Rush Limbaugh Program - April 23, 2014, Wednesday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 23, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:33

April 23, 2014, Wednesday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Buck Sexton from The Blaze and the Buck Sexton Show in for Rush Limbaugh today.
	I know a lot of you want to hear about this, want to talk about this, and so we gotta dive a little bit into the latest with the Bureau of Land Management.
	There are so many issues swirling around this that are uh both uh disheartening from the prospect or from the perspective of somebody who favors limited government and somebody who is constantly on the lookout for federal intrusion and overreach.
	Um and this is obviously a situation that continues to spiral out and get bigger because now there's much greater awareness of first of all of the BLM, period.
	People know about the BLM now.
	I think there are plenty of Americans who were unaware of the fact that there even really was a Bureau of Land Management.
	On top of that, now we actually know that there are armed agents of the Bureau of Land Management, that the BLM has its own t uh tortoise protection SWAT teams when necessary.
	They will roll in with whatever gear they need and they will protect the tortoise, the spotted owl, whatever else is at stake.
	Yeah, I have no idea how these things happen when they decide that they're gonna roll in there like that.
	You would think that an agency that is regulatory in nature, not law enforcement specifically in nature, should have to sort of work its way up the federal food chain and go to perhaps the FBI or some other organization that we know has guns and needs them in order to, if necessary, to make arrests, to effect arrests, and to deal with people that may or may not pose a risk to public safety.
	You would think that the BLM shouldn't be able to do that on its own here.
	And yet not only do we have the Bundy situation ongoing in Nevada, and by the way, Harry Reid, never to be outdone, never to be left out of the headlines, has said that I'll try to do my best, Harry Reid, it's obvious that you can't walk away from this, and we can speculate all we want.
	Uh and we can speculate, I can't do any more, Harry Reid.
	We can speculate all we want about what's going to happen next, but I don't think it's going to be tomorrow that something is going to happen, but something will happen.
	We are a nation of laws, not of men and women.
	So much of Harry Reed's totalitarian impulse is on display in this incident here.
	So much of what we see as sort of an animating principle, if you can call it a principle, of the Democrat left in this country has come to the fore.
	We sort of see now that they really think that anyone who stands up to the feds, anyone who believes that there should be some kind of a a pushback on some of these policies.
	As I've said, 4500 plus criminal laws, countless thousands of regulatory statutes being added to all the time.
	The Federal Register this past year, just this year.
	70,000 pages.
	Who's read it?
	Raise your hand.
	I doubt not only I haven't read it, and you haven't read it, I'm quite certain the Obama administration itself has not read it and is unaware of what is contained in those pages.
	Unless you're a special interest, unless you are one of these agencies, and it sort of then becomes your own little bailiwick, your own little area of operation, then you certainly care what the regulations are.
	But it's not enough, it seems, for the BLM to be engaged in this standoff in N uh in Nevada.
	And it's not enough that the American people now have finally learned in a way that they probably wouldn't have before that the Feds basically own the state of Nevada.
	It's really a federal protectorate of sorts.
	It's almost like the District of Columbia.
	They own over eighty percent of that state, the land in that state.
	There are other states as well out west where they own massive percentages, which of course begs the question why.
	If the federal government is to put it kindly, a lackluster or or or ridiculously incompetent venture capitalist, i.e., as we've seen with Cylindra among other green energy debacles.
	But hey, well intentioned, well intentioned.
	High high five from Al Gore on that one.
	Why do we think they'd be better at being a landlord at land management?
	If anything requires on the site and localized control, wouldn't it be land?
	Wouldn't we want to have a situation where a state, if not a local government, is in charge of these pieces of property?
	Well, you may have thought, because logic would dictate that BLM would be in a sort of moment of introspection.
	They'd sort of sit there and say, what exactly are we supposed to be doing here?
	What's our mission?
	Maybe we should take a slightly easier tone with the American people and we're supposed to serve them, right?
	We're not supposed to just be uh the fly in the punch bowl and irritating them and taking their money and telling them what they can and cannot do for no apparent reason, I guess, other than to protect the tortoise, which some, by the way, have been telling me actually should be taken off the endangered species list.
	I've been getting a lot of uh email and such about that over the past couple of weeks.
	And I will never forget, as a uh as a young officer of the federal government myself, going out to a military base in California and being told and it was it was hard it was sort of a laugh-cry situation where a general at a large base was telling me about the tortoise tunnels they had to build to make sure they protected this same species of tortoise in uh in Southern California, and no one ever stopped to think in the uh EPA and and and the other federal agencies involved here.
	No one ever stopped to think, how exactly do we get the tortoises to go through these tunnels?
	They can still go over the road, they can still be hit by a car, so what is the purpose of putting them in these tunnels?
	Oh, okay, well, it only cost the taxpayer a few million bucks.
	Whatever, man.
	No biggie.
	That's like a rounding error for the feds now.
	They just take your money and spend it like drunken sailors.
	No offense to sailors there, it's just a term.
	But they just take it and spend it like crazy.
	But this isn't the only one that we see now raised up at the national discussion.
	This is not the only time we're gonna have to face down the BLM, it seems like, and look at what they're up to.
	This is from FoxNews.com.
	Republicans warn BLM eyeing land grab along Wait for it.
	Texas, Oklahoma border.
	Now, I've heard from friends of mine in Texas that the Texas Oklahoma border is uh a subject of many uh jibes and jokes back and forth between the residents of both lovely states.
	I take no part in that disagreement.
	I I take no part in whether that border also should be more closely policed.
	I've heard people say these things, that's none of my concern.
	However, back to the seriousness of what we're talking about here.
	This is what Fox has to say about this additional perhaps hasn't happened yet, land grab by the feds, by the Bureau of Land Management.
	Texas officials are raising alarm that the Bureau of Land Management, on the heels of its dust up with Nevada rancher Clive and Bundy, might be eyeing a massive land grab in Northern Texas.
	The under the radar issue has caught the attention of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who fired off a letter on Tuesday to BLM director Neil Corns saying the agency, quote, appears to be threatening the private property rights of hard working Texans.
	Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.
	That's what Abbott wrote.
	He's also, by the way, a Republican governatorial candidate.
	What what's at issue here are thousands of acres of land on the Texas side of the Red River, which is along the Texas Oklahoma border.
	And officials have recently raised a concern that BLM might be looking at claiming ninety thousand acres of land as part of the public domain.
	Now, of course, the BLM has come out, they've said they're categorically not expanding federal holdings along the Red River, but this is interesting because some are saying that they're not being straight on this.
	They're not being honest, and that maybe now there's a sense among the feds that they better go while they can and take more while they can because people are awake about this issue now, are asking questions about this issue now, are curious about just how far the feds think they're allowed to go when it comes to seizing property.
	Keep in mind, by the way, as backstory to all this, or perhaps as sort of something to just have in your back pocket as we talk about BLM, that it is the position of the federal government right now, not only that it can seize land under eminent domain for public purpose, but actually under the uh kilo decision.
	Uh and this was a a decision in Connecticut.
	Uh they wanted to take over some property, and they had to take private property for private use.
	The Supreme Court Actually held that that was constitutional.
	That you could take private land uh private land away from private landowners for by the f by the government and then give it to another private entity if the government determines that that private entity would make better use of it.
	That is, as they say, in legal profession is good law.
	Of course, it's actually terrible law, but that is technically possible and permissible under the Supreme Court's ruling about eminent domain.
	Eminent domain is not just we want to build a road, we want to build a highway.
	It's you know, we got this consortium coming in.
	Maybe they want to build solar power plants, maybe they want to build wind turbines.
	I don't know.
	You know, we're just spitballing here.
	But we think that they might make better usage of this land than a bunch of guys with their you know.
	Maybe that's what's happening here.
	Well, if that's in fact legal, then maybe we should pay much closer, and it is, by the way, under the federal government's current interpretation of its powers, they can take your stuff and give it to somebody else because they're doing a better job with your stuff, is the very simplistic way of of looking at it.
	Now, if that is in fact the case, when you see the possible seizure of of land here, uh when you see the possible seizure of land, and that could involve tens of thousands, tens of thousands of acres, and the federal government isn't absolutely dead set clear on the fact that this could not happen.
	I think you get a sense of why there's so much outrage here.
	Why do the feds even have this land?
	Why do they think that it's up to them to determine whether or not people can graze on this land or that land?
	Shouldn't that be left?
	If anything should be left to the states.
	If we have a federal system where states actually under the Tenth Amendment have some sort of autonomy, which is really what you're going for.
	Localized political control because it's more responsive to the will of the American people who live in that specific state or city or town.
	If that doesn't apply to land, what does it apply to?
	It doesn't really apply to law, I can tell you that.
	Federal statutes now encroach upon all aspects of law.
	We know that they'll find a way under a ridiculous reading of the Wickard v.
	Philburn decision that decided that even grain that you grow for your own cows somehow affects commerce between states if it never leaves the state.
	From that, we have grown a monster.
	And that monster is a federal government that thinks that it can have it can and will regulate every aspect of our lives because it knows better than you, than your local representatives, than your state representatives.
	If you can't find a way to get them to give up the land that is around you, if you can't convince bureaucrats in DC that they don't know what the heck is going on in huge tracts of land way out west, it seems like the battle for limited government's already lost, doesn't it?
	It seems like it's all over.
	So we'll keep an eye on this possible Texas Oklahoma land grab, and I'll try to avoid reading out any of the jokes tweeted at me about Texas and Oklahoma.
	I take no part in that battle.
	I know that they really embrace each other as brothers.
	Uh that's what I'm telling myself at least.
	800-282-2882 Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh and having a great time.
	I'm gonna be back in just a sec.
	Buck Sexton from the Blaze.com in for Rush Limbaugh today.
	Very kind of the folks here to have me.
	Now, I said I would take calls.
	The number's 800 two eight two two eight eight two.
	I have a feeling some of you may want to weigh in on this BLM Bundy land dispute issue that maybe now is stretching into the Texas Oklahoma corridor, really?
	Let's see what we got.
	Christian from Texas, uh you are on the Rush Limbaugh Show and you're speaking to Buck.
	What's up?
	Buck, you are a great American.
	God bless you.
	Why thank you, sir.
	I like you already.
	There we go.
	So with this seizure of land is 140 acres along the border with Oklahoma.
	And yeah, we're pretty friendly, I guess.
	Texas and Oklahoma.
	I gotta say, I have a I have an uncle who has land down here in South Texas, really way south, like on the border with Tamaulipas, Mexico.
	And we have land that is built near a flood zone, and that flood zone, they could do the same thing there that they did in Oklahoma.
	With water receding.
	What do you so uh I think we're kind of losing you there.
	So you're saying that they could seize this land under a because of uh water issues?
	Yes.
	With the accretion, because with uh because with North Texas, what's happening over there is that the river, it's uh the sediment is receding, it gets smaller, it gets wider, and based on that, they're able to seize the land based on how low the river gets.
	So the lower and lower the river gets, they're able to seize land, or the higher and higher it gets, they're able to seize land.
	Christian, thank you for for calling.
	I believe it because we know that in some instances just having puddles on your property, if you run afoul of some of the federal agencies out there, all of a sudden now that's a wetland and is regulated as such.
	And if you uh if you don't set up some kind of weird cordon operation around the puddle on your property, the double crested cormorant may be extinct or whatever.
	I just made that one up.
	I'm not sure they're protected.
	Uh but let's go to Richard from Colorado.
	Richard, you are on uh Rush Limbaugh and this is Buck Sexton.
	Hey Buck, how are you today, sir?
	I'm fine, thank you.
	How are you?
	I'm doing okay.
	I just kind of wanted to weigh in on the BLM uh subject here as far as Colorado goes.
	We have a lot of open land on out here and you know people go on out they ride their four wheelers and that sort of thing.
	And and the BLM actually does a uh does a pretty good job uh during the muddy seasons, you know, closing down certain accesses so they don't tear up the territory and the the roads and make it inaccessible for other people when it finally does dry out.
	So you know I I kind of admire them for that.
	But when you're out here in these in these territories, you you're running into federal police.
	These guys are armed all the time.
	We have rangers out here that are fully armed with automatic weapons.
	They've got radar detector, I mean, or radar guns to catch you speeding out on these back county roads or these way out in the middle of nowhere.
	So you never know who you're going to run into out here.
	And they have the full authority of the law to arrest you, to go to your house, to look in your house, to see what you have in your freezer, to see if you've been taking any animals out of season or have been poaching.
	They can see any articles that they find that may have been arrowheads or something you may have taken off a BLM land.
	You then have to prove that you got these.
	A hundred years ago, a friend of mine ran afoul of the law, and they came in, they searched his house, and he had arrowhead collections that his grandfather had given him.
	And he had to prove that he'd had that in his family for 60, 70, 80 years.
	And there was no warrant.
	So the police allowed the BLM to come on in and search his house along with the rest of them.
	And, you know, they did their thing.
	The police did their thing.
	You know, they took financial documents and that sort of thing.
	So the BLM has a lot of power, and they are federal police.
	Well, all of these, there's so many of these different federal agencies now that have heavily armed agents.
	We're not just talking about guys with sidearms.
	They've got long guns.
	They've got flak vests on.
	They're ready for whatever comes their way, it seems.
	And what you create is a...
	uh nasty paradigm in which people uh or these agencies w have to enforce law to justify their existence and so you get situations like and this is true and actually the Wall Street Journal has done a good job highlighting some of these cases.
	You know, there was a father and son who accidentally wandered onto federal land looking for arrowheads, and they didn't find any.
	And yet the federal government decided to prosecute them anyway.
	And remember, this is federal criminal code stuff, and this is stuff that actually has real consequences.
	They decided to prosecute them for trespassing and violating some statute about, you know, ancient Indian artifacts or something.
	They didn't actually find anything, but they didn't care.
	And the fact that they didn't know that they were on federal land didn't matter.
	And what you see is the more of these armed federal agents...
	that are out there and the more of these agencies that exist that have their own little specific area of federal law that they get to play around with the ATF being one of the scarier examples of this the more they're going to find people to make examples of and to prove the merit of their own existence as an agency.
	So that's what you know it's essentially you create a lot of hammers they're looking for a lot of nails and it's just you you've got people that have grown up here in the West I grew up in New Mexico I've been here in Colorado for over twenty years now and it it literally you can be out in the middle of nowhere.
	You won't see anybody and you could be you know target shooting or whatever like that and the next thing you know you don't have the sheriff department on out there.
	You got a federal cop.
	Oh yeah.
	Richard, thank you man for calling in and sharing your thoughts on this one.
	I got some thoughts on the media I think that I want to share and then maybe we're going to talk some immigration I think.
	So we got a lot coming your way so uh you really should not go anywhere.
	Buck Sexton filling in today for Rush Limbaugh.
	Check out my stuff at the Blaze dot com back in a minute.
	The elite Lib Media is bemoaning the loss of yet another of their legacy platforms.
	I shouldn't say the total loss it's the sort of slow, steady painful decline of one of their more uh established legacy platforms and that is the the Sunday talk show format.
	Now this was uh from Politico and it's uh let me just give you a little flavor of what we're talking about here and then we'll deep dive into it together.
	The Sunday morning shows once occupied a sacred space in American politics.
	Today many influential Washington players can't even remember the last time they watched the public affairs shows Meet the Press, Face the Nation and this week used to set the agenda for the nation's capital with their news making interviews and immensely influential audience.
	Now the buzz around the shows is more likely to center on gossipy criticism about the host most uh most notably Meet the press's David Gregory uh etc etc and then of course it talks about the number one guest on these programs by appearances uh Senator John McCain who cannot seem to get enough time on these Sunday shows I think somebody I read somewhere it's like thirty some odd times he's appeared in the past year on these shows.
	If I were somebody in the state of Arizona I might wonder you know maybe you should spend a little more time hanging out with us and worrying about our problems but I digress.
	But the elite media here once again falls into the same pattern and that is that instead of actually looking at the media landscape as it is they both have this nostalgia for what it used to be which was essentially a time in which there was no opposition in which the field had been ceded to them entirely.
	There was nobody else really it's kind of amazing when you put it in that context that a Republican ever got elected before the internet and before talk radio before shows like this actually allowed people to hear an alternative voice.
	And yet here they are and they cling to this and they wonder they just have this strange sense why is it that the Sunday shows that used to set the agenda for national conversation no longer have quite the same impact.
	Well we know that the leftist progressive Democrat mindset has a sort of innate and uh inherent hatred of competition really because their ideas and their own heads are so much better.
	In fact they're so much better as people they're so much more moral and enlightened than the uh the Crow Magnon Republican opposition we're so a bunch of Neanderthals over here that it's just bizarre to them that in any context these Sunday shows couldn't have quite the same couldn't have quite the same impact.
	Now David Gregory's come out he said he doesn't put much stock in the criticism.
	He says if I could figure out why certain perceptions existed I wouldn't have time to do my job.
	What I think is fascinating is that what got the media all in a in a tizzy about all this stuff is this notion that that NBC had hired some kind of a psychologist or something and and you know who who cares really.
	Meanwhile David Gregory I think in an act of hubris that you could only expect from the elite left in the media you know remember he held up that 30 round magazine on TV which of course is a violation of DC law now it's a stupid law but it is a violation of DC law to do that.
	And it was essentially him saying you know what I'm covered I'm good.
	Not going to come after me.
	I'm David Gregory.
	Come on look at the show I'm on this is really important stuff.
	We're telling you the stuff you've already heard all week.
	Oh before we get to the stuff they've already heard all week angle of this though, keep in mind that an individual a a citizen a taxpayer by the name of Mark Witishek has faced tremendous amount of opposition and hounding from the authorities in DC for possession of balls that are made of of metal.
	They don't have any projectile capability, they're not actually uh there's no cartridge attached to them, but Mr. Wittyshak, as has been covered extensively by the Washington Times, Mr. Wittyshek, uh he was prosecuted for that.
	He was prosecuted.
	Now keep in mind, this is like uh a bunch of inanimate objects that he had in his possession.
	Not only was he prosecuted, but back to our earlier conversation about how everybody wants to use a SWAT team these days.
	Everybody wants to roll in with the SWAT.
	In the in New York City they call it to ESU, emergency services unit.
	It's still SWAT.
	They call it different things in different places now because I think SWAT is starting to get kind of a connotation.
	In fact, I know it's already gotten a connotation.
	But they went in with uh a lot of armed, heavily armed police, uh prepared for battle, if you will, in this guy's house in Georgetown.
	They found a bunch of inanimate this is uh eighteen months ago, I think.
	And they prosecuted him, they went forward.
	The judge in the case couldn't even figure out, couldn't even define whether an inert shotgun shell, it was spent, it was incapable of being fired, whether that was a violation under the statute, so they got him on these replica musket balls that he had.
	Now, only in DC could this be the way that they think.
	Well, DC, New York, maybe LA, if they can take a break from their life coaches, surfs up.
	Um but only in in DC really would you find a situation where a replica firearm is okay, but the replica ammunition for your replica firearm, man, gotta go to jail for that one.
	Gotta be a convicted firearms criminal.
	Have to register, has to register as a firearms criminal like some kind of deviant.
	Okay, David Gregory, 30 round magazine.
	Hey, look at this, look at me.
	Guns, I want to talk about guns, I want ratings.
	Nothing.
	I'm as I understand it, never even set foot, never even set foot in a police station in DC in the district.
	They had nothing to do with that.
	They didn't care.
	Well, what do these things have in common?
	It just shows you the mindset.
	They think they can wave around a thirty round magazine, and they think the American people should listen to them because they're so wise, they're so erudite, they're such fantastic journalists.
	They bring you the truth.
	I mean, you know that they're all left wing hacks.
	I'm pretty sure, wait, one of them, George Stephanopoulos, wasn't he a Clinton administration official?
	Yeah, I think so.
	I'm pretty sure that my man George uh is as partisan as partisan gets, but we're now he's been sort of rebranded and you know, he's a guy who just goes for the truth.
	You know, I'm somebody who's come up in an age of new media, in an age where talk radio and the internet and Fox News and the Blaze and other outlets can actually give people an alternative, an alternative to this sort of mess that they throw your way on Sundays.
	But the fact that they don't understand that they can't foresee that this of course would happen, that they no longer have a stranglehold over the airwaves, that information's coming out instantaneously, that there's so many ways to get information now, and that the packaging of it that they offer us not only isn't what they pretend that it is, which is nonpartisan and factual and in the spirit of Walter Cronkite and all the rest of that garbage that they like to peddle our way.
	But the reality of it, of course, is that they're engaged in a subtle form of propaganda, and most Americans can kind of tell, or at least Americans with an open mind who are paying attention to the media and are not unfortunately bouncing around in the low information side of things.
	So the death of the Sunday shows, as Dylan Byers' blog on Politico is referring to it, of course was inevitable.
	It's inevitable because it's a part of a much larger trend, and that trend is that when people have choice, they tend not to want to hear from these blowhards.
	They tend not to want to hear from people who have this assumption that somehow they know more than you, they should tell you what it is to think, and that you're gonna wait all week until you act to find out what could have been found out on any day before then.
	It's not for nothing that I think there's a show now that's gonna be on HBO where they say it's the it's the the news on Sunday from the week before and they're making a big joke of that.
	Well, this is exactly what this is.
	These Sunday shows are the news on Sunday of the week before.
	It's a joke on HBO on the on the on the broadcast networks.
	It's in fact the way they do business.
	And you look at the people they offer up, and I understand that there's a Sort of there's a habituation that occurs.
	People get used to hearing from certain people.
	They get used to trusting in their newsman, you know, which, in large scale, a lot of these guys, I'll be honest with you, one of my first one of my first job experiences, period.
	In fact, my first official job experience was working at one of these broadcast networks.
	And even then I was like, what's with all the the stuffed shirts and the nonsense, all the pomp and circumstance.
	I've never seen the Emperor's got no clothes, everybody.
	You don't see this.
	Oh no, no, no, newsmen.
	These are they're giving it to you straight every night, reading it off the prompter after their faces have been properly powdered and their hair has been set just so you trust them.
	You trust I know, that's right.
	The guys in here, they they know.
	Oh, yeah, we gotta trust these guys.
	Yeah.
	So the Sunday shows having problems is inevitable, but it's also a a symptom of a much of a much larger change.
	A change in which when the American people have choice and the ability to choose from whom they get their news and information, the old guard, the elitist media, a better way of putting it, I think, than the elite media, they start losing out.
	Now they're gonna fight against this, by the way.
	There's going to be a number of efforts, and I think you could see consolidation among some of the big networks.
	You could see efforts perhaps to control a greater share of the cable industry in general.
	You could see things happening that might start to give an edge back to the left.
	Because one thing that I know for sure is that on the battlefield of ideas, if our side lines up and their side lines up, it's gonna be waterloo for them.
	But if they can always stack the deck, if they can always have it on their terms, if they can have it at the time and place of their choosing, they have bigger outlets, they have more support, they unite the they circle the wagons for each other.
	Well, then our job gets harder.
	But so don't cry any tears for the death of the Sunday show.
	It's been dying for a long time, and it's about time we started to look to people that actually are honest about their intentions and goals if we're gonna trust their analysis.
	Newsmen.
	800-282-2882, Buck Sexton InfoRush Limbaugh.
	I am just getting started.
	Buck Sexton of the Blaze dot com back in for Rush Limbaugh today, and we're talking about media, and I see right here in front of me, it appears like magic, that uh there is another attempt here to get the government involved in speech, specifically in this context, regulating political speech or playing referee in this whole process.
	Let me tell you exactly what I'm talking about.
	This is from the Associated Press.
	The Supreme Court appears to be highly skeptical of laws that try to police false statements during political campaigns, raising doubts about the viability of such laws in more than fifteen states.
	Justices express those concerns early and often Tuesday during arguments in a case challenging an Ohio law that bars people from recklessly making false statements about candidates seeking elected office.
	Now the court is only going to rule on the uh it's not gonna rule directly on the constitutional issue, the first amendment issue here, because the question they're actually handling is can you challenge the law right away, or do you have to wait until the state actually finds you guilty or tries to enforce this law against you?
	So there's an issue of standing.
	I mean, do you have to wait till you have standing by getting essentially prosecuted under this?
	And there are, of course, Anthony Kennedy says there are serious First Amendment concerns with this.
	You can imagine some of the issues that piled up.
	And just as background to the case, it comes from a 2010 election when a national anti-abortion group, the Susan B. Anthony List, planned to put up billboards accusing Representative Steve Dryhouse of supporting taxpayer-funded abortion because he voted for President Obama's new health care law, which of course President Obama said was that's never gonna happen.
	He promised there'll be no taxpayer funding for abortion in Obamacare.
	I doubt you still believe him if you ever believed him on that issue.
	And I don't mean you, I mean the royal you.
	But what's fascinating here is that as much as I can understand the desire to have the government weigh in here and protect one's political reputation.
	Mudslinging is not just a part of the game.
	For Democrats, mudslinging is the name of the game.
	As you know, earlier in the week there was this revelation that came out that there's uh stray voltage is the concept that the Democrats employ, and that is essentially lie, do whatever you gotta do, lie, cheat, and steal.
	Just get people talking about stuff that is of benefit politically to Democrats.
	Don't worry about the truth, don't worry about what it says about somebody, the reputations you might destroy, the misleading of people you're pretending to want to help.
	They're just a bunch of sheep.
	And you need to get them in the right place.
	So if you gotta lie to them, you gotta lie to sheep, you got a lot of people.
	You're a Democrat, baby, go for it.
	That's the plan.
	That's in fact what they've come out as a matter of of communication strategy.
	I'm not making this up.
	And the stray voltage concept is essentially a fancy way of saying, lie, do whatever you gotta do, just get people talking about the war on women.
	Just get people talking about Republican hatred of the poor or their desire to take health care away from people.
	Whatever you have to do to get people talking about that, even if you have to make it up, that is the strategy.
	Now, this comes from the top, I think you could easily see.
	President Obama, if you like your plan, you can keep it.
	That's only ahead for me of the oh, there's not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS scandal lie while that investigation is still going on, and Lois Lerner is pleading the fifth to avoid incriminating herself for what she did in her official capacity as a senior IRS official.
	President Obama lies.
	We know that.
	In fact, there was that poll last week that says that over half of Americans believe the president lies.
	I kind of want to meet the 30% of Democrats who think that he never lies.
	I would love to just have a well, actually, my my head would probably just explode, but I'd like to hear the justification for that, their sense of why how that could possibly be true at this point in time.
	Among the biggest lies ever told to the American electorate, it would seem to me, is if you like your plan, you can keep it.
	And it wasn't just a lie that was told willy-nilly, off to the side, whispered here and there.
	No, it was a lie with a purpose.
	And the purpose was to fool the American people into thinking something was true so they would vote a certain way, and then when they had been uh swindled essentially, it's too late.
	It's all over.
	But now having the Supreme Court try to weigh in here against uh against this this the Susan B. Anthony list, uh having the Supreme Court weigh in into this dispute in any capacity is going to be problematic because as you know, the moment you give the government the dis the discretion to start making the call on what's protected and not protected speech, particularly in a political sense.
	Look, I just told you earlier today about how they've shut down this conservative group because they made the mistake of they challenge President Pantsuit, Benghazi Hillary, you can't do it.
	They're gonna come after you.
	She is the heir apparent, the anointed.
	She is the empress of of uh the new American regime that's coming in.
	That's what that's the way it's supposed to be.
	You get in the way of that, you are in trouble.
	You're gonna get shut down.
	The IRS is gonna give you a little knock, a little knock at the door.
	But this effort, as you can see here, to try to get some sort of uh, I hesitate to use the word fairness.
	There are some words that President Obama has ruined.
	Folks, fairness, the phrase let me be be clear, ending a sentence with period, these are all ruined now.
	These are all parts of our discourse that I just and I catch myself and I folks, I say folks, and I just want to pound my head against the wall.
	Can't do it.
	I can't do it.
	And yet here we are, people so desperate for some truth in the political process that they are turning to the courts, the same courts, by the way, that have had some uh some trouble recently, I would say, with with rulings on speech issues, but they're turning to the court in the hope that somehow they'll be a referee, and that that won't be abused against conservatives and against the GOP.
	We had that caller before, it was a little animated, a little upset, you know, we're not fighting enough, not doing enough to try to push back against the leftist overreach here.
	Guess what?
	Part of our problem is that we don't play dirty like they do.
	And I know that sounds so hackneyed, it's like, oh, of course it's a cliche.
	We don't.
	And if we're unwilling to do that, then we don't want to give them a bigger opening to abuse the mechanism of the state to shut down speech they don't want, because they're gonna do it.
	And we're not, and it's gonna be yet another arrow in their quiver to try to tilt the uh conversation in their favor.
	800-282-2882 Buck Sexton Infra Rush Limbaugh.
	Take some calls.
	Back in a minute.
	Buck Sexton Info Rush Limbaugh.
	Don't know if you heard.
	Uh uh sadly, a member of the Obama family has passed, as the hat tip the weekly standard here.
	Zaitoony Onyango, who's the woman the president uh once called Auntie, died in a South Boston nursing home this month.
	Her closest relatives were gathered at her nearby apartment, uh, and there was weeping uh before a polished coffin, and uh there was descriptions, very nice descriptions of her from her half-sister as the spirit of the Obama family, and uh and some some nice talk.
	The stuff you would expect as a family member passes away.
	What you may not expect, or you may not know, is um the president, uh President Obama, he didn't go.
	He didn't attend because he was golfing.

▲