Rush Limbaugh Program - March 30, 2015, Monday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 30, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:42

March 30, 2015, Monday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	You know, Obama was down here this weekend.
	He was up at up at the Floridian.
	I'm a former member of the Floridian.
	Wayne Heisinger owned the course.
	Wayne Heisinger, the Miami Dolphins owner, waste management infresario, well-known billionaire, built the course and extended membership to his friends.
	And then he sold the course to the guy that owns the Houston Astros, Jim Crane.
	And a lot of members went their own way.
	So he's got a whole new membership.
	Now, Jim Crane, a big Democrat fundraiser, and Obama has been down here the second time.
	He played with Tiger Woods the first time at the Floridian.
	Palm City is, well, you need meal money to get up there from here.
	It's about, if you obey the speed limit, it's about an hour to get up there from where we are.
	He was there this weekend playing golf.
	And do you know that a member of his foursome is a board member of Wait for It, that Halliburton.
	Milton Carroll is on the board of directors of Halliburton.
	Just the word Halliburton.
	The liberals hearing that, it's like showing Dracula the cross.
	They hear Halliburton and folks, they literally go insane.
	The first thing they think of is Cheney.
	Then they think of the Iraq War.
	Then they think of Darth Vader.
	Then they think of George W. Bush.
	And they literally start pounding their heads into the nearest available hard surface.
	And here is Barack Hussein Obama, devout Christian who did not go to church on Palm Sunday because he was in Palm City, playing golf with a member of the board of directors of Halliburton.
	Where is the outrage?
	There won't be any.
	Greetings, my friends.
	Great to have you.
	Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
	I am America's real anchor man, doing what I was born to do.
	It's great to have you here.
	The telephone number, 800-282-2882, and the email address, lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
	I guess the biggest stories of the day are the Iranian nuclear negotiations.
	And man, oh man, the news coming out of there is it's, well, it's distressing, it's depressing, but it's all too predictable.
	And one of the sidebar news stories about the Iranian nuclear talks is that Obama, there's a credible train of thought, folks, that is percolating inside the Beltway and up to New York, the New York-Washington corridor, that Obama is officially, within the next few months or so,
	is officially going to abandon Israel as a United States ally.
	And the way it would happen, you know, we've been negotiating the Middle East peace process, which we have detailed in great detail here, as its own entity.
	The Middle East peace process is like a corporation.
	It never ends.
	The Middle East peace process is a career.
	The Middle East peace process, you can grow up and have as an objective in life to work at the Middle East peace process.
	You can make a career out of it because nobody will ever be out of work because the problem is solved.
	The Middle East peace process is an ongoing, never-solved process.
	And it features different people over the course of generations making the same arguments depending on who you're talking to and what side they represent.
	And because these ongoing negotiations, the Middle East peace process have not produced anything anywhere near close to peace, the scuttlebutt inside the beltway and up to the New York corridor is that Obama is going to solve the Middle East peace process by going to the United Nations,
	getting a resolution demanding a two-state solution and divvying up Jerusalem and giving part of it to Palestine or the Palestinians, which would be a total sellout of the Israelis.
	Now, I'm here to tell you, I don't know if there's any truth to this, but with Obama, the experience teaches us never to discount these kinds of things because they actually make perfect sense if you put them in context of the U.S. foreign policy mission and directives during this administration.
	If there is any truth, what could be behind this?
	It has to be.
	Folks, this is an act of hate.
	I mean, I hate to be so blunt about it, but that's what this is.
	I had played golf yesterday, and somebody suggested to me that if I ever do write another book, the title should be on the golf course because of what I hear so often and the things that happen, the conversations that ensue.
	People have a golf course.
	One of the guys I played with yesterday is an admitted French socialist.
	And we're having lunch after playing golf, and he's asking me, and one of the techniques I have, I've developed a technique when dealing with people that I'm either meeting for the first time or don't know them very well, rather than just ask them what they think about something.
	Because I realize, folks, I'm an intimidating figure.
	I am a dumb, even when I don't try to be.
	My image, whatever it is with people, precedes me before we even get to the table or the tea box or the golf course at large.
	And I'm an intimidating figure.
	And if I just point blank ask somebody what they think I've learned, I may not get a truthful answer.
	I may get an answer that's more along the lines of what they think I want to hear.
	So I have developed a new technique for drawing people out.
	And that is to offer an opinion, sometimes true, sometimes false, and then gauge their response.
	The theory that I have developed is that that produces a more honest admission or opinion or whatever it is on the part of the person with whom I am conversing.
	So naturally, we sat down at the table after playing golf.
	And since I was there, naturally, world events and domestic politics became the subject.
	And what started was one of the guys in the force and usually predictable started asking me what I think of Republican field and who should be the nominee, who's going to do this, what's this, what's that.
	Discussion next to what kind of economic policies the Republican Party needs to offer in order to win.
	And then domestic policies, what the Republican Party needs to do in order to win and succeed.
	And the usual predictable things.
	We've got to drop the social issues.
	We've got to get rid of those.
	We've got to come up with real responsible tax policy.
	And I'm listening to all this.
	And if I threw up my hands, and this is the beginning of the new technique, I said to the avowed socialist, a nice guy, don't misunderstand.
	But I'm just made no bones with it.
	He's a socialist.
	So I said, you know, I wasn't looking at him.
	I was looking at the guy who had offered the theories on what the Republicans need to do.
	I looked at him and said, you know what, folks, now, I don't want to be, anybody misunderstand me here.
	This is a technique that I have evolved to draw people out that I have found to be far more successful than just asking them for their opinion point blank.
	And that is to say something that I may believe or may not believe.
	Call it being a provocateur, but not with the intention of starting an argument, just to actually learn what somebody thinks.
	So I said, and I made this up.
	I want you to understand this.
	I don't want there to be any confusion.
	When the Democrat websites get hold of this later today, after listening to the suggestions from another guest that the Republican Party needs to do to win and so forth, I looked at the guy who made the suggestions and I looked at the avowed socialists and I said, I think it's all academic.
	I think it's over.
	I think the things you're talking about are not going to make a hill of beans.
	We've lost the culture.
	The facts don't matter.
	You're sitting here.
	You're talking tax policy and this and that.
	And the vast majority of people voting aren't going to have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
	We've got 92.5 million Americans who are not working.
	They don't care about self-reliance, tax policy.
	All they care about is the gravy train continuing.
	We've lost the culture here.
	I don't know that we can ever get it back.
	I think it doesn't matter who we nominate.
	And I wanted to find out what the socialists thought.
	Now, if I'd have just asked him point blank, because I am such an intimidating figure, I don't know that I would have gotten the answer.
	But I knew saying something like that would obviously distress my Republican buddy at the table, who immediately, by the way, started trying to talk me off the ledge.
	That's how successful I was in making them believe that I think I believe this.
	Now, the socialists disagreed with me and started talking about what the Republicans have to do and how they can pull it off, and it's all about getting the votes and so forth.
	And I found it really, really fascinating because one of the things that socialists about Iran, the Middle East, when that came up, he said, Rush, don't you think it's better finally now?
	Let those people fight it out over there.
	The days of America being the world's policeman, screw that.
	I mean, if the Iranians want to fight the Iraqis and they want to fight the Saudis and they want to fight the Syrians and they want to fight the Palestinians and they want to let them have at it.
	Let them, this is the avowed socialist saying this.
	Don't you think this is a brilliant Obama foreign policy?
	To finally just, you know, pick a side other than Israel and stir the region up and just have them all fight amongst themselves and let it shake out for whatever happens.
	And I said, you know, I heard that opinion the other day.
	And I thought, where did I hear this?
	I said, oh, yeah, that's exactly what Bill Maher thinks.
	That's exactly what a bunch of Hollywood leftists think.
	And he said, well, I'm right at home.
	I'm an avowed socialist.
	And I said, well, yeah, that's true.
	And then I said, but this ignores a key ingredient in all that.
	And that is the concept of the United States.
	He said, well, why does the United States have to be everywhere?
	Why does you, I said, you sound like Obama.
	He's exactly like Obama.
	There's nothing special about us.
	Why should we be there?
	I said, there's one nation in the history of earth that has stood for freedom and liberty, and it's us.
	And if we are not that beacon and outpost to every nation, we're cease going to being that for ourselves at some point.
	I said, also absent this idea, just letting them fight it out over there, is the concept of good guys and bad guys.
	And what really bothers me, you've heard this before, but I'm just sitting the table here.
	You understand the conversation.
	I said, the whole idea that the United States is no different, that the United States is not the solution to world problems, that we are actually the problem, and the only way to solve the problem is for us to get out of it.
	I said, I find that profoundly upsetting and distressing.
	There are good guys and bad guys in this conflict, just like there are in every conflict.
	And our history is that we have always sided with the good guys with the confident knowledge that we are the good guys.
	And it really worries me that we are losing that, particularly when it comes to the importance of domestic policy, foreign policy in the Middle East.
	And that's where we are.
	For Obama to this scuttlebug that Obama is finally going to just rip the cord, so to speak, and disown Israel and go to the United Nations and let a Security Council resolution or some other kind of resolution actually establish the Middle East peace process results.
	There's only one thing that could be motivating or inspiring, and that's hate.
	And it is extremely, sadly, it's predictable.
	Now, the monkey wrench that the Iranians have thrown in the deal, here we were.
	We were on the verge of carrying Obama being able to launch this gigantic celebration.
	That finally we had reached an agreement with the Iranians and the future of their nuclear program.
	And it was on the verge of happening.
	And then predictably at the last moment, the Iranians threw in a monkey wrench and they refused to allow any inspection or to give up any of the nuclear material that has been created to date so that it could not be used for the creation of a nuclear war.
	Even Putin, even the Russians came in and they promised, okay, look, we'll hold your material in escrow, so to speak.
	And the Iranians said, no, no way, no how, not going to do it.
	And the regime, Obama administration, caught flat-footed with this latest development.
	More details coming up.
	New York Times has a big story on it, and they are clearly not happy either because everybody thought we were on a slam dunk.
	An American president, the greatest ever, Barack Obama, getting a deal with the Iranians on nuclear weapons and so forth.
	The Middle East is a mess.
	The world is on fire.
	And it's precisely because the United States is being de-emphasized.
	It's precisely because the values and the traditions and the institutions that have made this country great are absent and are not being applied.
	That's why the world is on fire.
	It's why the Middle East is in Netanyahu.
	He came out and said, you know, this deal's even worse than we thought.
	This is even worse than we thought it was going to be.
	Details on that coming in.
	And of course, we've got Indiana with the left going absolutely bonkers over what they claim is legalized discrimination against gay and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender people when that's not what happened.
	But it doesn't matter.
	Facts don't matter.
	What happened is not, it doesn't, if the media is going to portray this as Indiana is discriminating against gays, then that's what people are going to think.
	When that's not what has happened, the religious freedom of people has been affirmed in Indiana, much as it has in many, many other states, and much as it was signed into law by Bill Clinton back in the 1990s.
	Nothing different from then to now, except the pop culture orientation of everything.
	Got to take a quick time out here, folks.
	We'll come back and start putting all of this together right after this break.
	Do not go away.
	So I get an email.
	How is that even possible?
	An avowed socialist ends up at a golf club with you on a sunny Sunday afternoon in Florida.
	Well, he's a friend of the Republicans that were in the group, and he's French.
	How could he not be an avowed socialist?
	In fact, he had all kinds of fascinating theories about how the immigration in France is actually causing there to be.
	It hasn't happened yet.
	But his theory is that there's going to be an accord of speaks of sort, an accord of sorts in France between the French conservatives, as identified by Le Pen, and the communists.
	And the common denominator is militant Islam, that so many people are worried.
	It's an immigration problem, essentially.
	And he said, don't be surprised if you see this kind of political arrangement at some point.
	Now, I was incredulous.
	I said, I didn't make sure that I was hearing him.
	You're telling me there might be an alignment, a voting alignment between French communists and Le Pen?
	It could happen.
	It could happen.
	And he started explaining to me why.
	But the point is, when I threw out my theory that the United States, as we know it, is over and finished.
	The guy's an avowed socialist.
	You know, rather than just asking point blank, I threw it out there.
	I figured a reaction to that's going to give me a much more honest opinion of what he thinks or anybody than just asking him point blank.
	And he was, no way, this is the greatest place on earth.
	There's no way not even Obama can destroy it.
	We're not happy with Obama, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	You need to have more faith in your fellow citizens.
	There are more of them than you know.
	This guy actually was speaking with more knowledge, or at least it sounded like he had a better understanding of American domestic politics than many Americans.
	And for all of his talk about being an avowed socialist, he said plenty of things that contradicted that.
	But it was the point of it all when it got really serious was the discussion of what's going on in the Middle East and what that really means for the United States and the world and America's role.
	And that's where his about socialist leaning surfaced.
	U.S. get out of there.
	Let those people have it out amongst themselves and let's deal with what ends up after they all finish each other off.
	Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
	Yet another exciting, busy broadcast week is underway here on the one and only EIB network.
	Now, what's the monkey wrench, if there's such a thing, in the latest talks with Iran, has to do with enriched uranium.
	You see, the Iranians have some.
	They have some enriched uranium.
	And part of the deal is that they are going to give it up for a time as a show of commitment, that they have no intention whatsoever of immediately making a nuclear bomb.
	And the Iranians at the last minute said, you know what?
	We're not going to give you our enriched uranium.
	Screw you.
	Jean-François Carry, screw you.
	And the U.S. said, hey, wait, you.
	You said, you said you were going to let us have your uranium.
	And Mullah said, sorry, you do not get it.
	At which point, Russia came in.
	Vladimir Putin said, hey, we'll take it.
	We'll hold the Iranians' enriched uranium in escrow, so to speak, meaning we'll put it over here in some sort of warehouse and we'll guard it zealously.
	We will be vigilant and nobody can get to it and nobody will ever, ever see it.
	Now, what could possibly go wrong with that?
	The Iranians rejected that as well.
	Russia has given Iran all the reactors and the nuclear tech that they have, or the vast majority of it.
	That's where the Iranians have gotten it.
	So the Russians coming in and saying, hey, hey, we'll save the day here.
	We'll take your enriched uranium and we'll hold it for you.
	It would be like Iran keeping it.
	But the Iranians saved Obama from agreeing with the principle because they refused.
	Everybody knows that Russia would be more than happy to give or sell back Iran's enriched uranium right back to them that they're holding in escrow.
	So anyway, we'll get to that here in just a second.
	I want to go to Indiana and discuss this supposedly controversial Indiana religious freedom law made to order for the modern day drive-by media.
	On Saturday and Sunday, ABC, CBS, NBC, virtually every mainstream media organization condemned a new law in Indiana that would protect private businesses from government infringement on their religious freedom.
	What this means is that the Obama administration wants to do away, and the media is assisting with the whole notion of free markets, the Constitution, the freedom of religion clause, and the administration wants the power to mandate everything as much as they can.
	Now, the news organizations, ABC, CBS, NBC, and all the others just had a collective cow over this.
	And rather than provide any kind of balance, rather than explain the history and the context and the true meaning and detail of the Indiana law, they predictably began to trash the legislation and Indiana as a bunch of bigots opening the door to discrimination against gays and lesbians.
	Even the CEO of Apple Incorporated Tim Cook took to the pages of the Washington Post and wrote an editorial condemning this kind of legislation, not just in Indiana, but wherever it might be, and making it out to be the example of the worst instincts among us that we have here, discriminating against people and it's so un-American and so forth.
	And I, you know, Mr. Snerdley asked me today, he said, when's the last time Tim Cook wrote an op-ed in the Shanghai Daily News, ripping the ChiComs?
	I mean, the ChiComs impinge on everybody's freedom, particularly religious freedom.
	And China, of course, is a major, major Apple market.
	And I had to think about it.
	Snerdly asked you the question.
	I can't think of the time when an Apple executive, all I can think of when it comes to the ChiComs is Google caving to the ChiComs on what kind of search results will not be seen and produced by Google when Chinese ChiCom citizens are searching.
	But what is fascinating about this, and it's becoming an even more prevalent reality.
	On the one hand, on any issue, on the one hand, we have the reality.
	We have facts, we have history, we have context, we have truth.
	On the other hand, we have the absence of all of that, the misrepresentation of the facts, misrepresentation of the truth, misrepresentation of the context.
	And in addition to that, then we hype it all.
	The media is hyping it all with a bunch of emotional propaganda that is designed specifically to misinform people about what has happened, particularly in this case in this law in Indiana.
	It's like everybody's forgotten a hobby lobby ruling.
	The Supreme Court hobby lobby.
	Does anybody remember this?
	It's like it never happened.
	Or that the Restoration Act of 1993, which the Supreme Court upheld last year in the Hobby Lobby case, everybody's acting like that's not the law of the land.
	The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was introduced by Chuck Schumer, Democrat New York, March 11, 1993.
	It was passed by a unanimous House of Representatives in a near-unanimous Senate.
	There were only three dissenting votes.
	And it was eagerly signed into law by none other than Slick Willie.
	A law that is practically identical to what happened in Indiana.
	This is, if you want another similarity, it's like what happened to Arizona.
	Arizona passes some immigration law that pretty much paralleled, reflected, maybe even you could say copied federal immigration law.
	And the reason Arizona did it was that the federal government was not enforcing its law.
	The borders were wide open.
	There was no effort being made to curb illegal immigration in Arizona.
	So Arizona passed a law that held, for the most part, the identical circumstances in it that federal law does.
	And Obama sued the state of Arizona.
	But there was nothing in the Arizona law that had not already passed the United States Congress and had been signed into law by numerous American presidents.
	And it's the same thing here.
	The Indiana law isn't anything new.
	And the Supreme Court has affirmed in the Hobby Lobby case, and when they upheld the Hobby Lobby, they upheld the Restoration Act, Religious Restoration Act, 1993.
	There's literally nothing new that's happened here in Indiana that hasn't already been upheld at the Supreme Court and passed, U.S. Congress signed into law, in this case by Bill Clinton.
	But you would think, because this affords the media and the left the perfect opportunity.
	What we've got here, folks, if I may draw, it's not the perfect analogy, but it's pretty close.
	We've got hands up, don't shoot, except in this case, it's supposedly discrimination against gays and lesbians and bisexuals and transgenders.
	And that's not what it is.
	It's a law that says the freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment has been affirmed.
	But you see, it's selected.
	Remember the case involving Peyote?
	Remember that, Mr. Snirdley?
	A bunch of Native Americans wanted an exemption from federal laws against marijuana and similar things like peyote because it was part of their religion.
	Peyote was required, they said, certain religious ceremonies, and they got an exemption.
	Peyote was claimed legal because it was said that we could not infringe on the religious freedoms of Native Americans.
	And I remember when that argument came up, because then everybody said, we know what's going to happen now.
	Every crackpot and oddball out there is going to claim everything he's doing is because of his religion as a means of getting away with it.
	And now we've done an absolute 180.
	Now a law passed to affirm the religious freedom of the people of Indiana has been restated.
	And the media is telling you that the governor of Indiana, Mike Pence, who we know here, he's a good guy.
	He's a good man.
	And the people of Indiana have decided that they don't like gays and they don't want gays anywhere in the state and they don't want gays doing business.
	So the gays are fine.
	You don't want it.
	We'll leave.
	And we're going to take all our business with.
	That's not what the law is.
	But that's how it's being construed.
	That's how it's being portrayed.
	And on one side, we've got the facts, the history, the context, and it doesn't matter.
	Over here, we have what the media is saying about it, purely emotional.
	It is driving people's emotions and creating almost a replica of the lie that Hands Up Don't Shoot was.
	As I said, it's not a perfect analogy, but in terms of helping you understand what's going on here, it might work.
	More when we come back, more details.
	Plus some comments from Governor Pence.
	He was on Good Morning America.
	I'm sorry, this week.
	Yesterday, it was on this week with Stephanopoulos.
	And the drive-bys have been playing segments of it all day.
	And they've been clear, boy, this guy, Pence, what an idiot.
	My God, he should never have gone on TV.
	Why, this guy looks like an absolute troglodyte.
	This is one of the worst interviews we have ever seen.
	This guy just dug his own grave and started troubling the dirt on himself.
	That's how bad to try to portray it.
	Because Pence was, again, dealing, here's what the law is, these are the facts.
	And that doesn't matter to people over here who are attempting to further an agenda and, I might add, further the brand destruction of Republicans and the GOP.
	And this is, by the way, this is how and why a bunch of mainstream Republicans are running around all, we've got to get rid of the social issues.
	We just got to win a thing.
	If it's abortion, gay, we've got to get rid of social issues.
	We've got to stick to economic matters.
	They don't want to have these battles.
	They don't care if they've got facts and history and context on their side.
	They don't even want to engage.
	They just want to sweep the social issues off the table and declare defeat.
	Let the left have whatever they want socially.
	Let them, whatever they, we want to win elections, and we can't if our party is identified with the social crap.
	And this the media knows, and this the Democrat Party knows, and this is why they continue to hammer this stuff, even though none of what they're saying, or very little of it, has any basis in truth.
	Rushland bought half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
	Been doing that for a lot of years, folks, and it hasn't hurt yet.
	It hasn't hurt yet.
	And if it ever does, ever need a full brain, we'll employ it, but it hasn't happened yet.
	Adam in Anderson, Indiana, your first today on the phones, and it's great to have you here.
	Hello.
	Thanks, Rush.
	Hey, really a big pleasure to talk to you.
	I'm 34 years old, so I guess I'm an old millennial, but I've been listening to you since 1998.
	About eight years old.
	I appreciate that.
	Thank you.
	I'm sure it's helped you well, too.
	Well, I have a little bit of insight on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, being that I live in Indiana.
	I've lived here for about eight years.
	I grew up in Illinois, but had a few people who don't agree with me on a lot of issues, say that it's an open door for discrimination and all that type of thing.
	And I just look at them and I say, I say, really?
	And they say, yeah, you know, our president, Barack Obama, he would never okay that or agree with that or believe in that.
	And I said, really?
	I said, in 1998 in Illinois, it's been the law, state law in Illinois since 1998.
	I said, there was actually a state senator in 1998 who actually voted for that.
	I said, I can't remember his name.
	And I said, oh, yeah, it was Barack Hussein Obama.
	And what do they say to that when you tell them?
	They just, they get real quiet and then they go, well, are you sure?
	And I go, yeah, you can look it up if you want.
	Yeah, they either accuse you of making it up.
	And if they then think you didn't make it up, I think, oh, Obama's changed.
	He doesn't think that anymore.
	Troglodites like you think that.
	But Obama doesn't think that anymore by virtue of what's happened now.
	Right.
	But again, here's the thing.
	You get in an argument with people who believe what they believe and have nothing to do with facts.
	If you start throwing facts at them, you're never going to, I mean, I don't blame you for doing it.
	Don't misunderstand.
	But you're not going to persuade them because they aren't dealing with facts.
	Facts, context, history are not in any way relevant to what they think.
	And so you can give them every fact in the world that would disabuse them of every notion they've got.
	You can tell them they're wrong here, you're wrong, you're wrong.
	It doesn't matter because they, in their minds, are good people.
	And their intentions matter.
	And so they're not discriminating, and you are, and that's it.
	Eugene Volock is a professor, law professor at UCLA, Scruel of Law.
	He has a website called the Volock Conspiracy.
	In fact, he even has a blog at the Washington Post.
	And I have a post here from the Volock Conspiracy in December 2013 from his archives called What is the Religious Freedom Act, Freedom Restoration Act?
	1993, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which gave religious objectors a statutory presumptive entitlement to exemption from generally applicable laws subject to strict scrutiny.
	Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.
	Now, I can tell you that your average low-information voter has no idea what I just read.
	No idea what I just said, and no idea what this means, and never will understand what this means.
	But the vote for this proposition, as I just mentioned, was unanimous in the House.
	It was 97 to 3 in the Senate.
	And basically what the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was is what just happened in Indiana.
	Pretty much on par.
	Back in 1993, a Democrat president signed into law.
	A unanimous House passed its Senate 97 to 3.
	It was meant to apply to all branches of government and both to federal and state law.
	I have to take a break because of the constraints of time, but there's more.
	Don't go away.
	What this is actually, well, not just actually, there's many aspects to it, but this made the order for the Democrat Party and left-wing gay activist fundraising.
	And that's another element of this so-called righteous, indignant opposition.

▲