All Episodes
Previous Next
March 4, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:37
March 4, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Executing assigned host duties flawlessly zero mistakes.
Your guiding light, Rush Limbaugh, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
I am known as America's real anchorman.
Great to have you with us.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
And the email address, L. Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
Okay, just to wrap this up, the 2554 demographic, it's always been assumed that advertisers target that group because that's where the money is.
That's where the disposable income is.
And in the past, that has been true.
It's never been the sole reason why that demographic is the target.
Never forget, folks, over the years, I have informed you that if you want to find out what people who must connect with customers to separate them from their money.
If you want to find out where the culture is and where it's heading, pay attention to advertising.
Good advertising, in order to separate people from their money, must connect to them.
And advertising is one of the greatest windows to the culture that you can see.
Good advertising.
Some advertisers miss it.
They fail to make the connection and they go by the wayside.
Advertising is not the only measure, but it's a good one.
Well, in this case, the 2554 demographic, the real money in any culture is held by its elderly.
The real money, the people who've worked the longest, people who've earned the most.
The reason they are not targeted is their minds are made up.
That's why advertisers go for the young.
Their minds aren't made up yet.
Budweiser's, any beer, most beer commercials are aimed at people who can't even legally drink the stuff yet.
Most beer advertising is aimed at 18-year-olds, 20-year-olds, or what have you.
Beer advertising presents a certain picture that people in the age group would like to see themselves in.
Their minds are not made up yet.
Somebody 60 plus has already made up their mind.
They've got their favorite beer, and advertising isn't going to change their mind.
That's why certain kind of advertising is not targeted.
I've always believed that the demographic 55 plus is a gold mine waiting to be tapped simply because they have such a huge amount of disposable income, simply because they've lived longer.
They've worked longer.
They've earned more.
This is not factoring in retirement or any of that.
But it's not just that 2554 has been where the disposable income is.
And even now, you would have to say 2554 is not where it is.
Millennials are living at home.
Half of them are living at home.
Their jobs are being downsized to 30 hours a week.
So the old canard that disposable income is 2554 may be 49.55, 39.55, maybe.
But not 29 to 40.
That's not the case anymore.
Now the printer.
Oh, I did.
Here it is right here.
From the thehill.com Clinton critics tie email to Benghazi.
This is one of the target areas everybody in the media is looking at here.
The revelation that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a private email account for government business breathed new life yesterday into congressional investigations of Benghazi.
Trey Gowdy, the chairman of House Select Committee on Benghazi, said the development will likely require Clinton to make several appearances before the panel, possibly stretching the investigation into 2016.
And I'm here to tell you, I just want to remind you that if this were 10 years ago, this stuff wouldn't have mattered.
It'd have gotten swept under the rug like any Clinton scandal was.
But the very people pursuing it now, the drive-by media and certain elements of the Democrat Party, the people pursuing Mrs. Clinton now are her former defenders.
When Hillary Clinton went on today's show in the 90s and said that it was a vast right-wing conspiracy that made her husband have the affair with Monica Lewinsky, drive-by media was right there, lapping it up, eating it up, and running with it.
The whole Lewinsky affair became a vast right-wing conspiracy out to get her husband.
The same people who did that are now the same people who have Hillary in their crosshairs.
Something happening out there.
Now, a couple other little items here before we get Supreme Court, because the media is in a tizzy about this.
The daily soap opera script involves being worked into a frenzy over oral arguments at the Supreme Court over King versus Burwell.
But first, from the UK Guardian, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee has demoted its chairman.
Do you realize this never happens?
The Nobel Prize Committee, Peace Prize Committee, demoted its chairman, Thorborn Jagland.
I'm pronouncing that as somebody from Texas would.
Thorborn Jagland in a move unprecedented in the long history of the Peace Prize.
The Peace Prize Committee, which said the former Norwegian prime minister would remain as a committee member, gave no reason for its decision to get rid of the guy.
However, the renowned diplomat drew criticism shortly after becoming committee chairman 2009 after he awarded the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize to newly elected Barack Hussein Obama.
That's why they've canned the guy.
They gave Obama the Peace Prize because they thought, like everybody else drinking the Kool-Aid, that Obama was going to get rid of nukes.
Obama was not going to go into war, war.
Obama was going to stop war.
Obama was going to end war.
Obama was going to bring about love and respect and devotion, and it was going to be a brand new world.
And these guys at the Nobel Committee, well, this one guy just bought it, hook line, and sinker.
It was embarrassing.
He got the peace prize before he had done anything.
And the last straw, when it became known that Obama was engaged in talks with Iran that would secure Iran the nuclear bomb, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee canned the chairman who gave Obama the award.
I think it's delicious.
And it is clear that they got rid of the guy.
Again, his name is Thorborn Jagland, probably Thorbjön Joglund.
Regardless how you pronounce it, I'm sure that they've been embarrassed about this for years.
I mean, give the guy the award.
He hadn't done this.
Like Ronan Farrell, Frank Sinatra III gets a show on MSNBC at age 25, never been on TV before.
And on day three, they give him the Cronkite Award for excellence in journalism.
Never ever done it.
Well, they gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize three months into his administration.
And now ISIS is all over the place.
Nuclear weapons are proliferating.
ISIS is trying to get one by hook or by crook.
And the prize committee at Nobel is just embarrassed.
And so the chairman's been canned.
So another guy's lost his job because of Obama.
The Daily Caller gets this headline.
Scott Walker scandal.
Latest Scott Walker scandal.
His spokeswomen are way too hot.
I want you to remember as I go through this story, I want you to remember Undeniable Truth of Life number 24.
Women, feminism was established so as to allow an attractive woman easier access to the mainstream.
Are you ready?
The Crusade Defined Some Scandal scandal to sink Scott Walker officially jumped the shark on Monday when a deeply concerned American suggested that the Wisconsin governor's spokeswomen are problematically attractive.
ITSMUS, an alternative weekly newspaper out of Madison, Wisconsin, raised the allegation in their regular advice column called Tell All.
A troubled reader wrote in, the reader named Kate Mallet.
She wrote, I can't help noticing that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker picks beautiful young women to be the spokespeople for his administration and his campaigns.
And then she names the four dazzling, alluring spokeswomen currently or previously employed by Walker.
Their names are Laurel Petrick, Ali Maray, Jocelyn Webster, and Siara Matthews.
And then Kate Mallet, who wrote the letter of complaint, said, It reminds me of Fox News, which uses super sexy women as on-air talent rather than, are you listening?
Rather than a normal range of women who just happen to be good journalists.
As with Fox, it's hard to believe that the most talented females available to fill Walker's frontline jobs also look like models.
Remember Undeniable Truth of Life number 24.
Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.
Feminism was made up of a bunch of women that were very irritated.
They were discriminated against because they weren't considered lookers.
That truth of life is one that established me as a great thinker, but it was also one of the greatest sources of controversy surrounding my career.
How dare I say something like that?
Well, here it is right here.
It gets proven every day.
But this is a stargate.
So here you have a woman upset that Scott Walker's spokesbabes are all good looking instead of a normal range of women who are probably good at the job.
What does a normal range mean?
Well, you know as well as I do what this woman means.
And then when she cites Fox News, are you telling me that the only qualified journalists in the world also look like models?
Maybe.
What do you want the world to look like?
What's on CNN?
Or MSNBC?
You see, here's the point.
His spokeswomen are too pretty.
They're too knockoutish.
They're too beautiful.
Why doesn't he have some average-looking women that he's discriminating against real women?
And this woman is dead serious about this.
And then this woman offers up a conspiracy theory of beauty on par with the evils of tobacco companies.
Here's what she says.
The thinking seems to be we'll use this eye candy to make our product more palatable, just as the advertising industry has always done with noxious products like cigarettes and fast food.
So Walker is using beautiful women to hide the fact that his policies suck.
And Fox News is using beautiful women, anchors, and infobabes to hide the fact that they're lying about the news.
That's what this woman thinks.
And so you have here feminist bias against beauty.
It's discriminatory.
It is avoiding the normal range.
I leave it to you to figure out what the normal range is, but I think you get it.
You just wait for it, folks.
Wait for the day when affirmative action also encompasses not just gender differences and racial differences, but differences in beauty or attractiveness.
You just wait.
Mark my words.
March 4th, 2015.
That's what the original purpose of feminism, one of the many, it's one of the original purposes of feminism.
Don't doubt me on this.
I know it may sound somewhat controversial and maybe even a little, oh, I don't know, surface-oriented.
Don't doubt me.
This woman just proved it.
Upset with Scott Walker's spokesbabes.
They're too pretty.
The Fox News info babes are too pretty.
They're not real journalists.
They're there to cover up for the fact that they don't know what they're doing.
Well, what's the opposite of that?
The opposite of that is the only people you should trust doing the news are unattractive.
Does that mean NBC should get rid of Savannah Guthrie?
Well, I leave it to you to decide.
Anyway, back to the phones.
We're going to start in Brooklyn.
This is Jason.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Yes, Conservative Prize Closet Dittos from a Conservative Sweeper here in.
Well, it's great to have you out there, Jason.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you very much.
I want to talk about the Supreme Court for a minute and the whole Obamacare thing.
Have at it.
Okay, here's the deal.
I don't trust the Supreme Court.
Remember back in 2012, we thought that the Obamacare decision was going to be a slam dunk.
A tax is not a tax, but a penalty is not a penalty.
And the whole forcing of the buying of the commerce stuff.
And then John Roberts said, you know what?
A penalty is a tax.
Come on.
You can present the greatest argument in the world, and the Supreme Court is going to slap this down.
Let me jump in here for a minute.
Let me remind everybody the reasonings Chief Justice Roberts gave for rewriting the law to make it palatable.
Do you remember what he said?
I think I do.
I think I have it on my, I think I have the essentially, I'm paraphrasing.
What he said was that he doesn't think the court should unilaterally reverse the decisions made by the representatives of the people.
That's correct.
So whatever Congress did, it's not his job to say no because he's not elected.
That was his out.
That was the out that he gave him himself.
Yep.
Well, now that just kind of, that's, that's, that's weak.
I mean, that, that was, but I understand you're not trusting the court.
It's like I said, yeah, what is more reasonable to expect something that's happened to happen again or something that hasn't happened to happen?
Exactly.
It's also the definition of insanity.
And you combine that with the feckless leadership in the House and the Senate with Boehner and McConnell.
I mean, this whole thing about not defunding the DHS and Obamacare, I knew it from moment one, even when we had nine seats in the election.
You knew McConnell and Boehner were not going to defund anything.
They're not going to do it.
How did you know?
Because we've been, I've been listening to you, number one, and number two, I've been observing their behavior.
You could have, you look at all the Tea Party challengers with Thad Cochran and Boehner and all that stuff.
They were shot down.
You have these people who want to, as you said, keep their power and keep their definition of Obama because they're governing from a status of fear.
They don't want to challenge, they don't want to look bad, when we all know that the disconnect between...
All of that's true, but there's two other things.
They're not ideological, so they don't really oppose Obama on an ideological basis.
The second thing is their donors are all for amnesty.
So in the specific case that you mentioned, defunding the Department of Homeland Security, I mean, you can tell from the get-go, they really weren't going to do it.
They were going to go through the motions to make their voters look like they might defund it, and then at the end of the day, say, we tried, we really tried, we just couldn't find a way, and hope that they get away with it.
When they never were going to do it in the first place, their donors want amnesty.
That's what they were always going to do.
That's why they want the chairmanships.
The donors put them there.
Now it's payback time.
Yeah, and then, I mean, honestly speaking, again, when you, you were talking about earlier, and you have Scott Walker in the limbo letter this month.
Scott Walker can run a perfect campaign, except that he's running from two different sides.
He's running against Obama, but he's also running from the people who they put in, like McConnell and Boehner.
He's running from two sides.
How are you going to defend both sides of the aisle here?
It's going to be incredibly difficult.
That is going to be fascinating to watch.
He is the frontrunner right now, and all the guns are trained on him, as they would be any frontrunner.
I mean, it's not unique to Scott Walker that other Republicans are aiming for him right now.
If Christie were the frontrunner, they would all be aiming at him as they are anyway.
It doesn't matter who the frontrunner is.
But there's a double whammy against Walker because he is ideologically conservative.
And that's something that the Republican establishment is very, very nervous about.
Now, as to the court and the media, depending on where you relate, USA Today, they have a story saying, well, man, we're in Fat City because the way Anthony Kennedy asked questions today, it's clear that he does not support overturning law.
And then a completely different media outlet judged Anthony Kennedy's questions entirely differently.
Another media outlet suggested that Anthony Kennedy's questions make it clear he is very nervous with the administration's case.
Very nervous with the administration's position.
What are we supposed to do with it?
A, it's oral arguments.
It's not the final vote, number one.
So this is just part of the soap opera, folks.
The oral arguments and people judging what the court's going to do based on the oral arguments.
And they're already judging the four libs are aligned with the regime, and that's true.
And Kennedy is the swing.
And you've got two different interpretations of where Kennedy is based on the interpretations of what his questions mean.
And then the other big deal that has the media socked today is that Roberts didn't open his mouth.
And they're all trying to figure out what that means as to the final outcome.
More on this when we come back.
All right, here's the dichotomy.
The dichotomy is USA Today versus the New York Times.
According to USA Today, Justice Anthony Kennedy's questions gave proponents hope that the statute will be upheld.
And all four liberal justices hammered the law's challengers.
The New York Times, however, says Kennedy asked questions suggesting he was uncomfortable with the administration's reading of the statute.
But he added that the challengers' reading posed problems too.
So there's nothing to learn there.
Kennedy gave himself an out no matter which way he ends up voting.
USA Today interpreted Kennedy one way.
The New York Times interpreted him another way.
And Kennedy said, I got problems with both sides.
So nobody knows anything other than the four libs are a lock with the regime.
Pure and simple.
The liberal justices parroted the Democrat and their media's line word for word from the New York Times.
We don't look at four words, Justice Elena Kagan said.
We look at a whole text.
Justice Breyer echoed the point.
If you want to go into the context of the law, he told Mr. Carvin, at that point, your argument really is weaker.
Folks, look, I'm not a lawyer.
My dad was, and I know a lot of lawyers.
I'm here to tell you that this case, in the real world, where logic and intelligence dominated, the regime doesn't have a prayer here.
This case should be a slam-dunk win for the challengers.
It should be an automatic loss for the regime.
It's really clear what happened here.
We have a law signed into law by President Obama, and it says the only people in the country who can get subsidies are people that sign up state exchanges.
It specifically says that.
And the architect of the law further said they did it that way on purpose to force to put political pressure on the governors to all set up exchanges.
Because states that didn't set up an exchange cannot offer their citizens subsidies.
Therefore, they can't make Obamacare affordable unless they set up a state exchange.
And 37 governors didn't do it.
Which made the federal government say, well, we can't have that.
So they began to offer subsidies at healthcare.gov.
Well, the law says they can't do that.
And when they did that, the law was challenged.
And the petitioners say, or the challengers say, that the regime is violating its own statute, which it is.
There's no doubt that they are.
It's in black and white.
And even the architect has documented in speech after speech and in written commentary after written commentary that they specifically left out the federal government as a legitimate source for subsidies.
Now, the regime today is arguing, no, matters.
A state is not one of the 57 states.
A state happens to be the government at large.
Well, it doesn't mean that in this context.
And that's why the liberal judges are all talking about context.
This case should have been slapped down at every previous court level it appeared.
And it ought not have any chance before the Supreme Court.
However, the Supreme Court already has ruled on this unconstitutional law and did so in a way to make it constitutional.
And I think it's unrealistic to think that the court is going to out of the blue find it unconstitutional.
Now, according to the law, it's not even a question.
It is.
The regime has violated its law.
The regime is behaving unconstitutionally.
The law should be struck down, and with it should go the individual mandate.
This should kill Obamacare.
But Chief Justice Roberts has already said that he doesn't think that that's the court's purview to reject statutes passed by the legal representatives of the people.
That's not the court's job.
And that's why he rewrote it essentially the first time around when the subject matter was taxes versus penalties versus fines and the Fourth Amendment Commerce Clause.
The Washington establishment is saving this bill.
The Washington establishment is circling the wagons to save Obamacare.
The opposition is doing yeoman's work in trying to prove it unconstitutional.
And I'll tell you something else.
You've seen, and we've talked about them here on this program, all of the horror stories.
What happens if the court does find that Obamacare is unconstitutional?
You've seen the horror stories.
Oh, my God.
Oh, my God.
What about the people who are getting subsidies to the federal government?
And they're going to be taken away.
What about somebody who's going to lose his dialysis?
Oh, no, my God.
Oh, my God.
What about somebody's going to lose surgery?
Planet Pacemeer.
Oh, my God.
What's going on?
All these horror stories.
And they're meant to intimidate the court.
They're meant to shape the court's thinking.
They are meant to politically influence the court.
And Bobby Jendel, God bless him, Bobby Jendel is out there saying, what in the world?
Because the Republicans, in dealing with this manufactured crisis, the Republicans have already announced plans to save those subsidies if the court finds them unconstitutional.
And Jendel is asking, what in the hell are Republicans doing running around saying how they're going to save subsidies?
How they're going to save Obamacare?
What's going on here?
And he's exactly right.
Why are the Republicans, they're doing it out of fear.
They're doing it maybe because they support Obamacare.
Hell, who knows?
Or they're doing it because they do not want to be blamed for taking away freebies from people.
They're afraid that they're going to get excoriated, they're going to be blamed for people losing dialysis treatments, losing surgeries, losing whatever they're getting now via their subsidies.
And once again, the Republicans are going to be portrayed as cold-hearted, mean-spirited extremists who have no compassion.
So the Republicans are out running around saying, don't worry, don't worry.
If the court finds in our favor, we will make sure we'll have a stopgap plan to make sure you hold on to your subsidy.
So Elizabeth McCoy has a great piece in the New York Post explaining why none of this need happen.
And instead, the way it should be looked at, let's make every effort we can to get this law declared unconstitutional and use that as an opportunity to get health care right in this country using Republican, conservative, free market, entrepreneurial enterprise.
That doesn't seem to be palatable to a lot of Republicans who are, I don't know.
I'm just, I'm tired of the constant defensive, fearful state that the Republican Party seems to be in, issue after issue after issue.
At what point does the Constitution matter?
This is a clear abdication.
This is a clear violation.
The entire Obamacare law itself is and should have been declared so the first time before the court.
The Chief Justice had to rewrite parts of it to make it appear to be constitutional and to save it.
And that's what you'd have to expect is going to occur this time.
If it happened once, it's likely to happen again.
But there are people who are holding out hope, God bless them, eternally optimistic that the court's going to do the right thing.
I know some people who think the court took this case to correct their mistake the first time around.
You are one of them.
Aha!
And Mr. Snurdley happens to be in the camp of people who think the court took this subsidy case because they knew they blew it the first time around.
And this is an opportunity to fix that mistake.
That's what you think.
I don't think the court operates that way.
I don't think these people running around ever admitting they make mistakes.
I could be, I'd love to be wrong.
Don't misunderstand.
I would love to be wrong about this.
But, well, the Supreme Court didn't pick it.
They chose to hear it, true, because some people brought the case and it made its way up through the lower courts.
And the court decided to hear it after it reached the appellate process.
But the court didn't pick it, per se.
I mean, they didn't make a phone call under cover of darkness.
Hey, lawyer, I want you to go out and challenge this law on this basis.
I'll make sure the rest of my justices vote to take that.
That's not how it happens.
Now, it doesn't mean that they're not actually trying to correct a mistake, but look at the four libs.
The four libs in the court don't think they made a mistake.
It would be one guy who thinks they made a mistake, and that would be the Chief Justice.
And I don't know if we're.
Washington Times depends on where you look today for the portrayal of this.
Obamacare on life support as Supreme Court splits on law's fate.
The court hasn't split on anything yet.
It's just oral arguments.
But nevertheless, the Washington Times, after having witnessed, listened to oral arguments, thinks the law may be on life support.
They've heard that it may be in trouble.
Now, here is the UK Daily Mail.
Swing vote on Supreme Court says striking down Obamacare subsidies could cause a death spiral for health insurance exchanges as justices hear arguments in Affordable Care Act challenge.
Justice Kennedy said state insurance exchanges could collapse without federal subsidies to offset the costs of insurance.
Now stop and think of that just for a minute.
In terms of where we are in the United States of America, stop and think of this.
We have a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing oral arguments to a case who concludes state insurance exchanges.
What the hell is a state insurance exchange in it?
I mean, I know what it is, but what the hell do we have them for?
How did we even get here?
Well, we're here.
So here's Kennedy.
State insurance exchanges could collapse without federal subsidies to offset the cost of insurance.
Doesn't that sentence right there alone tell us enough to know this law is an absolute disaster?
That it cannot be funded the way it's set up, that it cannot operate without the federal government underwriting it, and the federal government doesn't have any money.
We got an $18 trillion national debt.
We don't have the money for this.
Insurance exchanges in the states could collapse without federal subsidies.
So are you telling me, Justice Kennedy, that you might vote to uphold the law in order to save the state exchanges?
Because without federal money, they can't survive.
If they can't survive, what business do they have existing?
Is my question.
What in the world are we talking about?
Here's the next bullet point.
Supreme Court heard an hour of oral arguments in an Obamacare challenge.
We'll cast votes Friday and release a decision this summer.
Conservatives say law was written to deny subsidies to people in states that decided not to set up their own insurance marketplaces.
That's absolutely true.
The White House insists that Congress meant to treat everybody equally.
No, they didn't.
Congress specifically wrote that law saying that the states had to set up an exchange for people there to get subsidies and that the federal government could not provide subsidies.
There was no intention that everybody be covered.
There was a political motivation to make sure every governor succumbed to the pressures of Barack Obama.
As many as 8 million people could lose their insurance without the subsidies, which lower the cost of insurance.
They do not lower the cost of insurance by definition.
As many as 8 million people could lose their insurance without subsidies, which lower the cost of insurance is skyrocketing.
The subsidies exist because the market's been so skewed out of proportion, nobody can afford it without federal money that we don't have.
GOP wants to replace subsidies with temporary financial assistance.
And in new state-based systems, they say would be more competitive.
Note that it doesn't say Republicans want to scrap it and start over.
Got to take a break.
Back after this, folks.
Here's John in Dallas.
We head back to the phones.
I'm really glad you waited, John.
Thank you for your patience.
Hello.
Mr. Rush, it's an honor to speak to you.
Thank you very much, sir.
I remember listening to the way things ought to be.
And see, I told you so on Long Family Road Trips as a kid.
Man, you were a kid.
That's like 22 years ago.
So that's three.
You were 10 years old when that was happening.
That's about right.
Yeah.
That's why I called you.
In fact, I agree with your interpretation of the millennial perspective on Hillary, which is why I called.
Oh, cool.
What is it?
You know, in Mike's thinking, and at least in my experience, the millennials have been taught three things, right?
One, CNN is impartial.
The Republicans are the next Nazis.
And lastly, that the Clintons are heroes in spite of infidelity or Epstein or Whitewater or any of that stuff.
But that being said, you know, I feel like there's also an obsession with my generation with newness.
And the Clintons are not new.
They're not new news, and they're not new people.
No, and I think there's somebody much more attractive than Mrs. Clinton.
And I'm speaking politically because that would be obvious if I weren't speaking politically.
And that's Elizabeth Warren.
The progressives of the Democratic Party get Elizabeth Warren's their answer, not Hillary.
She's old news.
And who is she besides Bill Clinton's wife?
Nobody would even know who she is if it weren't for her husband.
And that's one of the biggest insults you could probably aim at her.
But so you guys are actually taught that the Clintons are heroes?
You know, I can't, from my personal experience, that's what I hear from a lot of my friends.
The Clintons are heroes.
The deficit was low during his presidency.
He did a lot to help the African-American vote, and he helped a lot with housing projects and so forth.
And that's the feeling that I get that the Clintons are the heroes of the Democratic Party, much the way we think of Reagan as a hero of the Republican Party.
Hmm, interesting.
I think if that's true, one of the elements that would make them heroes is how successful Bill Clinton was in beating back those Nazi-like Republicans that you were talking about.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Well, I think it would be part and parcel.
Well, that's fascinating.
They weren't around when the Clintons were running things, but you're right.
The history textbooks for high school and so forth we all know have portrayed Bill Clinton and Hillary as, well, hero-like, and they have been overcome great odds decks stacked against them.
Anyway, I appreciate the perspective, John, very much.
I've got to take a break simply because I'm out of time.
Don't go away.
We will be right back.
Let's see here.
Betsy McCoy, New York Post, we all win if Supreme Court guts Obamacare.
I'll give you some of the highlights of that when we get back.
Bobby Jendo as, well, so sit tight, my friends.
Oh, and house of cards.
Something about that, too.
Yeah.
It may involve a spoiler alert, but you're going to have to put up with it.
▲
Export Selection