All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 23, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:50
December 23, 2013, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I've got an idea for Rush.
How do I get those ideas to rush?
Do I say them on the air?
Do I go through you people?
How do I do that?
It depends on whether it share it with you first.
In fact, share with the audience and everybody first.
You don't actually go to Rush with these ideas like a fill-in like me doesn't walk up to Rush or contact Russia and say, Rush, I have this great idea.
Probably millions of people have tried to approach Rush with their tremendous idea or another.
But I uh I've got a really good idea.
I think I'll let the audience in on it.
I can't do it.
Only Rush I could do it.
Anyway, I'm the fill-in guy from Milwaukee, which is in Wisconsin, not Minnesota, and I'm always on the rush program right around the Christmas period, either before or after Christmas, because sensible talk show hosts like Rush take days off during this time of the year, and we're trying to hold on the fort and give you good conservative programming here.
And I've got some interesting stuff to share with the audience this hour.
First of all, I mentioned in our number one when we were talking about this meltdown of Obamacare, with Obama being forced to change his own law, which he doesn't have the authority to do to appease Democrats that are freaking.
I mentioned that you see a lot of Democrats right now starting to turn on him.
And I didn't really back that up.
And I want to get into that for a moment here.
This is new stuff.
From the beginning of his presidency, he's pretty much had the left solidly behind him.
They haven't wandered off on much of anything.
He got every single Democrat in the Senate to pass to vote for Obamacare.
That's why it passed the zero votes to spare because every single Democrat voted for it.
When a Democrat has had a problem with Obama, they've generally been rather quiet about it.
You're starting to see some insurrection out there now.
And it isn't just on the issue of Obamacare.
I've got a few stories here.
Bob Menendez, Democratic senator from New Jersey, defying Obama on the biggest diplomatic deal of his presidency, the Iran sanctions.
Kind of new stuff.
Joe Manchin, Democrat Senator from West Virginia.
Openly saying Obamacare may melt down.
John Lewis, congressman from I think Georgia, civil rights legislator, criticizing Obama on federal judicial appointments.
They had a town meeting with Sharpton or one of those, one of those guys that he's making a career out of continuing to air grievances in Chicago, and the crowd was openly hostile to the Obama presidency, predominantly black crowd, questioning, well, what has he done for us?
These are just a few stories here or there, but you're seeing a lot of Democrats start to break from him.
And I think that's going to get worse.
I'm reminded of Nixon's presidency.
Watergate happened in early 1972, but Nixon won by a landslide in the November 72 election.
Then the Watergate story started to take hold, and the entire Republican Party abandoned Nixon.
When a politician or a president has political strength, the people on his team, his side, his party, they'll generally ride with them on just about everything.
But when they start saying that the captain is not doing too well, these are rats jumping off the ship.
I think on Obamacare itself, you've got a lot of Republicans other Democrats that are in this for pure survival.
No Republican in the Senate voted for this.
This is policy that was given us by a Democrat president, rammed through with not a single Republican votes of the United States Senate, with every Democrat in the Senate voting for it.
They're going to be looking for ways to blame this in Obama if it doesn't go well.
His own credibility has suffered more than on any issue in his presidency.
The reason his approval ratings are so low isn't just that Obamacare isn't going well.
It's because he's been exposed as a liar.
That's damaging stuff.
Every week that goes by, he becomes more and more of a lame duck.
You've got Democrats, not just the Hillary, Hillary and her crowd, trying to position themselves to run for president.
You have Democrats that are going to try to save their house seats next year.
This idea that Obama thought that he could win back the House for the Democrats, that's a pipe dream.
Right now they're only thinking about how to avoid massive losses.
There's a snowballing effect, the snowball effect that kind of goes along with these things.
Let's talk about Utah.
Federal judge has struck down Utah's law that bans gay marriage, and there's a rush of gays in Utah to get married.
Federal judge says it violates the Constitution, violates the Equal Protection Clause, and all of these other things.
We've got to talk about this for a minute.
We've had this same Constitution since the late 1700s.
And throughout that entire time, virtually every state has banned gays from getting married.
All of a sudden now the Constitution doesn't the Constitution says you can't ban that.
Well, when did that happen?
We've got states that are allowing gays to marry, you've got other states that say they don't want to allow gays to marry.
It seems to me that if a state wants to allow gays to marry, they ought to be able to allow gays to marry, even though I don't think that's good public policy.
But when you have federal judges coming in and preempting states from their own decision making, in this case, a conservative state, particularly on moral issues, this is where people feel alienated from their government.
They feel disenfranchised.
The United States is a very diverse country, something that the lefties always celebrate.
We're a country that includes both San Francisco and Salt Lake City.
But when we try to, when we give federal judges the authority to trample all over the Constitution and pretend that it says something that it doesn't, there's nothing in the Constitution that says a state can't allow gay people to get married, which is why no federal judge until recently claimed the Constitution said that.
You alienate people in the country whose values are trampled upon, and they don't feel as close to their country as they were before.
One of the issues that the Tea Party movement has focused on, and I think to their credit they focused on it because nobody was talking about it much prior to them, is the abuse of our Constitution.
Obama is rewriting his own legislation, Obamacare.
Federal judges are just pretending the Constitution says things that it doesn't say.
That sounds like a boring and dry argument, which is partly why a lot of Americans have a hard time warming up to the Tea Partiers.
But there's a reason we've survived for 230 years.
There's a reason why the United States made it through a civil war.
There's a reason why we actually can have free elections and go from Republican to Democrat.
There's a reason why we haven't had...
Other than during the Civil War, states attempt to secede.
There's a reason why there's always been a fairly high level of patriotism in our country.
We believe that we're self-governed.
We didn't feel as though we have tyrants that are dictating to us from above.
We don't have dictators.
We don't have kings.
But when people feel as though they don't have a voice anymore, when their state passes a law that a federal judge said, well, you can't do that, the country starts losing its legitimacy.
I think gay activists are playing...
They're wrong about this.
If they truly want more acceptance by Americans of homosexuality, gay marriage, the whole thing, they shouldn't be forcing this down the country's throat.
They shouldn't be saying you in Utah have to accept this.
I can't think of an issue in my lifetime in which the American public has moved farther than it has on gay marriage.
Some think that's terrible, some think that's good.
I'm kind of neutral on the whole thing myself.
But when you start taking away from people the ability to have their own opinions, when you have individual states that are forced to have a policy that clearly the majority of the residents of that state don't support, you just create resentment.
It relates to the topic that I had earlier when we were talking about the Duck Dynasty people and how the people who have the religious beliefs that the Duck Dynasty crowd has on welcome in our politically correct society.
In the United States, you're supposed to be able to believe in what you want to believe in.
We're the country that has a First Amendment that has protected even extreme speech.
Hateful people have been allowed to say what they think.
It's one of the things that's made us strong.
No matter how weird or how wacko you are, from the right, the left or the wherever, you're allowed to talk.
Likewise, with regard to our government, you don't like what your officials are doing, we can go to the ballot box and we can throw them out.
We're starting to lose that.
There becomes an alienation when people feel as though their vote doesn't count because some federal judge who is appointed for life knocks down their own state law.
And on these social issues like gay marriage.
We've been moving along in a direction that the gay activists I think have been very, very happy with in our country.
But people were moving along because they've had sincere changes in opinion, I guess.
That's a much better way for this to happen.
And it all comes back, I think, to the one thing that always held us together.
That's the Constitution.
It set up these rules that were pretty clear as to who has what power to do what.
Brilliant document.
And I think it probably envisioned battles between people who wanted to order the country to do one thing when the public didn't want to do it.
That's why the Constitution kept reserving rights for the people.
You keep messing with this, like Obama's doing with Obamacare, like federal judges that are mandating that states accept policies that they don't want.
And then even right down to our own individual lives, where people are now told in this country that their rights of free expression stop if they say things that some people don't like what's being expressed.
And I understand that the Duck Dynasty issue is not one of the First Amendment.
Nobody's First Amendment rights are being taken away.
But it's related.
We ought to be able to say what we think.
And we ought to be able to think whatever we feel like thinking.
And we ought to be able to have control of our own destiny.
And I understand that the lefties, the elitists, they don't like it that way.
They've got power and they want to force us all to do what they want us to do.
The more they do that, though, the greater the disconnect becomes between the citizens of the country and the people who are supposedly leading the country.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush Limblaw.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
See, this is when we guest hosts start to panic.
Got all this stuff here.
Time starts to run out.
Plus, I got to start talking to the folks.
1-800-282882 is the Rush Limbaugh phone number, even when he's not here and I'm here.
Time to go to Atlanta and Mike.
Mike, you're on EIB with Mark Belling.
Hello, Mark.
Apparently, the large national unions have already begun to mail out notices to some of their retired lifelong members advising them of a change, upcoming change in their medical coverage, indicating that they may end up just being on the regular Medicare coverage,
which indicates that the to me, one of the primary objectives of the Obamacare is to shift the long-term unfunded liabilities that the unions have to cover their medical to the public.
I wanted to get your thoughts on that.
Let me answer that part of it and then and then ask your question.
The unions kind of have two different aspects of this.
The first is you're right, if they can take all of the union retirees who are getting health care benefits as part of their pension program and get them shuttled off to Medicare, it does certainly help these unions with the unfunded pension liabilities.
On the other hand, Obamacare does make requirements that preempt some of the negotiated benefits that unions have, which is why some of the union leaders have been so critical and have been breaking with the president on this.
This whole issue affects so many people in so many different ways.
The thing about Obamacare in discussing it, and as I and as I mentioned earlier on the program, the challenge for critics in trying to explain to people before we got to this point that we're at now of what a disaster this is going to be is Obamacare has 15,000 different components.
It's not like a simple policy that says we're gonna do A, so therefore B is going to happen.
It has all of these different provisions that are in place here, and it's hard to highlight all of them.
You want to spend a fair amount of time talking about the you know the fa the poor sign-up rate, you want to spend a fair amount of time on the people who had their insurance coverage canceled, he's now meddling around with the individual mandate, but there's all of these other things that are in there as well.
And I think for that reason it's been hard to get what Rush calls the low information voter to focus in on so many of the things that are going to go wrong because they all kind of blend together.
They even blend together for the critics of the for the critics of Obamacare.
You said you had a question.
Yes, my question is this several months ago, the fact uh uh the percentage came out that the unions weren't but about sixty to sixty-five percent funded on their long-term medical c medical coverage.
Well, on the surface, it looks like if they're going to shift ultimately shift their membership over to Obamacare and therefore the public goal, uh, are they not only going to reap the savings that they don't have to fund this other 40 percent, but are they also going to be able to pocket the funded portion that's the sixty something percent?
Yeah, I don't I don't know the answer to that, but you mentioned the unions.
I I believe that once the employer mandate, you know, that that that thing was delayed for a year.
W when we get to next year, there are going to be more employers than people think are going to be dropping their group health plans for the same reasons that you mentioned with regard to the unions.
There's all sorts of people that are facing these long-term mandates.
You know, you've got private companies that have that are still carrying uh employees, uh retired employees on their health care plans as part of the pension.
If they can dump all of that stuff, they're going to do that.
The more people then that are dumped off of these plans, the more pressure there's going to be on insurers, I think, to narrow their provider network.
That's where the real, I think, public backlash against Obamacare is going to come in.
Let's face it, right now, the majority of Americans still get a group health plan at work or they're part of Medicare.
That's where mo or for that matter, I guess Medicaid.
Much of that hasn't changed much.
The thing that's going to really hit home with people is when they start losing their doctors.
Most of the big insurers are already starting to narrow down their provider networks.
Well, if your doctor isn't part of that network because the insurers feel this financial pressure to trim the size of them, then you are going to lose their doctor.
You think it makes some people mad that they lost their individual policy.
How about if you lose the doctor that you've been going to forever?
There are already stories out there about people that are trying to find a plan in the Obamacare exchange that includes their doctor.
They finally find one that does, but the specialists they go to, that one isn't it, that one isn't in the network.
People lose their doctor.
That's something that really hits home for them.
Thank you for the call, Mike.
Let's go to Milford, Ohio and Jen.
Jennifer on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Yes.
Uh Merry Christmas, Mark.
And uh Amen to freedom of speech.
I stand with Phil.
Um, you look at the the um program, and it's I mean, it is just an awesome family-oriented program.
You know, they pray, they hunt, they provide.
Uh, it's just family.
The young generation nowadays, they sit and they watch um I mean for Pete's sake, uh something about gypsies.
There's uh there's a reality show about gypsies.
Uh you have the Kardashians, you know, you see about her going to jail for a DUI that she got.
And then yet, you know, I'm not sure.
Well, you're right, I mean, you you're right about this.
All of cable TV is just Jersey Shore and all this junk.
When you take a look at what celebrities are able to get away with and what they're able to say and do, we're really messed up when Phil Robertson can't get up there and talk about his religion.
I mean, 50 cent is still making appearances on everything that you can imagine.
She mentioned the Kardashians.
How about rap music lyrics that are put out for the same multinational corporations that own own companies like AE.
It's really, really fouled up.
When a Christian can't talk about Christianity, but everybody else can live out any sin or any deviant lifestyle or any dangerous idea that they feel like.
I'm Mark Belling setting in for Rush Limbaugh on EIB.
All right, it's Christmas.
Here's the offer.
If somebody came up to you and said, got two options here.
You can take five thousand dollars in cash.
Or I'll buy you twenty five hundred dollars worth I did it and did it wrong.
Twenty five hundred in cash or five thousand dollars worth of bitcoin.
The thing is, though, you can't sell the bitcoin for at least two years.
Would you take the twenty five hundred in cash?
Or would you take the bitcoin?
And remember you're getting five thousand dollars worth of the bitcoin.
You'd take the bitcoin.
Both snerdly would take the bitcoin.
I don't know what I'd do.
I'm always interested in new ideas.
This one's too new for me to understand.
Nobody knows what these things are worth.
Nobody knows whether or not they'll survive.
I've got a story here in the New York Times about a guy who was accumulating bitcoins back in 2010.
Bitcoin is a currency that isn't really a currency.
It was just embedded.
It's something.
It's like a marker in cyberspace.
And people are using it to buy stuff.
Now you can only buy it from buy stuff from somebody who's willing to accept the bitcoin.
You could say that anything is a bitcoin.
You could say that matchsticks were bitcoins.
The thing about bitcoins, though, is that they're limited.
There only can be 11 million of them.
The way this guy in 2010 was accumulating them was that he was he had a big computer software program, and he was out there getting the Bitcoin.
The originators of Bitcoin require that in order for you to get one Bitcoin, you've got to s solve a complex mathematical problem.
Most of these problems can only be surviv solved by computers.
If you can solve it, if your computer can answer the question, you get a bitcoin.
Well, there's a guy in Jacksonville, Florida who was accumulating all of these bitcoins.
And he was so proud of himself that he got 10,000 of them.
This is back in 2010.
You know what he did with his 10,000 bitcoins?
He found a pizza company that was willing to give him two fifteen dollar pizzas for the $10,000 in bitcoins.
In other words, his $10,000 bitcoins, he turned into $30.
Bitcoins flopping around all over the place.
The last I checked it, they were around $600 per the guy who manufactured all of these back in 2010.
Well, so what?
I still got two pizzas out of the deal.
That's what they've done in price.
Just in this year alone, they've traded as high as as low as $50 a bitcoin and as high as twelve hundred.
It moves hundreds of dollars each day.
Because nobody can wrap their heads around it and try to figure out whether or not this is something that has value or not.
It seems ingenious.
Who says only government can decide what money is?
There are all sorts of things that people collect, like art that doesn't have any tangible value.
Its value is only in whether or not Someone wants to have it.
You can even argue that gold is sort of like that.
So they create these 11 million Bitcoins, about half of which have now been, quote, minted.
Are they worth anything or not?
Some people fear the governments are going to outlaw their use.
China's saying that no bank can conduct a transaction that includes a Bitcoin.
Oh, the Chinese market may be knocked out of the box.
Well, that means the Bitcoin took a big big tumble.
But it's still several hundred dollars per Bitcoin.
Then I read this in the story in the New York Times.
Jed McCaleb, who is the creator of the number one exchange in which Bitcoins are bought and sold, Mount Gox, he predicts that a single Bitcoin will go for $30,000 in a few years.
$30,000.
Right now you can get one for about five or six hundred bucks.
Mark Williams of Boston University says this is all a giant bubble, that it's a mania, it's silly.
He says Bitcoin's gonna go down to ten dollars.
So you have one expert saying that they're gonna go to thirty thousand dollars and another one saying that they're going to go to ten.
The idea, of course, is that here you have a currency that is in limited supply.
The creators of Bitcoin say that there will never be more than the eleven million, meaning in order to get one, you have to have one of the eleven million, or five of them or ten of them or twenty of them.
And if you want to sell something on the internet or sell anything and you want to price your items in bitcoins, why not do it?
Why go through a government currency issued by the Federal Reserve or the Chinese government?
The problem, of course, as I see it here, is when they get done with the 11 million bitcoins, why didn't somebody else invent another internet currency?
Create 30 million Zach coins.
Then they're suddenly not rare anymore.
Anyone can create an artificial currency since it's not backed by anything and it isn't anything.
So my notion is that this is just worthless, that you're just creating something out there and saying that it's worth $500.
On the other hand, the people that are buying some of these, they can't be crazy.
The biggest single holders of Bitcoins are the Van Wink Van Winkelvoss brothers.
Remember them?
They're the guns guys that thought that they were cheated out of Facebook by Zuckerberg.
They own one million of them and they say they haven't sold any.
They think that this is the future.
They think that currency is going to be this type of thing rather than something that is backed by government, since government is always manipulating its currency for political purposes.
So here's my idea for Rush.
All right, the Bitcoin, nobody trusts that, nobody even knows where it is.
I think Rush should create these and call them the Rush coin.
I think he should he should mint through cyber technology, create five million, ten million, whatever they are, bitcoins, encourage consumer transactions in which rush listeners will buy and sell with one another.
I think that this would just be a gold mine.
Imagine if he established his name.
First of all, Bitcoin, who trusts that?
Who even knows where they are?
Okay, I go on some exchange and I get something, I've got to find somebody who's willing to accept it.
The Rush coin, though, why?
It's got value, it's got name appeal.
I'll accept this coin.
It was created by Rush Limbaugh, Russia's an honest guy.
Now I can't do this.
If I create the belling coin, where's that gonna go once you get 40 miles away from Milwaukee?
So this is my idea.
Now, if I went down to the Southern Command and stormed in there and demanded to talk to Rush and started battling, Rush, you ought to create a you ought to create a Rush coin.
You guys down there would grab a net and throw me out of there and call the police department and so on.
So I figure I'd go through, go on the air with this, let the audience know about it.
I got both snerdly sitting over here in person.
Admit it, there's potential.
If people are willing to pay $500 for a Bitcoin, whatever that is, why couldn't Rush invent his own internet currency and put a value on it?
And it doesn't have to be $500, it would be whatever people would determine that it would be.
He then just he then just has to hang on to about 20 to 25%.
The remaining 70 to 75% go in go into Circulation if they become worth a thousand or two thousand dollars, he has I just if this happens now.
I just, you know, I want to uh maybe you know a suite at the hotel that I stay at here in New York, or uh you know, I go real, real cheap and easy.
It's the glory of anyway.
So that's my idea for Rush to make even more money.
In the meantime, I'm facing the prospect of getting on a plane and going back to Milwaukee tonight, reading the story about how the airlines are going to make the room between the seats even less than it is right now.
It used to be 36 inches, 34, 32.
Do you know that Spirit Airlines is now down to 28 inches?
In fact, the great bane of anybody who's tall like me, you're pretty big too, is when people recline their seats back.
You've got all these planes that are filled right now, especially at Christmas.
We got no leg room as it is, and then there's this guy to say, well, good news on this is some of the airlines are not allowing you to recline your seats anymore.
Not to stop all the controversy from people grousing about it so they can get even more seats in there.
Yet Russia's the Jet and all of this, and here I am coming up with an idea to make Rush even.
Well, that's my way of thanking him for the opportunity to talk to his audience.
This is gonna happen, isn't it?
Somebody's gonna do it.
Somebody like O'Reilly will try to steal the idea, but the Rush coin, it even has a ring to it, doesn't it?
Maybe you'd even create a special token where there was something to uh, you know, as opposed to he doesn't trust the Federal Reserve any more than the rest of us, does he?
You don't think do you trust Yellen's Federal Reserve, and okay, now we're gonna taper off from this loose and well, who's Rush Limbaugh to issue currency.
Look what the Federal Reserve has been doing.
Just flooding the market with all of these dollars, buying up every bond and site, pumping up our economy to make it look as though something's going on here when in fact it's all just this artificial air.
That's why some people believe in the Bitcoin.
Anyway, that's my idea.
Uh let's go to the phones real quickly.
Rockford, Michigan, Jen.
You're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Merry Christmas.
Merry Christmas.
I have to disagree with you.
I think that most of the, and I will agree with uh previous callers.
I think that a lot of people are not happy with the Obama policies.
And they'll grouse about it.
But I think that these people are such lemony, such low information voters, that they will follow them into the gas chambers complaining about the smoke the whole way.
Yeah, here's why here's why I don't agree with you, Jen.
It's real easy for people to blindly follow Obama as he blames everyone else for all of our problems, which is why he never paid any real political price for the lousy economy that we've been in, that the tepid recovery that only now is finally showing any signs of life.
But that's different.
Everybody knows that Obamacare is his.
He can't blame anybody else for this.
Whether you agree with what the take the Ted Cruz strategy back on uh in October of trying to, you know, the government shut down and all of that and bring Obamacare to the head to a head and defund it, whether you agree with that or not.
It made it clear the Republicans do not support Obamacare.
This is an Obama thing.
When people start losing their doctors, when they lose their insurance policies, when their policies no longer cover the things that they used to, when they find longer and longer waits to be able to see a physician, when companies lay employees off because they say, look, we can't afford you anymore because you're covered by the employer mandate under Obamacare.
When it touches people in their own lives, that's when I think there becomes an impact on him.
The other part is I think most of the people who support Obama, and I know that the hardcore true believers will never leave him, but a lot of those people who you mentioned the low information voters, I think they always trusted the guy.
I think they thought that he was a decent guy.
Now I never trusted and trusted him, but I think a lot of those people did.
When he got up there and made those promises that are all going to fall apart.
You can keep your doctor.
A lot of people are gonna lose the doctor.
You can keep your insurance.
That's happened already.
He loses a lot of the goodwill that helped build up some of this support that he has.
So I do think that Obama's popularity will continue to wane, Which is why more and more Democrats are now seeing him as a liability rather than an asset.
Thank you for the call, Jen.
My name is Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh to Benton, Illinois, and Daniel.
Daniel, you're on EIB with me, the guest host.
Hi, Mark.
Very merry Christmas to you.
Thank you.
Um I called to uh talk about uh the uh Utah homosexuality decision.
Um you were talking about the constitutionality of that decision and saying why is it all of a sudden a constitutional argument?
Well, let me qualify this by I first of all I'm a Christian, I do believe that homosexuality is immoral and sin.
But I also think it's a human rights issue because you have to separate your religion and your politics to a certain degree.
Uh constitutionally speaking, in 1861, Abraham Lincoln decided that slavery no longer was uh should be legal in the United States, sparking the United States civil war, uh one of the deadliest wars in our history.
Well, that being said, for almost a hundred years in the United States, slavery was legal.
Okay, you said you were going to say something about the Utah decision.
I think that that we're just now sort of seeing that equal protection under the law, you have to have human rights for everybody.
Uh that's to include homosexual homosexuals in straits.
Um where does the Constitution say that a state can't ban gay marriage?
Where does it say that?
I don't think it's any other business.
I think it's a religious establishment.
I didn't I didn't ask that question.
I said, where did the con where does the Constitution state that a state can't define what a marriage is and what a marriage isn't?
And all of a sudden we have one federal judge, I believe in Obama appoint him, not positive, but he is an Obama appointee, suddenly declare that this is in the Constitution that states cannot define marriage anymore.
So what?
Did the did all of the other federal judges for the preceding 230 years of our nation's history miss that?
Did they not find that part in the Constitution that this one guy magically found?
Or is he merely ruling what he feels like ruling because it makes him feel good, as opposed to acting on what the Constitution says.
You really think that this is the first guy that discovered this, that all Oliver Wendell Holmes couldn't find it in there, and Warren Berger couldn't find it in there, and Earl Warren couldn't find it in there, and all the other justices that we've had, I I don't buy it.
I kind of think that this guy wants to be able to order Utah to marry gaze, so he's just gonna use the Constitution as his little tool and say, hey, guess what?
I found it in there.
If they're gonna say that, you know, the Constitution forhibits Utah from defining marriage, you could say that the Constitution says whatever you feel like of making it say, which is how we got Roe versus White in the first place.
They wanted to legalize abortion in the United States.
They just so they just pretended that the Constitution said I I've got a news flash.
Barack Obama today signed up for Obamacare.
Obama signed up today for Obamacare.
Isn't this the deadline?
The last day that you can sign up.
Why'd he wait so long?
Oh.
He today was the first day that he was able to get through on the website.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling.
Bo found me this.
Uh Obamacare outreach hits the clubs.
The people that are pushing signups for Obamacare in Washington, D.C., they had a guy go to one of the gay nightclubs to try to hand off brochures.
Nobody wanted any because at another table they were handing out the free condoms.
So the free condoms are more popular uh than the sign up for Obama.
So Obama signs up for Obamacare.
What does that mean?
Does that mean the health coverage he has now is gone and he just has the same type of plan as everyone else?
What?
His deal is on the exchange?
If so, then I want Obamacare.
I want to sign up to be able to go to Walter Reed.
I want to sign up so that my physician lives at the you know the White House physician?
You know where he works?
He works in the White House.
What a sham.
Yeah, he's signing up for Obamacare.
Well, this is symbolic, they're arguing.
Symbolic of what?
Symbolic of what?
Do you want to know what's symbolic of Obamacare?
The fact that the whole country hates it.
That's some symbolism I can relate to.
Merry Christmas, everybody.
▲
Export Selection