All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 17, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:47
February 17, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Making the complex understandable, that's what we do.
That will be the essence of much of today's program.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
You are tuned to the most listened to radio talk show in America, hosted by me, Rush Linbaugh, the most talked-about host in America.
Great to have you here.
The telephone numbers 800 282-2882, the email address.com, a federal judge in South Texas on Monday, temporarily,
and that is a key word here, temporarily blocked, Obama's executive action on immigration, giving a coalition of 26 states, time to pursue a lawsuit that aims to permanently stop the orders.
This is, by the way, an AP story, and not all of this is correct, obviously, but this is the umbrella under which everything is going to be discussed here today.
The judge's name is Andrew Hannon.
His decision comes after a hearing in Brownsville in January and puts on hold Obama's orders that could spare as many as five million people who are in the country illegally from deportation.
The judge wrote in a memorandum accompanying his order that the lawsuit should go forward and that without a preliminary injunction, the states will suffer irreparable harm in this case.
He said the genie would be impossible to put back in the bottle.
So basically, he wants to put everything on hold until the lawsuits dealt with.
And that makes this whole thing, and I can't emphasize this enough, this is a temporary order.
It is not, much as everybody would like to think it is, it is not, and I've consulted legal experts on this, Because I wanted to make sure that I got this right.
It is not a ruling on the merits of the lawsuit brought by the 26 states.
This is not a ruling on the merits of a whole subsidy argument.
Let me restate what that case is.
And this is this is Obama and the left being caught by their own brilliance.
Obamacare clearly states that only the states can set up exchanges that offer subsidies.
The federal government cannot do it.
That's in the law.
Well, 26 states did not set up exchanges.
They're suing on the basis that Obamacare is unconstitutional, and they can't be forced to incur all these new expenses, and they can't be forced to implement all of this.
So 26 states do not feature exchanges where citizens slash customers can qualify for subsidies.
When the regime saw that, they said, well, okay, well, we'll just set up a federal exchange and we'll get the people's subsidies there.
But they can't do that.
That's not in Obamacare.
That's that's against the law per se.
And that's what the lawsuit's about, is having a court rule on the original intent, if I may put it that way, of Obamacare and the subsidies.
It it made it very clear in Gruber, the idiot, who thinks we're all stupid, made it clear this was a political ploy.
It was intended to put pressure on states, Republican governors, to go ahead and implement Obamacare because the political pressure was their citizens are going to be demanding these subsidies so that Obamacare is affordable.
And they they specifically, specifically in Obamacare, mandated that only the states could provide subsidies for Obamacare.
That was to force any recalcitrant Republican governor into going along with it.
Well, 26 Republican governors, well, 26 others, not sure all Republicans think they are, said no way.
So that left citizens in 26 states without access to subsidies.
Well, when the regime saw that, when they saw their their political ploy failed, they just said, Well, we'll offer the subsidies in healthcare.gov.
Screw it.
But that's against the law.
And that's what this Supreme Court case is going to decide.
That's now we're we're it we're still in the midst of great peril here on this.
The Supreme Court, the only reason we're here is because the Supreme Court started all this by being gutless in dealing with the very first case constitutionality dealing with the Fourth Amendment and Commerce Clause.
They punted on, but didn't punt.
They rewrote the law from the bench to make it quasi constitutional, rather than rule on it as a as a strict case of law up and down for a host of reasons.
Now, what's going to happen next is that the regime is going to oppose this judge in Texas's order, going to appeal, and that will happen at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and I believe the Fifth Circuit's in New Orleans.
Doesn't matter where it is, I'm just throwing that out as a tidbit.
And according to some legal people I've spoken to, and based on precedent, they expect, and I'm not trying to be a downer here, and I hope this is wrong, they expect the Justice Department to win the appeal.
They expect the Justice Department to win at the Fifth Circuit, based on the way this case, this law has fared in courts previous.
One of the reasons for this, I'm told, is that the circuit courts and the Supreme Courts do not want these lower district courts having anything of real import to say in terms of determining whether or not Obamacare is constitutional.
They want that for themselves.
And one of the ways, and you've heard this phrase before, one of the ways that cases have been thrown out, legitimate cases have been thrown out, is for a higher court to say that the plaintiff doesn't have standing.
And if the plaintiff doesn't have standing, then he can't legally be in court making a case, and therefore there is no case, and therefore it gets thrown out, and therefore it may as well never have happened.
And that is one of the, I don't know if it's a legitimate fear, one of the one of the possible things people are looking for to happen here.
And my friend Andy McCarthy thinks that we might even get a decision from the Fifth Circuit late this afternoon.
So just to just to reframe, and this judge in Texas thought this is a gutsy guy.
This is a gutsy guy, and he's just he's doing the right thing, and it's it's it's it's I think when people like this stand up and do the right thing, they need to be applauded, even though I must stress this is again, this is not a ruling on the merits of the lawsuit brought by the 26 states that claim they will suffer profound financial and other damage from the president's lawless executive action demanding they provide subsidies and so forth.
So the Justice Department will seek an emergency order from the Fifth Circuit to block the injunction, which is what Judge Hannon's decision is.
It's a temporary states and injunction.
And if the if the Fifth Circuit does indeed block the injunction, that would not be a ruling on the merits of the case.
The merits of the case are not yet being ruled on here.
It would just mean if the Fifth Circuit rejects the state judge or the federal judge of Texas, it would just take us back to the status quo that allows Obama to go ahead with the implementation of his amnesty degree, and that would take us right where we are back to the Senate, where the that's the only place this can really be stopped.
The only place this can be stopped is in the Senate.
And that is problematic because the Democrats in Senate, they we can't get a vote out of there.
And there isn't, it doesn't appear to be all that great a desire on the part of the Republicans in the Senate to get a vote out of there.
So it's it's you hear the words shut down being bandied about now and shut down supposedly automatically attaches to the Republicans.
No matter who's shutting it, it's gonna be if if the Department of Homeland Security ends up not being funded in all of this, it's gonna be because of Obama and the Democrats.
Now that will not be reported.
The Republicans are gonna get blamed for it.
But the fact of the matter is, if the if the Democrats refuse to vote for this thing in the Senate, or if it somehow goes to Obama and he vetoes it, doesn't matter.
It's going to be the Democrats that will be defunding Homeland Security during this reign of terror being sponsored by ISIS and other terror groups.
So it's just it's a it's an it's an absolute mess.
And many people think that the the only ultimate way to stop Obama from implementing this amnesty, it it's it's it it's risky.
It's dicey to rely on the courts simply because the way the courts have dealt with this you this issue before today.
I mean, look how excited everybody is because one judge in Texas finally did the right thing.
One judge in Texas finally did he may this may make the third or fourth judge who has done the right thing.
And previous to this judge, there were federal district court judges who claimed Obamacare was unconstitutional.
They were countered by other federal district court judges.
That's why it went all the way up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court essentially punted.
But the idea, everybody gets excited because one judge has finally said that Obama doesn't have the right to do this and wants to wait for the Supreme Court decision on the 26-state lawsuit, before because once his thinking is very smart.
I mean, if if we start implementing this, and the Supreme Court finds against the regime down the road, the judge's point is, well, it's gonna be pointless.
If if the regime already begins to operate by providing subsidies when they're not allowed to, and the Supreme Court says that's unconstitutional, it's against the law because Obama here doesn't state that.
Well, sorry, it's too late, it's already been implemented.
You can't pull the subsidies back.
We're not gonna withdraw an entitlement per se.
So the judge wants to bring this all to a screeching halt until the Supreme Court rules on that lawsuit.
But what if that doesn't go our way?
That takes us right back to where we are in the Senate on this whole thing, and it right back to where the only since the Republicans have said that they're not going to use impeachment.
The only way to stop Obama is to deny him the money to implement the amnesty.
And that ball is now in the call in in the Senate.
And some are suggesting that uh we Republicans start playing with the filibuster rule the same way the Democrats did.
Well, it would be lovely.
I just and it it would be poetic justice, among other things, but it would also be good.
It would work.
It's it's the way that you take the Democrats out of the power position in the Senate on this, is by by eliminating the filibuster.
Uh, which Harry Reid did all the time.
Harry Reed threw out, you know, the filibuster's not in the Constitution.
The filibuster is a Senate rule.
The Senate can change its own rules any time.
If Mitch McConnell wanted to go for it, he could eliminate the filibuster, just like Harry Reid said, you know what?
We're not gonna allow filibusters on judges here.
Because I want Obama's nominees to get uh get through and appointed, nominated, and confirmed all that.
So we're gonna get rid of the filibuster.
And everybody bellyached and moaned about how this is just this is this is selective application of the rules and the Democrats changing the rules on the on the on the fly.
Well, we ought to do the same thing.
Since we're now the majority in the Senate, but it doesn't.
I don't know whether that would ever happen.
Depending on who you talk to, you get different interpretations of the degree of courage, amount of courage that exists in the Republican leadership in the uh in the Senate.
And then there are there are others who are saying on our side, you know, all this is crazy.
We can't sit here and be arguing over money for the Department of Homeland Security when we've got ISIS in his reign of terror out there.
Just just pass the bill and send it up to Obama, let him have it.
This is the open borders crowd.
Oh, it's gonna happen anyway, they say.
Obama's gonna get his amnesty.
All this is a waste of time.
Just go ahead and fund the department rather than play these games.
There's all kinds of pressure, all kinds of different opinions on the conservative slash Republican side inside the beltway over what to do about this.
So we'll have to wait for the next phase of this, which is the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal to rule on the regime's request to overturn the judge in Texas and his decision.
And again, that could happen sometime late this afternoon.
They take a brief time out here.
We'll continue.
Your telephone uh calls be part of the program as always, the number 800-282-2882.
Be right back.
Don't go anywhere.
Yeah, sorry for the confusion, folks.
I ended up combining two things here, and I've it it for those of you that are profoundly informed, I'm sure you know what the what the heck is Rush talking about.
I got I got confused on the uh on the lawsuit brought by 26 states.
There is an Obamacare lawsuit uh involving subsidies, the 26 states, and there's also another one involving the number 26, and I ended up confusing these two issues.
This is about amnesty, this is totally about executive amnesty.
The judge in Texas has issued an order temporarily, temporarily prevent the regime from implementing the executive action.
Uh specifically, it would prevent Obama from issuing work permits for illegal aliens who do not have statutory authorization.
This the stay that he has uh ordered would allow himself, the judge, a chance to issue a final ruling on the merits of the case, which his ruling does not do.
He has not ruled that Obama's executive amnesty violates the Constitution yet.
That's not what his ruling did.
It just brought it to a screeching halt until a lawsuit involving this is decided.
The thinking that the judge is that if we go ahead and Obama grants his amnesty, and then the lawsuit rules against Obama that it's going to be difficult because the genie's out of the bottle, the toothpaste is out of the bottle.
How do you put it back in?
So the judge is simply saying, hey, I'm gonna stop all this until we get an effective ruling.
Now, in the process, the judge, in order to well, it would when he issued the stay, he had to decide that the states that brought the lawsuit had demonstrated a likelihood of success in the merits.
Anytime a judge issues a stay, it's because his judges assumed that the people who bring the lawsuit are gonna win.
So in his judgment, the 26 states have shown that they have standing to sue the government.
In his judgment, they have shown that Obama violated the law.
And third, they have shown they will suffer concrete harm from the violation, particularly the economic harm.
And that that's the basis for the stay.
And it's temporary.
And the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal is getting an emergency hearing or granting an emergency hearing on this.
The decision on it could come somehow late this afternoon.
And that's basically the upshot of it.
The important thing here that's a it's a gutsy move by the judge.
It's profoundly gutsy move by the judge.
But it does not deal with the merits of the lawsuit brought by the states that claim they will suffer profound financial and utter damage from this lawless executive amnesty.
It's don't forget Obama himself Several times.
While on Univision or Telemundo, maybe a combination of both.
Obama himself has said numerous times he doesn't have the constitutional authority to do this.
He's told audiences that were mad at him for not acting sooner on amnesty.
Hey, I'm not an emperor.
Hey, I'm not a king.
We have blows.
And I just can't bail it.
Well, now the Republicans have signaled they're not going to stop him.
And he's into his final two years where theoretically he's not running for anything ever again.
And if you're if if nobody's gonna stop him, why should he stop?
So he's he's it's just it's what's become clear here, uh as Axelrod made clear, Obama was always in favor of gay marriage, just lied about it so as not to be harmed electorally.
Same thing with this.
He's always wanted amnesty, and he's always known he's gonna do it.
He just said back when he had to face voters, sorry, I can't do it.
I'm not a king.
Well, now he's always thought he's a king.
He's always wanted to act like one, and now he is, the last two years, back after this.
I think by my count, Obama has said that he doesn't have constitutional authority to grant amnesty over twenty-two times.
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
This guy makes Brian Williams look like a Piker.
Nobody cares.
You can't get people revved up over this guy's lies.
You can't get people revved up over what he makes up, his statements of grandiosity.
You can't get people revved up over his violation.
Well, not true.
I mean, the sad fact is that the vast majority of people are revved up.
It's just there is no similar media focus on Obama, like there is, for example, in Brian Williams.
I'm just here to tell you if the media were examining and scrutinizing Obama like they've been Brian Williams, it'd be a whole different ballgame we're talking about.
You know it and I know it.
And that is just a sad reality of what we're all up against and what we're dealing with.
And so many people, I think, have given up.
I think it explains in part the recalcitrance of the GOP in Washington, hey, we're not gonna beat the media.
It's foolish to even try.
All we're gonna do is aggravate them even more.
People are gonna end up hating us even more.
That's it's uh it's an obvious circumstance.
It can be overcome.
I was starting to talk with Scott Walker yesterday for about 45 minutes after the program, and he had a great line structured the editrix of the limbo letter for a pull quote, something he said.
And I'm to paraphrase it, I don't have it right off the top of my head.
He said that you uh you don't triumph by running to the middle and trying to gain support of moderate centrists or liberals.
You win by fighting and with bold leadership.
Now it's obviously it's common sense.
The reason it is such a dynamic quote is that there isn't any leadership.
Bold or otherwise.
There is an almost an abdication to the reality that we can't beat the media, and so the best we can do is limit the damage.
It's just got everybody frustrated.
Here's A. B. Stoddard.
She was on uh Fox News this morning, John Scott, this is just about an hour ago.
And it's not that A.B. Stoddard is anything special, it's just that she has this in the little soundbite encapsulates the thinking inside the beltway on the judge's ruling in Texas and what the Republicans ought to do now.
Here's the question she was asked.
Does this judge's ruling take Republicans off a bit of a hook?
I mean, they were looking at the potential shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security next week because they don't want to fund Obama's executive actions.
But if the judge has said that you can't do these executive actions now, do Republicans find their way clear to go ahead and restore full funding to the Department of Homeland Security, and this is the trick that is going to be employed.
The pressure is gonna mount on the report.
Hey, look, the judge ruled in your favor.
Now you can go ahead and fully fund the damn thing.
You don't have to play these games with defunding these three parts of the department.
Go ahead and fund the whole thing because the judge is gonna take care of it for you.
And here's this is essentially what she's saying.
I think the smart thing would be for them to get out of the corner that they box themselves into and pass a clean DHS funding bill when they return next Monday, the twenty-third, Their attempts to pass the House Pass bill, which uh includes those policy writers which block the President's executive action have failed three times in the Senate.
Democrats are not going to budge.
They continue to say in a time of heightened threat, Republicans are threatening our national security by withholding DHS funding.
It's a political loser.
She knows it's not the Republicans withholding the funding.
It is the Democrats by refusing to vote on the bill, and the President would veto it.
She knows that, but yet here is the way it's being portrayed.
It's the Republicans withholding funding for the Department of Homeland Security.
And that's really the only weapon they've got unless unless they're gonna suspend the filibuster in order to take that weapon away from the Democrats in this, which is what Harry Reid did.
And the media and the left, of course, applauded that anything to stop the Republicans.
Well, conversely, anything to stop the Republicans also means anything to assist Obama, anything to help Obama.
So in this case, what we must do, what the Republicans must do is anything and everything that that satisfies and meets the demands and desires of Obama.
So be going against a uh a huge current.
This is the pressure that's being applied.
Now let's let's move to Obamacare.
Because it's the same thing happening with that.
Here's a Reuters are very outraged here.
Obamacare rescue ruled out by some states, others way options.
Five Republican state governors say they will not rescue a crucial part of Obamacare if it is struck down by the Supreme Court, underlining the prospect for a chaotic aftermath to a ruling that could force millions of Americans to pay much more for coverage or lose their health insurance.
This is in the bill.
It was never the case that people's premiums are going to go down.
It was never the case that deductibles were going to go down.
It was never the case that out of pocket was going to go down.
It was going to get more expensive.
Obama and the Democrats and the media lied about.
We talked about this yesterday.
Now all of a sudden the Democrats are hearing from their constituents who are just figuring out how expensive the fines are if they don't have insurance.
And the deadline went by, and a whole bunch of people didn't know that it even existed, and so they didn't get insurance, and they started learning about the fines, and they started learning how the fine is paid.
They discovered that their tax refunds would be withheld, all or in part, in order to satisfy the debt they owe for not having insurance.
And these people had no clue this was even a part of Obamacare.
Because the people that did know about it, the Democrats and the media didn't tell anybody.
The Republicans were trying to, but they couldn't get the word out other than places like this.
You knew, and probably a majority of Americans, but Democrat voters didn't know.
So yesterday we had the story.
Three Democrats in the House just outraged, outraged that their constituents are going to have to pay more money out of pocket.
They're the ones that made it possible.
These three Democrats and all of their buddies in the House and the Senate are the only ones that voted for it.
They put in the system of fines.
They wrote in the bill all of these increased costs.
Now their constituents are bellyaching, and so these Democrats in the House and Senate are acting like somebody snuck something in there that they didn't know about.
It's sort of an expansion on the Limbaugh theorem.
Right?
Sinister, mysterious mysterious forces that nobody knows, and nobody is identified or working actively to undermine our big-hearted, lovable, compassionate Democrats and President Obama by sneaking in some sort of rule here requiring people who don't have insurance to pay a fine.
And that it empowers the IRS to collect it.
In this case, the regime's media never lets up.
What this Reuters article is, is it's it's another article meant to pressure the Supreme Court not to strike Down the Obamacare subsidies.
Again, this case is about the subsidies and the fact that the regime did not write into the law that the federal government, the federal exchange, can provide subsidies.
They explicitly said only the states could.
And when 26 states refused, the Democrats were flummoxed.
And so that meant people in 26 states did not have access to subsidies for Obamacare.
I remember Jonathan Gruber saying, yeah, we wrote that in on purpose to put political pressure on all of the states to sign up and support Obamacare.
But a number of them said, we're not going to do this.
We can't afford it.
We can't, we can't bear the expenses that you guys are trying to shift to us and saddle us with.
So in that case, the regime said, well, fine, we'll start offering subsidies from healthcare.gov.
And that's what the Supreme Court case is about, because that's unconstitutional.
They can't do it.
Subsidies are not legally available from the federal government.
What the government's saying, Obama and the Justice Department, hey, come on, come on, this is just semantics.
Everybody knows that we intended everybody to qualify for subsidies.
We didn't mean that the states had to sign up, and if they didn't, that people there couldn't get subsidies.
Yes, you did mean it.
That's exactly what you wrote.
And your boy Gruber is out telling everybody that you did it on purpose.
To put political pressure on these uh Republican governors to accept Obamacare and go all in on it.
And they confounded the regime by not doing so.
So the regime offers the subsidies, and here comes a lawsuit against the regime, and it's at the Supreme Court now.
This is a case that everybody's waiting on with bated breath.
Because if the Supreme Court finds against the regime on this, the whole thing falls apart because the subsidies being paid for by the states are a crucial financial aspect of this to lower the federal price tag.
And some states just said we don't have the money, and we can't print it like you can.
Plus, they were theoretically and philosophically opposed to it in the first place.
So what we have here, five Republican state governors say they will not rescue a crucial part of Obamacare, even if it's struck down by the Supreme Court, underlining the prospect for a chaotic aftermath to a ruling that could force millions of Americans to pay much more for coverage or lose their health insurance.
The Supreme Court's due to hear opening arguments in a case known as King versus Burr Will on March the 4th.
The case tests the tax credit subsidies at the core of Obamacare in a ruling expected by June.
The Supreme Court could bar the federal insurance marketplace from providing the subsidies in at least 34 states.
That could throw the insurance system into turmoil as states respond in starkly different ways.
How could it be any more turmoil than Obamacare has already created?
And that turmoil the media doesn't seem to care about.
So this is a story, just like A. A. B. Stoddard soundbite is an encapsulation of the thinking inside the beltway with the media and the Democrats.
Hey, Republicans, when you get back on Monday, just throw out that House bill on DHS and write a new one and fully fund it and be done with it.
Because the judge is going to take care of it for you.
We may be able to nuke that argument as late as this afternoon or as early as this afternoon, depending on when the Fifth Circuit rules.
This story from Reuters exemplifies the pressure that the media and the Democrats are bringing on the states and the Republicans to go ahead and agree that they will provide subsidies that allow the federal government to provide, even though that's not in the law.
1.4 million people who have subsidized coverage under Obamacare might lose their insurance.
And the media doesn't seem to care when 7 million people lost their health insurance because they didn't meet the Obamacare standards.
We're also told the biggest lie of all, that these states don't set up Obamacare exchanges, give out subsidies will lose money.
The states that have set up Obamacare exchanges like California are finding out that it's costing them a lot more money than anybody ever imagined, and they won't be able to afford it soon.
And that's the case for every state.
Nobody has the money to pay for this, folks.
Least of all the federal government, nobody's got the money to pay.
It's costing so much more than anybody told us.
And we all knew it.
Everybody involved in this knew.
The series of lies and the smoke and mirrors being used to sell this thing, to get support for it from the low information sector of our population.
One of the reasons the regime is so ticked off about the Texas judge, in addition to just in general, the judge in Texas's ruling came just hours before the federal government was set to begin accepting from illegal immigrants applications for amnesty.
And this is what the judge meant.
If that's if that process started, if we if we start the process of giving them work permits, if they're granted amnesty and all of a sudden the courts rule that that's unconstitutional, what do we do?
He's already started it.
The judge, in a very common sense of rule, says, pull back here, let's wait till we get the final ruling on all this.
And so he had a temporary stay.
Now, there's there's there's more outrageous, just embarrassing.
Can't really believe I feel like I'm still watching the Saturday Night Live 40th anniversary show with this next one.
Have you heard about Marie Harf at the State Department of what she said?
She was on MSNBC last night, and we have a ban on all audio from MSNBC.
She was on by Chris Matthews.
And even Matthews did doing everything he could to agree with her and support her, but even he thought he was listening to a lunatic.
Marie Harf said we cannot win the war on terror, nor can we win the war on ISIS by killing them.
We need to find them jobs.
We need to get to the root cause of terrorism, and that is poverty and lack of opportunity in the terrorist community.
Now, this is exactly what I mean when I talk about young skulls full of mush being corrupted at the academy, at university, at colleges, institutions of higher learning.
This woman is an absolute throwback to 1960s feel-good liberalism that is senseless.
It's chickafied, it denies reality.
It is it is and this is the number two spokeswoman at the State Department.
And her boss is not very much more cogent.
That would be the infamous Jen Pasaki.
Marie Harf, a spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department, said Americans cannot win against the Islamic State by killing them.
And we ought to instead focus on addressing what she claimed was the root problem, their poor economy, and help them get jobs.
Marie, you're you can't even do that in this country.
And you are clueless about how to change that.
And now all of a sudden, we're in a war, and we're not going to win this by you know what the purpose of armies is to kill people and break things.
Wars are not won with doctors and nurses and clean water and good vibes and jobs and all of the typical nonsensical, worthless, touchy feely, gooey, therapy, sticky liberalism.
It's getting dangerous out there.
She said, we're killing a lot of them, and we're going to keep killing more of them.
And so are the Egyptians, and so are the Jordanians.
They're in this fight with us.
We can't win this war by killing them.
We cannot kill our way out of this war.
We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups.
This embodies Everything that this regime refuses to acknowledge that these people are militant Islamists.
And by the way, I have a theory about why that is.
I think it all can be traced back to everybody on the left and everybody in the media who did nothing but lie and spread lies about how Bush had lied us into war.
They succeeded in de-legitimizing the Iraq war by spreading that lie that Bush lied to get us into it.
I got a break here, but I'm going to expand on this because I think that's what we're dealing with here.
We can't, we can't kill ourselves.
We gotta find ISIS jobs.
▲
Export Selection