Rush Limbaugh Program - November 13, 2014, Thursday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 13, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:30

November 13, 2014, Thursday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	Yes, sir, Rebob, greetings to you, music lovers, drill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plane, Rush Limbaugh.
	Back at it, Limbo Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
	Telephone numbers 800-282-2882, the email address, Ilrushbow at EIB net.com.
	One of the many things they're going to do on this program today, and there are many.
	I have assembled today a stack of seemingly minor, inconsequential, hardly even noticeable little news stories that nobody will know about.
	I mean, they're AP stories, and they might show up on page 13B of your local press scimitar newspaper, but you won't see it.
	The drive-by's will not talk about them, but every one of these stories is a great illustration of how the left has intertwined and woven a web of tentacles and deceit into the deepest sectors of our society and culture, such as banning yet another farmer from any activity on his own land because of an animal on the endangered species list.
	While everybody, and by the way, I'm not saying we're being duped or tricked or distracted.
	This stuff just happens every day and nobody knows about it until it gets big enough to have an impact on a lot of people.
	Well, everybody's focusing on Gruber and Obamacare and Amnesty.
	All of these little leftist robots that run little towns and states and cities are doing their thing every day.
	And I decided today to assemble, and they happen every day.
	Stories like this happen every day, and I, your host, overlook them because they're so seemingly small and inconsequential.
	But I thought I would just assemble a stack.
	It's not a whole lot, maybe five or six, or could be a little more in there.
	And at some point during the program today, I will discuss them with you and show you exactly what I mean.
	It looks like my shaming of the drive-by media yesterday has had an immediate impact.
	Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Snerdl?
	Because now, everywhere in the drive-by media, they are dissecting the Gruber videos everywhere.
	CBS This Morning, Good Morning America, the Today Show, the New York Times, New York Times is saying it's no big deal.
	Everybody lies in politics.
	But they're still talking about it.
	The Washington Post has their second story on it.
	And yesterday, 24 hours ago, there was not one mention of Gruber in the drive-by media.
	Oh, oh, yeah, and Ron Fournier, Ron Fournier today has the I guess the cherry on top of the silken swirl of whipped cream in his outrage, in his sadness, in his disappointment, in his shock, in his disbelief over what has in fact I didn't have that at the top.
	But let me go ahead and give you that story, give you an example of what I'm talking about.
	It is everywhere.
	And Fournier, by the way, just to remind you who he is, he's now at the National Journal, which publishes the hotline.
	Uh it's it's uh inside the beltway for political professionals publication.
	They do sell subscriptions to the general public, but they basically hotline especially is uh almost like a trade paper.
	And it's been around for for decades.
	National Journal owns it, and they've got their own online magazine and Fournier works there.
	He used to be the White House correspondent for AP, and then used to be the Bureau Chief, uh, maybe Washington Bureau.
	I forget his exact title.
	But he was uh a ranking member, the AP journalist masthead.
	He was up there near the top.
	And I guess he he went to National Journal.
	Why why why do journalists change jobs?
	Is it for more money?
	Or do they just Want a different.
	And I that's right, they don't like money.
	That can't be for money.
	So why would journalists change jobs?
	Stature?
	Stature, well, anyway, I it doesn't matter.
	He's there now.
	And here's his piece.
	Obamacare's foundation of lies.
	And by the way, folks, just as a little precursor, the news is all over the place about Obama's intended amnesty.
	Four and a half million to start, dreamers, or what have you.
	And I think, in truth, that story's bigger than Obamacare.
	Because that's irreversible.
	If that if that happens, if if amnesty is granted, you know, Obama's sitting out there thinking, he's actually saying things like if the Congress won't do what he wants to do, he's going to have to do it himself.
	That's not how our system works.
	The president doesn't get to do whatever he wants to do.
	If the Congress doesn't go along, that's tough toenails.
	He's got to go out and persuade them.
	That's why presidents have legislative aids and assistance and liaisons.
	And if he can't convince Congress to put uh parts of his agenda into play, then that's tough toenails.
	And what Obama's out there saying quite openly while wearing his mile jacket, visiting with the Chicons.
	He's openly saying if Congress won't do what I want to done, I want done, I'm just going to do it myself.
	And again, the Republicans have taken every mechanism for stopping him off the table.
	Spending, impeachment, you name it.
	So you can't blame him, knowing exactly who he is.
	But the point about it is irreversible.
	Obamacare remains something that could be stripped item by item or all at once.
	It could be repealed, even years from now.
	It'd be tough.
	But amnesty, that's a genie out of the bottle.
	You don't put that back in there.
	This is huge.
	And I there's there's there needs to be a way to tie these two stories together with Gruber as the transitional link.
	Because what the Gruber story illustrates is that the left lies about everything, and they will lie about everything in order to get what they want.
	And they will assume that you are either too stupid or I actually think they think you're too smart.
	They can't be honest with you because you would reject it.
	That makes you too smart, not too stupid.
	If you were really as stupid as they think, they wouldn't have to lie.
	If you were as stupid as Gruber runs around and runs around saying, they can say whatever they want.
	You'd be too stupid to believe it or understand it, and they can get done what they wanted.
	The fact that they have to lie.
	Predicated on the fact that you're too stupid, actually means that you're wise to them.
	You'll see through what they want to do, even though they're trying to cover it up.
	But it doesn't nevertheless mask or eliminate the belief that they do think you're stupid.
	They do think we're all stupid.
	This guy Gruber, the economics professor at MIT, do you know that Jonathan Gruber has never spent an hour in the free enterprise economy.
	He's never had a job in the sense that you and I have jobs.
	I'm just going to job as a professor, but he's tenured, he's ranking, automatically considered a genius and untouchable.
	He's never worked a day in the economy.
	I'm trying to avoid saying private sector because I'm beginning to hate that term.
	A negative to low information voters.
	Well, because of the word private.
	Private means exclusive.
	You can't get in.
	Private versus public.
	People are always going to prefer public over private.
	Private sector, I don't.
	Romney kept talking about how he was from the private sector so much and private sector experience as that.
	I don't think it worked.
	So what it really is is the free market economy.
	That's where the American dream is.
	The American dream for everybody is in the free market, free enterprise economy, Which is shrinking and getting smaller as government gets bigger and bigger.
	But my point is that Gruber has never spent a day.
	He's never spent it.
	Here's a professor, and he's instructing students at MIT or wherever else on economics, and he has no real world experience with the practical application of his philosophies or theories or beliefs or knowledge whatsoever.
	Everything is theory to him.
	He has no experience.
	Meeting a payroll, being part of a payroll, those daily concerns, either being paid as an employee or making payroll as an owner, he has no knowledge.
	He has no experience.
	He cannot relate to it, and he looks down on it in addition.
	He's an elitist.
	All of these academics are arrogant and condescending, elite, not all of them, but but a good number of them are, and particularly all the leftists.
	So this is the guy that we're talking about here.
	All of the suffering that people are going through because of his, he's not even aware of it.
	He doesn't know the reality.
	The theory is that Obamacare will do A, B, C and D. When they get it passed, in their world, that's what is happening.
	The theory of Obamacare becomes the reality simply with Obama's signature.
	And when it goes wrong, and when the theory doesn't play out, and when the bill starts to fall apart, the health care doesn't work, the last thing they think is that, well, it's wrong, or we got it wrong, or it needs to be fixed.
	There's always some other excuse for like the people are too stupid, or the insurance companies are purposely screwing it up, or whatever.
	They they they just have, this guy particularly, I'll stick with Gruber.
	He has literally no experience in the free market economy.
	He has not spent an hour there.
	And yet he disdains it.
	And he impugns it, insults it, and thinks that the people who are involved in it have to be tricked, have to be manipulated.
	They can't be trusted to make the right economic decisions.
	Paul Krugman's the same way.
	And you can't be trusted to make the right life decisions.
	They have to do all this for you.
	It's not an exaggeration.
	So the primary architect of this thing, it will never have to live under it either.
	The primary architect of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber will never be subject to it.
	He's always going to have a health care plan that has nothing to do with the bill that he wrote, and all of his buddies will likewise not have to play ball by their own rules.
	Those are for us.
	And so all of this dawned on Ron Fournier.
	Now I find it fascinating that two people, intelligent, Fournier's not stupid, can watch the same events for six years.
	And one person, me, can accurately and with great confidence predict what's going to happen before they happen.
	And another guy, six years doesn't see a thing, and then finally it all dawns on him and still doesn't know why.
	And is sad and is let down and can't figure it out.
	Obamacare's foundation of lies.
	A lie is, this is Fournier, the size piece starts.
	A lie is apolitical, or at least it should be.
	Why?
	Should a lie be apolitical?
	What an assumption to start.
	Look, I could I could probably parse every sentence, and that would take way too long here.
	If there is one thing that unites clear-headed Americans, it's a belief that our leaders must be transparent and honest.
	No.
	If there's one thing that unites clear-headed Americans today is the belief that our leaders are not transparent and honest.
	That's what's dawning on people.
	Yeah, in theory, we would hope that they govern as they campaign.
	We would hope that they're telling us the truth when they tell us who they are and what they believe.
	But the sad reality is clear headed Americans are more and more beginning to doubt that their leaders are honest with them.
	Nor are they transparent.
	And yet, says Fournier, there seem to be two types of lies in our political discourse, those that hurt my party and my policies, and those lies that don't.
	We condemn the former lies that hurt my party and hurt my policies, and we forgive the lies that don't hurt me, cheapening the bond of trust that enables a society to progress.
	So here you have a utopian, an honest to God utopian who really believes that government running everything is going to make everything better than it's ever been.
	Blind faith.
	And then when it doesn't happen, there's almost an inability to absorb it and cope with it.
	This truism came to mind when I read a Washington Post story headline, Who is Jonathan Gruber?
	It was an important and workmanlike report on the Obamacare advisor who bragged about the political advantages of lying to voters, whom Gruber called stupid.
	These comments have struck a nerve on the right, wrote Jose Del Real, with some of the law's critics pointing to Gruber's comments as evidence that the administration intentionally deceived the American public on the costs of the programs.
	Now, I've read this guy's piece to you, so I'm not going to dissect him again.
	But Fournier reaction to this piece is to say, no, no, no, no, not just on the right.
	These comments didn't just strike a nerve on the right.
	Fournier says, I strongly support bipartisan efforts to expand the availability of health coverage to the working poor and bending the cost curve that threatens federal budgets for years to come.
	Well, see, here's the problem.
	Obamacare was never going to do either of those things.
	It was never going to cost less.
	It was never going to bend the cost curve down.
	And it was never going to expand availability of health insurance and treatment to the uninsured.
	There's an easy way to do that.
	It would have cost smidgens, a smidgen of what this cost.
	That's not what this bill was.
	This bill was about the federal government gaining control over one-sixth of the U.S. economy gaining control over the health care apparatus that the American people interact with because that gives the federal government control over people.
	But look at the rose-colored glasses that Mr. Fournier says is the reason he supported this.
	I strongly support bipartisan efforts to expand the availability of health coverage of the working poor and bending the cost curve that threatens federal budgets for years to come.
	That was never ever.
	They said that was going to happen, but it wasn't possible when you read the bill.
	I have to take a break.
	Sit tight, my friends.
	We're just getting started.
	So anyway, Ron Fournier, National Journal, talks about how he really believed that Obamacare was going to lower prices, lower the cost curve, and grant insurance to the uninsured.
	He really believed it.
	That's why he supported it, had a high hopes for it, and was unable to recognize it, had no prayer of doing that.
	It was never even in the cards to do any of that.
	It was not possible to lower the cost curve.
	And ensuring the uninsured still isn't happening.
	Anyway, he writes, while I think President Obama and Congressional Democrats helped contribute to the 2009 standoff over what became Obamacare, I've openly rooted for its success.
	Even though he thinks Obama and the Democrats contributed to the 2009 standoff over the bill.
	What do you mean, standoff?
	The standoff was the result of legislative trick after legislative trick.
	There weren't the votes for this bill.
	Standoff doesn't even come close to describe describing what happened.
	Anyway, he goes on to say here, I denounced the knee-jerk opposition from the GOP, a party that once embraced key elements of Obamacare, and that is another strawdog that's thrown out there blaming the Heritage Foundation for originally supporting Obamacare, and that's been disputed, but it's one of these myths that everybody in the left lapped up and ate, swallowed and believed it, and it wasn't true.
	It was a mechanism for blaming the Republicans for cutting and running when the ideas Obama instituted were none that they got credit for, even though they were theirs.
	It was an it was just outrageous.
	Anyway, he goes on here, ladies and gentlemen, to express shock and outrage that he was lied to, that he was insulted, that he was treated the way he was, that everybody cannot believe that anybody in the Democrat Party would do this.
	He couldn't believe it Gruber called people stupid.
	He couldn't believe the White House would lie to people.
	Everybody.
	He can't believe it.
	He doesn't know how to come to grips with it.
	Hi, welcome back, El Rushmore.
	Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
	Here we have a guy, the AP Bureau Chief in Washington, D.C., who just bought Hookline and Sinker.
	Everything that came out of the regime on Obama.
	Just bought it because he wanted it to be true.
	He didn't read the bill.
	He believed what Obama and everybody was telling him.
	Wanted it to be, wanted the uninsured to get treated and wanted costs to go down.
	Well, who doesn't?
	But it was never going to happen.
	And there were plenty of places Mr. Fournier could have checked to find that out.
	It would have required courage to believe it.
	What I'm thinking here, though, is Gruber's out there saying that we had to lie.
	Because the American people are too stupid to understand what we're doing.
	You know, it sounds to me like what Gruber's actually saying is they had to lie in order to keep from blowing up the relationship they had with the media.
	If you read Fournier's piece, it's clear he was all in because he wanted this, because he's a good liberal, and he's got compassion, and he cares about the poor, and he cares about the budget, and he wants the uninsured to be covered.
	It's the only fair thing to do.
	And we can't bust the budget, and there's the Democrats running around saying that's exactly what it's going to do.
	And so he believes it.
	It sounds to me like what Gruber actually is saying, they had to lie because of the stupidity of the media.
	They had to lie so as not to blow up the media bubble that they had created.
	The media was all in.
	The media was thinking it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
	The media and the left thought it was compassion central.
	We're going to take care of the poor and a downtrodden, the hungry and thirsty.
	And if the truth had come out, look at Fournier's reaction today.
	What if Fournier had had this reaction in 2009?
	What if others in the media had had this reaction there had yesterday and today in 2009?
	What if in 2009 the media, wait a minute, you guys are lying to us?
	Arguably it wouldn't have made any difference, but it might have.
	So I think as we dig deeper and pull back this intricately woven web of deceit, what we're actually learning here is that Gruber and the boys had to lie about this, and they relied on the stupidity of the media to accept the lie.
	He's out there getting yucks and laughs and everything by telling his economics buddies that the American people are stupid and that they had to lie, so the American people wouldn't figure out what was going on.
	But the truth of that is they figured if they were honest, the American people would figure it out.
	Smart people don't stupid people don't do that.
	I think it's when you strip everything away, what Gruber's actually doing and what Kerry and all these other associates at Gruber did, they lied to keep the media on their side, because they knew the media wouldn't look any dead.
	The media would trust them.
	The media wouldn't care about transparency.
	If Obama says it's going to cost less, and if Obama says the insured are going to get covered, that's all they need.
	So they had to lie about what was in it to keep the media from looking at it.
	They relied on the fact the media was a bunch of slavish groupies.
	That's what was going on here, folks.
	And the Ron Fournier piece today actually demonstrates that.
	I think that's I and I think that's one of the reasons why it took the media so long and required them to be shamed into getting, because they know they were the ones who were duped.
	Now I know, I know, you know, Rush, they're not duped, they're willing accomplices.
	Well, they are ideologically.
	They are no question about that.
	But they're just like these voters in 2008 who saw Obama as a messiah.
	And he could do no wrong.
	So whatever he said, they automatically believed, and there's evidence that he's lying over.
	They had to cover that evidence he's lying up.
	They couldn't afford that.
	There was too much goodwill.
	They loved Obama.
	So it was clear, and it's also clear that people like Gruber and these other, they really believe that the media is the way that they reached a low information voter and create public opinion support.
	So it the media is who they had to convince first, and they did.
	And when they they could not in any way, shape, or form, bring their media buddies in and wink at us, hey, and what we're really going to do is going to raise costs.
	We're really going to do.
	Couldn't take that chance.
	So they lied on purpose, in order to maintain idolatrous suck-up, media support.
	Now, Gruber has been discovered to have lied yet again.
	Ladies and gentlemen.
	President Obama long story.
	Here I go with my stacks again.
	This right here in all of my monologuing.
	I've put it in the in a different area.
	But there's a third Gruber video that has been discovered by this citizen in Philadelphia.
	Not a member of the media, just a listener in uh this program in WPHT in Philadelphia who lost his health insurance.
	He's trying to figure out why.
	What's going on here?
	He doesn't believe anything he's being told.
	And he starts looking at YouTube videos.
	These videos have been out there for anybody to find.
	He's on some YouTube videos of Gruber telling these lies and then insulting the American people, calling them stupid.
	And one thing comes to another and he releases them and keeps discovering them.
	Before we get back to that, I want to get one thing out of the way that I was going to do before I actually steered into the Fournier piece.
	But since I've now finished with the Fournier piece, this is hilarious.
	This is Mary Littlebaby Fat Landrew.
	She's on the floor of the Senate yesterday.
	She's in the runoff down in Louisiana, as you'll recall.
	And she before the election, she was out saying, well, you know, here in Louisiana, uh, here in the South.
	Uh it's unfriendly for people like me, for women, and it's unfriendly for people of color.
	Uh that and so she implied that one of the reasons she was going to lose, or maybe not win, was because of all the racists and bigots who have elected her to two terms, or however many she's been there.
	It was profoundly embarrassing.
	So now she has decided that she doesn't, she knows she's going to lose this thing.
	She's she's she's uh all the polling data on tap to lose this runoff.
	So she has decided to throw Harry Reid and the Democrat Party overboard, and she went to the floor of the U.S. Senate yesterday to do it by announcing massive support for the Keystone Pipeline.
	This has been a project that has lingered far too long.
	I believe that we should take the new majority leader at his word and stop blocking legislation that is broadly supported by the American public and has been for quite some time.
	I want to say yes to majority leader, new majority leader, Mitch McConnell.
	Folks, they're come they're they're falling apart.
	The Democrats are falling apart right before our eyes.
	Mary Landrew on the Senate floor pledging her allegiance to Mitch McConnell.
	And it's another golden opportunity here that I sadly I I see being squandered.
	All of this time, she couldn't support the Keystone Pipeline because Obama wouldn't support the Keystone.
	By the way, you know these environmentalist wackos have now got a problem.
	Because there's Obama over in China giving them everything they want with this new treaty with the ChICOMs on global warming.
	And then he comes back, and it looks like he's going to signal that he's okay with the Keystone Pipeline to help Landrew.
	And they hate the Keystone Pipeline because they hate oil.
	And oil is what would be in the Keystone pipeline from Canada down to Louisiana to refineries.
	And so they're now conflicted.
	What are the what are the wackles going to do?
	On the one hand, there's Obama giving them everything they want with this punitive treaty with the Chiccoms.
	It comes back here and signals that in order to help Landrew, and what difference is it going to make?
	She's not, if she wins, she's not going to tip the balance.
	It's one seat.
	Her her vote, her election's not needed to keep the Democrat and Senate hands.
	But they're still going to try to keep it.
	Here's her second soundbite.
	We just got word within the last hour and a half that the House of Representatives has introduced the Senate bill, basically in the House, identical to our language.
	You know, um, I am very proud of that.
	And as I said on the floor, and I mean to say this as sincerely as I can.
	If taking my name off of this bill helps it to pass, go right ahead.
	This is not about credit.
	It is not about glory, it is not about politics.
	It is about getting our work done.
	So what happened, the White House proposed the bill with Cassidy's name on it, her opponent.
	So she came out again.
	I don't care.
	I don't care whatever gets it done, whatever is necessary.
	I'm not in this for credit.
	I don't, I don't really care.
	Here is her opponent, Bill Cassidy, uh, talking about this last night on uh Fox on Greta Van Susterin's show.
	She said, so this now becomes, I assume both the House and the Senate in the Senate.
	They want to pass it to per perhaps politically help Senator Landrew.
	The House already made known its position.
	Then it gets to the White House, the president's desk.
	What is the president going to do with the new Keystone pipeline legislation, Senator Cassidy, or Senator elect Cassidy, or soon to be Senator Electric.
	What is he gonna do?
	The President will probably veto it.
	He and Reid are both hostile to oil and gas, have to smile when Senator Landrew says politics are not involved.
	Clearly, Reid did not care about the 40,000 jobs that would be created for families which are struggling, but he does care about Senator Landrew's job.
	So finally he's going to take the bill up.
	I don't think the president cares about those 40,000 people.
	He'll probably veto.
	But come January, a conservative Senate and the House of Representatives will pass once more, then we can override his veto.
	So basically what he's saying is that uh uh Reed will allow the bill in the Senate to help Landrew and put Cassidy's name on it or whatever, but they'll it it's the so she can run around and tell her constituents that she supported uh the Keystone pipeline, and that gets her off the hook.
	That shows her voters that she got their head screwed on right.
	She's doing the right thing.
	She cares about them, she cares about the state of Louisiana, and then Obama's gonna veto it, which is out of her control.
	That's what Cassidy thinks is gonna happen.
	He's not gonna sign this thing.
	He's gonna stand aside and let it go through the process of getting to him so that that might help Landrew, but he's not gonna sign it into law because there'd be a revolt uh with the environment.
	He doesn't believe it anyway.
	Be right back, folks.
	Stay with us, don't go away.
	Meeting and surpassing all.
	Audience expectations every day.
	Your guiding light, Rush Limbaugh, and to Duluth, Minnesota, we go.
	Bob, you're up first today.
	Great to have you on the EIB network.
	Hi.
	Hi, Rush.
	Uh uh, Johnny Rabbit, KXOK dittoes to you.
	Johnny Rabbit.
	Don Pietro Monaco.
	That was his real name.
	Right.
	I'm born and raised on the same station as you were.
	Rush, I was wondering if you could differentiate for me between what Gruber refers to as the stupidity of the American populace and what you refer to as, quote, low information voters, and or on many occasions, you've spoken of a nation of economic illiterates.
	Um, you know, just to be clear, to me, Gruber is the prototypical totalitarian lefty weasel.
	That's not my contention.
	But I believe there's more than a grain of truth.
	There's plenty of truth to his characterization of the electorate.
	I mean, prima facie evidence being Obama being elected twice.
	The fact that the left has been pretty much kicking our butts for the last 25 years.
	I mean, in other words, the aspirations of an Obama and his underlings like Gruber couldn't work if you didn't have, for the most part, an abjectly stupid populace, who two-thirds of which in my opinion can't spell the word constitution.
	Well, there's no doubt that there is a segment of the population that's totally ignorant on matters like this.
	Politics, day-to-day knowledge of things.
	But there's also this thing, uh, two things that have brought that about.
	Before you get to immediately blaming this on the people, there's the education system that's been teaching them and the media, both news and pop culture that's been reinforcing it all.
	And conservatives have no presence of uh news media now more than ever, but pop culture not much.
	Uh, and by that I mean television shows, movies, uh, books.
	That's why we at the Rush Revere uh time travel adventure series are making inroads there uh on American history, but uh it it's it's too simplistic, I think, to say that people are stupid.
	They know what they know, they know what they've been taught, they know what they've been told.
	And I actually just just to repeat, even though you're right, there's all kinds of economic illiterates out there, and the Gruber is one.
	Gruber is an economic illiterate, he's a theoretician.
	He has never had to put his theories into real practice.
	Except this one, his theories are in practice and they are a disaster.
	He wrote this bill.
	This is the best work he's ever done, he says.
	This is the best he's got to offer.
	It's an absolute disaster.
	He is an economic illiterate.
	He may know theory, and he may know equations, and he may know causes and reactions and this kind, but he doesn't know practical application of economic theory.
	It all has remained a theory to him.
	And I really believe, folks, that that uh he was not saying what he was saying in a literal sense.
	Now stop and think about this.
	If you have to lie, if you have to lie about what's in your legislation, because the American people are too stupid, you're saying one of two things.
	You're saying they're too stupid to appreciate how brilliant we are, or you're not calling them stupid at all.
	If you have to lie, it's because they will know the truth, which you can't afford for them to know.
	You can't, you can't have the American public knowing what's really in this bill.
	So you have to lie to them, not because they're too stupid.
	You lie to them because they're too smart, because they'll figure it out.
	The stupid comment, I think, given the arrogant condescension and contempt that people like Gruber hold every day normal, what they consider average Americans in.
	I think when he calls them stupid, what he means is they're too stupid to appreciate his brilliance.
	And if you look at leftist comments now, after the election, their post-election comments are look at how stupid these people are.
	Look at the way they voted.
	Look at what they too stupid they rejected us.
	Look at how stupid they are.
	They do believe voters are stupid, but in Gruber's case, I actually believe what if if if you have to cover the truth from somebody, if you have to lie about the truth, it means that the people who would see the truth wouldn't like it, which makes them smart enough to figure it out.
	The truth is, he doesn't think that you're stupid enough to deal with all this.
	They had to lie to you, and your stupidity is accepting the lie.
	Your stupidity is believing me.
	The stupidity is all it's it it it may sound a little convoluted here, and it may be too fine a point anyway.
	Because he's calling people stupid, and that's really all that matters.
	That defines who they are.
	I have to take a break here.
	I appreciate the call.
	We'll be back and continue in just a second.
	Snerdley just asked me if I'm gonna comment on the pictures of Kim Kardashian's Derrier butt.
	Once in all if I think it's been photoshopped.
	I don't know.

▲