'm out of there if there's a crash.
Did does anybody still pay attention to the safety demonstration?
Yeah, they don't.
I don't care because I'm out of there if there's a crash.
Okay, so what's your what's your opinion on allowing people to use the cell phones during flight?
I don't think they should you know when the door is closed, they don't need to be talking.
That's why you put it on airplane mode.
They don't need to be talking to anybody.
Well imagine imagine if we allow it and somebody's talking really, really loudly and alienating other passengers.
Who are those passengers gonna turn to?
They're gonna turn to you.
What are you supposed to do?
Tell the person to not speak as loudly as as they're speaking.
There's something about cell phone use that drives people crazier than almost anything.
Ask people what they'd rather sit next to.
A guy that's snoring or somebody who's on the cell phone.
People are going to take the snore.
Cell phone conversation conversations are really ignore.
Bellevue Nobr thank you for the call bar.
Bellevue, Nebraska, Steve, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Good afternoon.
There's there's actually nothing preventing you from doing it now.
I have an iPhone.
I loaded it with Google Voice.
I have my cell phone service turned off, but I use the TCP IP service that's on a lot of aircraft nowadays, and you can make airplanes, you can make phone calls from altitude.
So in other words, you're using offer Wi-Fi.
Kind of like a voice over internet call or something.
Well, that's exactly what it is.
I loaded it on there because I went to Italy for a couple of weeks and never turned my cell phone on, but I was making calls to the United States.
Right, if the if the aircraft has the Wi-Fi.
So I suppose you could probably Skype while on a plane too.
That's the video service.
Yes, absolutely.
As long as the bandwidth is sufficient enough, and it's it's certainly sufficient enough for uh cell phone calls.
Have you actually have you actually done it?
Have you actually done this on a f on a flight?
Yes.
Did anybody object or complain to you?
No, because I wasn't obnoxious about it.
It was just a short, short uh telephone calls.
Yeah, that that that's interesting.
There's probably, in other words, there's ways around it.
If the airline simply said you can't conduct any kind of a conversation through a device, whether you're doing it Wi-Fi or through the cellular service, that would probably uh satisfy that.
Thanks for the call.
I don't think the FCC should restrict this.
Is obnoxious as it's going to be, and as much as it's going to make planes miserable.
We never ever want to trust the market.
The market usually gets this stuff right.
If you've got a plane full of people talking on cell phones and people are miserable, and the airlines don't respond to that by either saying you can talk in the cell phone row twenty-two and back, or simply ban it, they are going to lose business.
I guarantee you that if two or three of the airlines allow people to start using their cell phones during flight, there are going to be a couple of others who will aggressively advertise that we don't allow it, that we make for a more pleasurable experience.
There's ways to address this without the government being involved.
The reason I wanted to bring this up during this segment is I think that this is something that touches people in a lot of ways.
It's very hard to exist next to somebody talking obnoxiously on a cell phone, especially in a plane.
But we can't fall into the trap that liberals always fall into.
There's a problem government needs to solve it.
Government does not need to solve this.
Let the airlines figure it out themselves, let the market figure it out, and let us in our own individual lives be able to figure out how to deal with somebody who talks this loudly.
The government of the United States, that we did not draft a constitution of this country to give the government of the United States the authority to walk into planes and decide who should be talking or should not be talking.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
H.R. tells me that Reuters is now reporting that people who are going to healthcare.gov are being shut it over to state exchange sites because the traffic is too busy and others are just being rerouted.
But it's fixed.
It's over.
We mission accomplished.
We've taken care of it.
You know, before we end the program today, I ought to go onto the site and try to.
October first on my local show in Milwaukee, I tried to sign up on the year and you know, how far that went.
Sign up on the show, see how it goes.
I've got it.
Why don't I sign Rush up?
I probably have all of his passwords here on the desk somewhere.
Sign Rush Limbaugh up for Obamacare.
My career here would be over, but it would be a story to tell, you know, when I'm in the nursing home.
Yeah, I signed up Rush Limbaugh for Obamacare.
No, I won't do that.
I do want you to listen in the second half hour of this hour.
There is a story I have to tell about what is going on in my home state of Wisconsin that is chilling.
Before we get to that, however, I want to talk for a second about a case that's going to the United States Supreme Court.
It deals with Obamacare, but it also deals with a lot more.
You may recall the criticism from the Roman Catholic Church and other religious employers about the contraceptive mandate built into Obamacare.
They feel that it is a violation of their religious freedom to be required to provide contraceptive care to people who work for, say, the archdiocese or a Catholic church or a Catholic hospital, since Roman Catholic teaching is that artificial contraception is a ski is a sin.
But the Supreme Court is taking two other cases as well that may be even more provocative.
There's a Company called Hobby Horse, there are actually two cases.
Hobby horse is one of the cases.
Hobby horse is a national chain of, you know, hobby stuff.
The owners are devout Christians.
They believe artificial contraceptive use is morally wrong.
Now you can say that they're archaic, they've got Stone Age beliefs, whatever.
That is their belief.
And they say it is foundational based on their religion.
They are morally opposed to the use of artificial contraception and they believe that their religious freedom is being violated if the government of the United States requires them to provide it in an insurance plan for their employees.
They argue that their First Amendment rights, granting them the ability to freely exercise their religion, are being infringed if they are compelled to provide something that their religion teaches them is sinful.
This case has been accepted by the United States Supreme Court.
It's really important, not only does it once again draw attention to how much junk is in Obamacare.
So many different things.
All these mandates for coverage, things that must be required, must be covered.
That's one of the reasons that your insurance rates are going so high.
There are certainly a lot of people who won't need to buy a policy that calls for contraceptive care.
They don't plan to have any more children, they're too old, they're not sexually active, whatever.
They're compelled to buy those policies because every policy has to have contraceptive care according to Obamacare.
So it draws attention to how we have all of these mandates that are built in that doesn't allow people to tailor policies to themselves, that's why the rates are going up.
But then the religious freedom argument.
Aside from how you interpret this notion of separation of church and state, language which is not in the Constitution.
The Constitution says government shall make no law, either establishing a religion, in other words, a national religion, nor preventing the free exercise thereof.
That language has been warped by the left to the point that anybody who dares to put up a Christmas manger or say a prayer anywhere in any type of public setting is said to be violating the constitutional rights of those who don't want to listen.
You can't have a Christmas pageant in a public school anymore without somebody objecting that some song has a Christmas connotation.
Even the secular Christmas songs are now being banned because, well, we have some children who aren't Christian, they don't observe Christmas.
You can't even do that.
In other words, we've taken this notion of separation of church and state to absurd limitations.
But when you look at what it actually says, Congress shall make no law restricting the free exercise of religion.
If you are requiring an American who has an insurance policy for his workers to cover things that violate his religion, have you not made a shambles of what the First Amendment actually says about religious freedom.
Now, people on the left have argued this is no different than requiring somebody to pay taxes to support a war that they're not in favor of.
That is different.
Whether we like it or not, government policy does allow the government to pay to do certain things.
Some people don't want freeways built, some people don't want all sorts of mass transit built, some people don't believe in all the welfare we have, and people like me don't believe in Obamacare.
Still, those things were enacted.
They're things that are being done by government.
This is an entirely different question.
This is compelling someone in their own individual life or business life to do something else.
You're telling an American who simply because he's in business or she is in business, providing insurance coverage to their workers, that they must pay for something that they think is a sin.
Take away for a moment whether or not you think there's anything wrong with artificial contraception.
And clearly most Americans think it's just fine.
Not everyone does.
And those who don't premise their beliefs on deeply held religious principles, rightly or wrongly.
When as a nation, We allow government to come in and essentially order an American to pay for something for their workers that they think is a sin.
We not only have a government that is way too big, way too powerful, way too pushy, we have a government that doesn't at all respect individual religious freedoms.
It's absurd that we live in a world in which we're mortified that there's too much intervention between government and religion if somebody sings a Christmas carol, but that that same government can trample on someone's religious liberty by saying that they must provide something that they believe is immoral or even a sin.
I think the Supreme Court is going to rule for those who object to this mandate.
It'll be another part of Obamacare that will probably fall by the wayside.
I've got a remarkable story to tell, something of a horror story from my own state of Wisconsin.
I'll do that next.
Mark Belling and Farrush.
Before I get into my Wisconsin story, here's another.
See, I read the mainstream media to prepare for the program.
I think Rush ignores it like the plague, but I kind of in my own mind think I need to know what it is that they're talking about in order to respond to it.
So I'm reading the New York Times today.
They've got a column on the op-ed page.
Bad eating habits start in the womb.
They argue that mothers who, while pregnant, eat badly, lots of junk food and so on, that their children later in life tend to eat badly themselves, that these bad eating habits start when they are kids.
The study also claims that mothers who eat healthy and good stuff that those kids in life are likelier to eat that way.
Now I don't know where they're going to go with this, whether or not the leftist police is now going to claim that pregnant mothers have to eat healthily.
But it sure is interesting that a left that denies personhood and claims that this is just unviable tissue mass to fetuses in the womb is now concerned about the eating habits of some thing in their mind that isn't a human being.
Anyway, many of you are familiar with the travails that have gone on in my home state of Wisconsin, and I thought you'd be interested in a follow-up because it's ugly and it's scary.
The governor of my state, Scott Walker, was elected in 2010.
In early 2011, he proposed a sweeping series of reforms aimed at dealing with the excessive compensation in Wisconsin, especially for benefits of public employees.
Government unions in Wisconsin, especially the teachers union, were very, very strong.
The benefits they were receiving in the form of pensions and health insurance were almost not sustainable.
It's one of the reasons our tax burden was as high as it was.
He proposed requiring employees to pay a portion of the cost of their pension plan and a portion of the cost of the health insurance benefits.
But he went beyond that.
His proposal stripped the power of unions to negotiate on anything other than wages, so that the unions wouldn't be able to go in and bargain for these excessive benefits that they were getting.
In addition to that, he ended the requirement that people who don't want to be in the union have to pay dues to the union.
He also required that each year the union show that more than 50% of its members want to be in the union or they be dissertified.
All of this passed, the state legislature in Wisconsin at the time and still now was controlled in both chambers by Republicans, and they rolled it through.
As many of you recall, there were enormous protests at the time at the time.
Activists came in from out of state, and after all of this is passed, they attempted to recall Republican members of the state Senate and ultimately the governor, Governor Walker himself.
Those recalls occurred in 2012.
The Republicans kept control of the state Senate, and Walker himself was easily re-elected despite having to go through this recall election.
That was then.
What has happened since is instructive.
Because first of all, It shows you that the left never quits.
And secondly, they are willing to use any tactic.
In this case, one that is almost unspeakably wrong.
Several months ago, some Democratic district attorneys in a number of counties began investigating whether or not third party organizations, and we all know about those that are funded by a number of conservative organizations,
the Club for Growth is one of them, Americans for Prosperity, many of them active in Wisconsin, whether or not they illegally coordinated their efforts during the recall campaigns with Republican state senators who are running for re-election in their recalls or Governor Walker's campaign.
This has now morphed into what we in Wisconsin call a John Doe investigation.
It's essentially the same thing as a grand jury.
The prosecutors in that John Doe, which is being overseen by a judge who has liberal sympathies, have subpoenaed everything from every conservative group that is in Wisconsin, including national organizations that merely came into Wisconsin.
They're asking for everything, every email, every correspondence, every communication within the staff itself, with other conservative organizations, and with any political campaign of one of these state senators or Governor Walker.
It's as broad a subpoena as you can imagine.
There's nothing here with probable cause that they're able to pursue.
They're simply asking for everything in an attempt to find something.
They want to find somewhere, some functionary who talked to some candidate committee and claim that that's a violation of the law.
Now, aside from the real free speech implications of this, that we're now going to say that individual groups don't have the ability to try to fight and step in for candidates that they believe and can't talk to one another.
Talk about a chilling effect.
All these emails that have been sent out from individual supporters, third-party organizations are not required to disclose who their contributors are.
The subpoena demands the name of everyone who has contributed to any of these organizations.
This is information that by law is confidential.
But they're using the pretext of a criminal investigation to require that all of these names be turned over.
It is having a chilling effect on the ability of these organizations to raise any money this year.
Governor Walker himself runs for reelection next year.
Individuals who are giving to these private organizations, they know what's happened with regard to those who've been identified in the past.
Their businesses get boycotted, they get turned into pariahs like the Koch brothers.
So these organizations are having a hard time raising money.
Here's what this is all about.
This is a classic modern day witch hunt.
A prosecutor comes in and with the broadest brush imaginable, asks for everything that group after group after group after group has done in the last three years emails, contributions, memos, everything.
There's nothing narrow about it.
There's nothing focused about it.
They can't stand the fact that the Republicans in Wisconsin came in and achieved a major public policy victory.
This is payback.
They couldn't get Governor Walker through the legitimate governing process by stopping the legislation from passing.
They couldn't recall him from office.
So they're now going to conduct a massive criminal investigation that may or may not find some picky unish violation somewhere that they can trump up and try to turn it into a scandal.
They also, by the mere fact that the investigation exists, are allowed to go out and make massive requests for information that would normally be confidential.
We have no protection in the American criminal process from prosecutors who are motivated to get you.
One of the reasons our Constitution establishes protections against unreasonable search and seizure is to stop people from going out into the lives of individual citizens and try to trump up things in order to harass them.
In Wisconsin, however, the prosecutor who is running this John Doe, he's going out and taking every major conservative organization or individual in the state, targeting them.
They have raided individual homes, they've grabbed computers, all in an attempt to pay back the Republicans for committing the crime of enacting public policy that the left in my state disapproves of.
It also has the advantage of attempting to try to create a phony scandal surrounding Governor Walker as he runs for re-election in 2014.
The Liberals, by the way, have anointed a candidate.
She's a one percenter.
I love that.
Rich woman who, part of a company that sent jobs off to China, they're willing to overlook all the things that they claim that they're opposed to.
Anyway, she's going to be self-financing her campaign.
We'll probably spend 10 to 15 million dollars, conveniently being able to come up with some sort of minor violation and turning it into a massive scandal and hanging it around Walker's neck.
That's part of their motivation.
But also, they want to make it clear that you didn't get away with this.
You may have enacted this policy that we consider to be union budding busting.
You may have done this thing that most people who voted for the governor in the Republican legislature approved of, but we will get you.
If they had probable cause of a violation somewhere, you might be able to justify narrowly going after an organization or the two or three people that you think are involved.
This is an attempt to go after everything that anyone who is conservative in Wisconsin has done, said, donated to.
They don't know what they're looking for.
They just assume that if we get 18 million emails and all of these contributor lists that maybe we'll find something, but in the process, scare these people from acting out at all.
So in my state, if you are someone who supported a governor, who had public policy initiatives that we believed in, you now find yourself targeted for a criminal investigation, merely as payback for acting out on your own individual beliefs.
It's as bad as bad can be.
Republicans don't have the ability to do this because the media would never allow them to do it.
Open-ended investigations targeting your political opponent when directed against someone from the left, the media just would never allow you to they wouldn't stand for it.
Look at Ken Starr.
Bill Clinton was caught dead to rights lying under oath, and he was vilified for daring to investigate crimes that occurred in broad daylight.
Furthermore, most Republicans would not think of so abusing the criminal justice system.
In Wisconsin, however, there's no check on this type of investigation.
Prosecutor can call for a John Doe, a special prosecutor can be named to get a lefty judge to oversee it, and here we go.
So while Walker has won, and he's doing his victory tour with his new book, which by the way is called Unintimidated.
I think that's what it's called.
The left isn't going to let it sit.
And they're going to go after him and every one of us in Wisconsin who have backed him.
I don't want to spend the entire rush program on it, which is why I saved this segment for the final hour of the show.
But you should know what they are doing, because this is what they are capable of.
They are willing to use any tactic available to try to get their way, including a brazen abuse of the criminal justice system.
By the way, those recall campaigns that I mentioned, there are a lot of groups on the left that were involved in those too.
The unions that were Democratic candidates who ran.
Not one liberal group, not one Democrat has been subpoenaed at all.
Every single conservative organization, subpoenas, raids, etc., they aren't even making an attempt to make it look as though that they're being fair by investigating Both sides.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Mark Bellingham for Rush.
HR gave me this.
Paul Krugman, the uh semi-Marxist economics columnist for the New York Times, now says we're kind of in a mild depression, and that might be the new normal.
That's the way it's going to be for no, only as long as we pursue policies supported by people like Paul Krugman.
I do want to clarify one thing that I said during my discussion of the cases in front of the United States Supreme Court dealing with the mandating of contraceptive coverage.
The private company hobby horse is not objecting to covering some contraceptives, merely those that they consider to be ones that actually induce an abortion after pregnancy occurs.
So they claim that they're not against some forms of artificial contraception, like the pill.
They don't want to fund contraceptive procedures that they consider to actually induce an abortion.
Let's go to Long Island and Joe.
Joe, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Hey, Mark, uh, don't be so quick to throw in the towel in Wisconsin.
There are plenty of things that you can do to combat these rogue district attorneys.
And let me go through a few of them with you.
Number one, they should all be filing motions to quash these subpoenas.
Number two, any district attorneys that are Republicans in those counties can initiate investigations against liberal groups.
Can I stop you?
Can I stop you at number two for a second, Joe?
Go ahead.
Here's the problem with that.
We uh we actually have a Republican attorney general in Wisconsin.
That's the next one.
I know.
But here's my problem.
We don't have a Republican prosecutor in Wisconsin who's brazen enough to conduct a political witch hunt, even though the other side is doing it.
One of the disadvantages politically of being a conservative is the other side is willing to be more depraved than our side will ever be.
We're not willing to get down into the mud that deeply.
I do agree with you.
That is a way to retaliate, give the left some of their own medicine.
I'm just not sure any of the Republican prosecutor district attorneys in my state would be willing to do it.
Go to your third point.
Well, well, the third point would have been the attorney general, if he's a Republican.
The fourth point would be that the governor has the power to pardon any and all people investigated at whatever stage they're in.
And Mark, you know, if we're not willing to take the gloves off and put on brass knuckles, then shame on us if we let them beat away.
Yeah, and and that that's always been the problem that left the left is able to not only get away with things that the right can't, that the right isn't willing to do some of the things the left has.
With regard to what the good what you've said about the governor, probably be political suicide, uh, you know, to intervene in a criminal investigation like this, this this form of pardon.
You did mention the quashing of the subpoenas.
The some of these conservative groups have fought back, and they are going to try to go to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to stop the investigation in its tracks, claiming that it's simply a violation of the First Amendment, violation of free speech, and try to stop the investigation by claiming that they don't have probable cause.
So some of those tactics are being tried.
I do have optimism, given that in my state, the establishment has continued to lose, and Walker and the reformers have continued to win, and there is still tremendous loyalty among Republicans toward the governor for these reforms, which by the way have worked gloriously, that we're not going to take this sitting down.
Still, the fact that they were willing to use the legal process like this in an attempt to a criminalize normal political activity, but B, just conduct the investigation itself.
You talked about pardons after the fact and so on.
One of the reasons they're doing this is to have the chilling effect now to stop conservatives from giving money to these organizations, to stop them from being active in the coming governor's campaign, to just put us on notice that we're going to be, you know, we're going to be under criminal prosecution for pursuing our individual beliefs.
Thanks for the call, Joe.
Appreciate it.
Mark Bellingham for Rush.
And now my last correction on the uh contraceptive topic.
I think the name of the chain is Hobby Lobby.
If I said Hobby Horse, that was wrong.
By the way, the BCS is going to work out again.
Don't worry about pretenders like Ohio State and Auburn.
Missouri's going to beat Auburn this weekend, and Michigan State's going to beat Ohio State, and Florida State's going to play one of them, and the right two teams are going to be there, and everything will work out as it always does.
Talk to you sometime soon.
▲
Export Selection